The Stone Zone dives into Roger Stone’s push for JFK assassination record declassification, calling the Warren Commission a "hoax" and citing Nixon’s alleged LBJ conspiracy claims. He demands full CIA file transparency, accusing Pompeo of withholding 20% under false pretenses, while his book implicates LBJ, the CIA, and Texas oil interests. The episode then shifts to swatting attacks on conservatives, FBI Director Patel’s condemnation, and attorney David Schoen’s defense of Trump’s executive powers—including migrant deportations and USAID shutdowns—while attacking Judge Howell’s bias and Weissman’s alleged FBI misconduct, tied to wrongful convictions like Vic Arena’s. Rural healthcare threats close the segment, framing systemic resistance against Trump’s policies. [Automatically generated summary]
Listen to this podcast now on the Red Apple Podcast Network, The Leadership Thread with Dr. Peggy Polonis.
I'm Dr. Peggy Polonis.
Join me on each episode where I unravel the story that shaped leaders, tracing the thread that led them where they are today.
Because leadership isn't born in adulthood.
Thank you once again for joining us on the leadership thread, education, ethics, and sustainability.
Download all of Red Apple Media's podcasts right now through your favorite podcast platform.
This is the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
People love him and respect him.
Roger Stone.
Now, get in the zone.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
Welcome.
This is Roger Stone, and you are entering the Stone Zone.
In what could be a day that changes the course of American history, yes, today is the day that President Trump's order to declassify and make public all of the public records regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy comes to fruition.
This is one of the most important acts of the Trump administration, and how they handle the disclosure of the JFK files could be a bombshell, depending on how they proceed.
One of the most insidious lies spouted by defenders of the status quo and the now fatally flawed Warren Commission investigation is that agencies like the FBI, the CIA,
the ATF, the IRS, and others, including the Secret Service, have over the years kept documents pertinent to the Kennedy assassination from the JFK assassination records archive.
These bureaucracies are designed from their inception to not only attack our constitutional freedom, but to stifle the democratic process when it comes to full disclosure.
That's why I believe that the Kennedy files, along with the files pertaining to the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, Dr. Martin Luther King, be fully and completely transparent.
I don't want to see bureaucrats playing games trying to hide facts from the American people.
Therefore, I suggested that the President direct all federal agencies, including the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the Internal Revenue Service, to review all of their materials in their position and to transmit all remaining records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and the others to the archivist of the United States.
See, that would make it impossible for rogue bureaucrats to hide crucial information pertaining to Kennedy's assassination and to root out any, I don't know, bureaucratic shell game that may be played among deep state loyalists who want to keep the American public in the dark.
Then the president needs to direct the archivists of the United States to remove all redactions from the documents in the President John F. Kennedy assassination's record collection.
The Washington, D.C. swamps loves to release documents, particularly those requested under the Freedom of Information Act, draped in black ink as a slap in the face to transparency and accountability.
This cannot be allowed to happen again.
After eight years of Russia Gate and the coordinated attacks on Trump, the public knows the criminal nature of some in their federal government.
And I think the American people are finally ready to hear the ugly truth.
The president needs to rescind the current transparency plan for the Kennedy assassination documents, which resulted in the continued stonewalling by federal agencies like the CIA.
In the 1970s, after Oliver Stone's movie JFK was released, there was a public outcry for more information regarding the Kennedy assassination.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations was set up to reopen the investigation into the murder of JFK.
The Central Intelligence Agency, however, completely and totally refused to cooperate.
They would turn over no documents.
They would provide no one to testify.
The CIA-JFK transparency plan of the time was designed as a framework that purposely slows down and blocks the flow of pertinent information.
It must be scrapped entirely for today's disclosures to be successful.
Then the president needs to direct the archivists of the United States to utilize available resources at the National Archives to collect, compile, and prepare everything that was to be released today.
Hard headlines, deadlines, should have been met by now.
However, will they produce this in a database which is easily searchable?
It's not incidental that in 2017, which was the date set by the 1994 Kennedy Assassinations Records Act, it was CIA Director Mike Pompeo who persuaded President Donald Trump to hold back 20% of this vital material.
Now ask yourself, why would the head of the CIA want to withhold this information from the American people?
At the time, CIA Director Pompeo said it was to protect the sources and methods of his agency.
Well, let's be honest, all the sources are dead.
This had happened more than 60 years ago.
And as for the methods, well, if our Central Intelligence Agency was involved in the murder of an American president, then we need to know about it.
We have to hope that the president has ordered the full release to the American people without redactions.
Now, once these documents are released and put into an archive that can be searched and analyzed, the public could then crowdsource their analysis with bloggers and citizen journalists making history and figuring out the goriest details.
Then I hope the president will assign a senior White House staff member to monitor the process and ensure that there has been full compliance with the President's executive order.
I also hope the President will establish an independent oversight board to ensure agency compliance.
I have always thought that someone like, well, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or even General Michael Flynn should head an oversight board to ensure that all of the disclosures have been complete and that nothing has been held back.
We won't know until, I would say, a few days, whether they have met the president's order for full disclosure.
My interest in this really came from a conversation that I had with former President Richard Nixon in his post-presidential days.
Nixon, of course, was famous for his love of a good martini.
His was known as a silver bullet.
I'll give you his recipe coming up.
But it was after a couple of his notoriously cold and excellent martinis that I asked the former president directly, Mr. President, I said, who really killed Kennedy?
The president stared into his martini for a moment, then looked up at me and said, let me say this.
The Warren Commission was the biggest goddamn hoax in American history.
I said, pardon me, sir, I don't understand.
He said, well, let me put it to you this way.
Lyndon and I both wanted to be president, but I wasn't willing to kill for it.
And there you have it.
Now, more recently, Tucker Carlson played an unearthed audio tape of President Richard Nixon in the early days of Watergate in the Oval Office talking to CIA director Richard Helms.
Nixon is already under pressure, and he's essentially letting Helms know that he may need the assistance of the CIA to extract himself.
He says, paraphrasing, look, a lot of dirty business is going on over there, meaning at the CIA.
I think he's referring at first to the toppling of the government of Guatemala, which our government took down in a coup, but then he just blurts it out.
When Helms pretends to not know what Nixon is referring to, Nixon says, and I quote, look, I know who shot John.
Well, there you have it.
It was that exchange with former President Nixon that convinced me and motivated me to write my 2015 book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ.
I took that book to six different publishers.
Every one of them told me that it was not commercially viable, that I would never make any money.
It became a New York Times best-selling book virtually overnight.
I'm glad that they only printed 25,000 copies in the first printing because, well, thanks to my editor, it was rife with typographical errors.
And therefore, when we reordered, I was able to correct most of them.
Ambassador Joseph's Secret Deal00:03:03
By the way, folks, if you decide to look for the book, don't get the hardcover edition.
Get the paperback because I added three additional chapters.
But my theory is much broader.
You see, many of the JFK researcher community members look at the Kennedy assassination through an individual prism.
So those, for example, who are experts in organized crime will tell you that the mob was responsible for the murder of Kennedy.
Others, such as James Douglas, who wrote a terrific book, JFK and the Unspeakable, a book often cited by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his conclusions about who killed his uncle, comes at it strictly from the point of view of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Well, it's true that the CIA felt double-crossed by Kennedy in his conduct of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
They also knew in real time that the public story that had been fed to the American people regarding the Cuban missile crisis was a false narrative.
No, brave Jack and Bobby Kennedy did not face down Nikita Khrushchev, who removed his missiles 90 miles from our shore.
In fact, a secret deal was made in which we removed our NATO missiles from Italy and Turkey, changing the balance of power in Europe in return for a deal to remove the Russian-made missiles from Cuba.
But that agreement included no on-site inspections.
So we did not know for decades whether the missiles had ever really been removed.
And then, of course, there are those who say that the mob was completely responsible.
In fact, Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, John Kennedy's father, had convened a meeting of the mob chieftains, had gotten a $1 million contribution, which in 1959 is a lot of money.
But in return, a new Kennedy Justice Department was supposed to end the deportation proceedings regarding Carlos Marcelo, the mob chieftain who ran the mafia in Texas and Louisiana, as well as Santo Trafacante, who ran the organized crime operations in Florida.
After Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy was stricken with a debilitating stroke, and after Attorney General Robert Kennedy pursued the deportation proceedings against the mob, they felt betrayed and they most definitely play a role in the murder of JFK.
Judges and Political Questions00:14:59
The new movie put out by Paramount, What the Parkland Doctors Saw, establishes without any question that John F. Kennedy was shot from both the front and the back, which means, of course, multiple shooters.
That in turn means that there was a conspiracy.
So they were all involved.
The CIA, the mob, Big Texas Oil that was opposed to Kennedy's efforts to repeal the oil depletion allowance.
But the man running the show on the ground, the major progenitor of the conspiracy to kill President John F. Kennedy, was the man next in line.
As the Latins say, cooey bono.
When we come back, I'll tell you why Lyndon Baines Johnson was the man at the helm of the effort to kill Jack Kennedy.
This is the stone zone, and we'll be right back.
This is the stone zone with Roger Stone.
Not just stepping stones.
The stone zone zone.
Rural Americans deserve access to the best of what our country has to offer, especially health care.
Across every state, every community, America's rural hospitals are the first line of defense protecting our families, neighbors, and loved ones.
No matter where you live, hospital care doesn't clock out.
They're there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
Each year, America's over 5,000 hospitals care for millions of patients, providing 24-7 emergency care, delivering babies, cancer treatments, and other life-saving care that patients rely on.
Behind every one of those patients are doctors, nurses, and caregivers working tirelessly to keep people healthy and safe.
Hospitals are our community's lifelines.
They employ our neighbors and keep our families healthy.
But now, some in Congress are threatening access to care.
Tell Congress, protect patient care to keep America strong.
Don't cut rural health care.
This is the stone zone.
Now, get in the zone.
It's the stone zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
Welcome back to the Stone Zone.
Like most Americans, we anxiously await the full disclosure of all the classified records regarding President John F. Kennedy's murder.
The central thesis of my 2015 book was, 2013 book, pardon me, was that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the lynchpin of a conspiracy that involved the CIA, organized crime, and Big Texas oil, among others, all to bring down John F. Kennedy.
I cite fingerprint evidence, eyewitness evidence, and deep Texas politics to make my case.
We will be parsing the information put out by the government and bringing it to you here on the Stone Zone.
In the meantime, I'm not sure if you are familiar with the practice of swatting.
That is when somebody calls the police and reports some heinous crime or violent action going down at your home when there is no such thing, and the police converge on your home, putting you in a potentially life-threatening situation.
Last Friday, the FBI director Kash Patel spoke out against this trend, which seems to be disproportionately against conservative commentators.
That is, people calling in these false political reports in order to send the police to their homes.
Patel said, I want to address the alarming rise in these swatting incidents, targeting particularly media figures.
The FBI is aware of this dangerous trend, and my team and I, says Patel, are already taking action to investigate and hold those responsible accountable.
This isn't about politics, he noted.
Weaponizing law enforcement against any American is not only morally reprehensible, but it also endangers lives, including those of our officers.
That will not be tolerated.
We are fully committed to working with local law enforcement to crack down on these crimes.
So, folks, let me say this is extraordinarily dangerous.
And those who have swatted a number of my friends, this behavior is criminal.
You will get prosecuted if you got caught.
Whether it is Gunther Eagleman or Cat Turd or Sean Farash or my good friend Joe Paggs or reporter Nick Sortar or Tim Poole, all of these conservative influencers have been swatted.
It is heinous.
It is illegal.
It is dangerous.
Coming up next, David Schoen, criminal defense lawyer, talking to us about the various federal judges ruling that Donald Trump cannot make America great again and pursue his policies.
Whatever you do, don't touch that dial.
We'll be right back with Legal Beagle, David Schoen.
This is the Stone Zone.
Now, get him a zone.
It's the stone zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
And we're back.
Maybe we should entitle this segment, Judges Gone Wild, joining us, in my opinion, one of the great legal minds in the United States today, Criminal Defense Attorney David Schoen, who very ably represented President Donald Trump in one of the impeachment proceedings.
He's a criminal defense lawyer and often a guest on our show.
I don't think there's anybody in the country whose legal opinion I respect more.
David, welcome to the show.
Thank you very much.
Always a great pleasure and honor to be on it.
So Judge Bozberg, the U.S. District Judge in D.C., has ruled that President Trump can't deport illegals.
Stephen Miller, advisor to the president, clashed with the host on CNN last night.
Let's play this brief clip.
When you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works.
It starts with these judges and then continues up.
At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment?
And I fail to see how there's any other way but to start with where we're starting here before you get to eventually the Supreme Court.
Well, so first of all, there's a term in law justicible.
This is not justicible.
In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy.
When the president is exercising his Article II powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his core Article II powers as commander-in-chief.
Is Venezuela invading the U.S.?
This is a very important point.
This is a Title 50 authority.
It's a commander-in-chief authority.
So just to ask you a simple question, you talk about how the system works.
Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas?
Yes or no?
answer my question in other words the is venezuela is venezuela invading our country in a way that would t t t so under the So I'll answer yours and you'll answer mine.
Under the terms of the statute, Train de Arauagua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation at the direction of the Venezuelan government.
The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government.
By a state or a government, right?
Are they a state or a government?
Yes, it is documented that TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation.
And here's an even more important point.
Under the Constitution, who makes that determination?
A district court judge elected by no one or the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy?
The president and the president alone makes a decision of what triggers that decision.
So do you then think we are?
All right.
Quite an exchange.
David Schoen, your opinion of Judge Bozberg's order that Trump cannot deport illegals.
Okay, I'd like to just digress for one second, though, since we're talking about Stephen Miller and his challenges with Fox News and others.
The best part was when he said Andrew Weissman is an absolute moron and lawless actor.
I couldn't help but throw that in.
Since he wrote my indictment, which was a frame job, boy, do I agree with that?
We can come back to Mr. Weissman here in a minute, but I heartily agree.
I wouldn't have been able to resist either.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Stephen Miller's point is a very interesting constitutional point.
And what's happening here is the media is passing over it completely.
It's not like it is a radical theory.
The idea that a president of the United States in his executive power has the exclusive right to determine whether there's been a predatory incursion or not is a pretty solid constitutional principle.
Let me tell you, there's a case from 1996 from the Second Circuit in which it's sort of the opposite of this.
New York State senators were suing the federal government to say, we've got this huge influx of immigrants here, and you're not paying your fair share to meet our expenses.
And they sued under the invasion clause.
And the court, in that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the invasion clause is non-justiciable.
The protection of the states from invasion involves matters of foreign policy and defense, which are issues that the courts have been reluctant to consider.
I just want to, I don't want to bore you with cites, but I have to say this: the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2024, considered this issue.
And what they noted is that five judges in dissenting opinion, but they said the majority opinion considered this also.
They said that the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a resolution that the United States is in the midst of the worst border security crisis in the nation's history, historic border crisis.
Senior former FBI agents said there's an invasion of the homeland unfolding now.
It would be difficult to overstate the danger represented.
And finally, the court cites to a number of sources that recognize the idea that the panel's respectful treatment of the state's defense is understandable considering the broadly held concern that migration can be weaponized by one sovereign to inflict on another.
So here, President Trump found that Trenton de Aragua is a de facto government.
It's a sort of militarized force, if you would, a gang with guns, drugs, et cetera, that purposely invaded the United States.
Whether one agrees with it or not, it is a prerogative of the president to make those kinds of findings.
That's how the argument goes.
And that's why they're saying it's a non-judiciable political question.
Now, ordinarily, the way those things are decided is a court decides whether it's a political question or not, and you have a court of appeals to decide it.
I was on the opposite side of this issue in the Zivatovsky case of the Supreme Court in an amicus brief I did.
And there, under the Obama administration, they found that it was exclusively the executive's prerogative to decide that someone born in Jerusalem, Israel was not really born in Israel.
So it's interesting to me, Judge Bozberg, as you know, replaced the retiring Judge Beryl Howell.
I always wondered about her ruling in which she compelled Donald Trump's lawyers in the so-called documents case to testify against their client.
That would seem to me to be a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment.
What say you?
I think Beryl Howell, Amy Jackson, I mean, Berman Jackson, and a couple of others over there are some of the judges that have, I think, is what motivates President Trump to react the way he does often.
It is as if, and I don't say this lightly because that was a once great court, and there's still some great judges there, but it is as if all you have to do is mention the name Trump or something associated with Trump, and you can predict how their decision will come out.
It's not as if.
It's a true fact.
That's my experience, at least.
And I think she was dead.
Judge Howell was dead wrong in that decision.
I think it was a clear Sixth Amendment violation.
You know, the case eventually went away.
So it won't be decided.
But I thought that would be, that was reversible error in that documents case, if ever it came to that point.
It is interesting.
You also have Judge Chuang, who's ruled that Trump can not end USAID.
Now, USAID was never actually signed into law, never proposed by the Congress, never signed by the President.
USAID was formed based on an executive order from President John F. Kennedy, and its original purposes, I think, were quite noble.
The idea was to help countries in Central and South America who were fighting against communism.
This has morphed into a slush fund in which not millions, not trillions, not billions, but trillions of dollars have flowed to these non-government organizations, these nonprofits, almost every one of which of one is set up for some political purpose.
Yet the judge has ruled that the president does not have the authority to close USAID down.
Mueller's Consultation Rights00:11:36
David, what do you think?
It's another Norm Eisen case.
I'm sure you noticed.
Norm Eisen made a career in the first Trump administration and since then of challenging everything, every move President Trump makes.
He was behind some of the model indictments that he encouraged the Justice Department to bring against President Trump.
There are a number of conflicts I thought in these cases.
But anyway, I think the judge is wrong.
I think he's wrong on his appointments clause decision.
That is that since Musk was never appointed officially by the president and I'm nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and he should be considered a superior officer.
Therefore, he doesn't have the authority to do the things he's doing.
The government has made clear it's the president's prerogative to consider Musk an advisor and to follow his advice if that's what he chooses to do.
And that Amy Gleason, whoever is running the USAID, can follow his advice and do whatever he says to do, if that's in their wisdom, what they think.
I think it's exclusively within the executive power.
I do not see this as a separation of powers issue, quite the opposite.
And I don't think anybody else would either if somebody other than Donald Trump were president.
David, you have raised a very interesting point in our private conversations about the extent of executive privilege.
Walk us through that.
Well, there's a series of opinions that come down from the Office of Legal Counsel on the extent and breadth of executive privilege.
The correct view is that the president is entitled to consult.
Well, let me tell you the incorrect view.
The incorrect view that by those who would try to narrow it, and they only did so when President Trump was president, would be to say that it only applies to conversations.
The privilege only applies to conversations between the president and high-ranking executive branch officials.
There's absolutely no basis in the Constitution for construing it that way.
First of all, when the president invokes executive privilege, it's presumptively valid.
But secondly, the president of the United States is entitled to consult with whoever he or she intends or wishes to consult with.
And so, for example, if the president wants to call in the CEO of a major company to talk about the economy and he doesn't want those discussions to be shared publicly, the president has every right to keep those confidential and maybe more importantly, to ensure the executive that his thoughts will be kept confidential.
And so here, I think it's very important that this be straightened out within the Justice Department.
There should be an Office of Legal Counsel opinion directly on it.
There are some that touch on the subject.
There was one regarding the appointment of United States attorneys and whether discussions between the president and non-executive branch members, the privileged OLC found that it was, but that appears marginalized through some efforts.
So I have to make clear now that the president has an absolute right to consult whoever he wants to consult with and has the right to invoke executive privilege as to those discussions.
That's how the business of the country is done, whether it's a matter of national security, the economy, some other issue of public interest, the president must be able to ensure anyone with whom he speaks that their discussions can be kept confidential and that he can act on that advice knowing that he's able to get confidential advice.
I don't know, David, did you see the president's speech to the Department of Justice?
Like you, I was delighted that he raised the questions of Norm Eisenberg as well as Andrew Weissman, the MSNBC legal commentator who we know throughout his career covered up mob murders, hid evidence and sent men to prison essentially for life on the basis of fabricated evidence and withholding of exculpatory evidence,
was unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Enron case, although he talks endlessly about the Enron case as it is some gold standard of legal jurisprudence.
A man who knew when he was general counsel of the FBI that the steele dossier was a fraud, but used it nonetheless as the rationale for the Mueller investigation, the greatest single abuse of power in American history, nothing less than the use of the full authority of the U.S. government to try to overturn the election of a duly elected president.
When we come back, we're going to talk about your experience with Mr. Weissman and whether there will ever be an accounting.
To me, this record is beyond belief.
The Gateway Pundit did a 14-piece series on Andrew Weissman, but don't try to find it on Google, folks, because it won't come up in their search engine.
Very, very strange.
You're listening to Roger Stone on the Stone Zone.
We're talking to David Schoen, internationally known criminal defense lawyer, one of the great legal minds in the United States today.
I want to pick up on the other side on Mr. Weissman and also his outlook in some of the other high-profile cases currently before the Justice Department.
Whatever you do, folks, don't touch that dial because we'll be right back.
This is the Stone Zone.
Now, get in the zone.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
And we're back.
We're talking to David Schoen, criminal defense attorney.
David, you have clashed in court with Andrew Weissman, who was the de facto head of the Mueller investigation.
That, despite the fact that he knew all the way back to the time that he was the general counsel of the FBI that the so-called steele dossier was a fraud paid for by Hillary Clinton.
Tell us about your experience with Mr. Weissman.
You know, you mentioned the Mueller Commission.
To say, Mr. Mueller, who had had a distinguished career, lost all credibility with anybody who knows anything about Andrew Weissman when he appointed him to be the de facto head of his committee.
Andrew Weissman, in my opinion, having long experience with him and his handiwork, is the most ethically bankrupt prosecutor that I have ever encountered in a long career.
Because of Andrew Weissman, the Justice Department and his colleague, by the way, colleagues had to redo the entire set of rules for dealing with confidential informants for the FBI.
And that's because, in particular, of a series of cases Andrew Weissman helped lead in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn.
They were cases arising out of so-called Colombo family organized crime and a so-called war within that family.
It turns out we know now and knew back then to some degree that the war was fomented by a confidential informant who was the under boss of the Columbo family who was in the employ of the government, who had a corrupt relationship.
An FBI agent named Lynn DeVecchio was operating under Weissman's guidance.
We now have, for example, so many defendants were convicted originally.
Once that evidence came out and the corrupt relationship that had been withheld in 48 jurors who heard the cases in four different cases acquitted the defendants based on the government misconduct under Weissman's watch.
Since then, more evidence has come forward.
A judge in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Cormann, has written extensively about the misconduct.
But even at the time, just a few years after the initial misconduct by Weissman, the chief judge of the Eastern District of New York, Judge Sifton, issued an opinion in which he named Weissman and referred to his myopic view of his ethical responsibilities, suggested the matter be turned over to bar authorities.
After he issued that opinion, Weissman's boss, the United States Attorney of the Eastern District of Time, wrote a letter to Chief Judge Sifton saying, please take Andrew Weissman's name out of the opinion.
You could hurt his career.
And Judge Sifkin complied and took his name out.
I have a copy of both orders and the letter.
It's shocking, but I think that's part of what gave Weissman the license to think he could proceed this way.
Right now, I represent two defendants, a guy named Vic Arena, 91 years old, in prison, terminally ill.
Alzheimer's, been in prison over 30 years.
Judge will not release him from prison because the government still doesn't concede all of the misconduct that happened.
And a man named Michael Cessa has also served more than 30 years.
In Michael Cessa's case, he was accused and then convicted on false evidence of having killed a person.
That person's wife has now pleaded with the court to release him.
She knows that Michael Cessa did not kill her husband.
That's pretty strong.
But what we know in the case is Weissman and his colleague withheld evidence that the government had interviewed people who saw the victim alive after the government supposedly proved Michael Sessa had killed him.
There was a list of people who were suspects in the murder that was withheld from the defense.
That list of suspects included the government's confidential informant who they knew was given license to be out on the street committing multiple murders, as his own son has testified.
That name is Gregory Scarpa.
The evidence goes on and on and on.
It's absolutely outrageous, but because they were associated with organized crime, the courts haven't let them out yet.
And it's just shocking.
If ever cases deserved a pardon, it would be the cases of Vic Arena and Michael Cessa based on the corrupt prosecution by Andrew Weissman, clearly withholding evidence, completely exculpatory evidence.
In Vic Arena's case, by the way, we now know the government had a document from a top confidential informant in which they said John Gotti had killed the person that Vic Arena was accused of killing, and that the Colombo family wasn't even consulted about it and was offended by it.
How could that have been withheld in any sense of ethical obligation?
That same confidential informant has now admitted that at the government's license from the government, he committed 12 murders on the street to foment this war and continue the war.
At one point, the FBI agent was caught when he slammed his fist down to the table and said, We're going to win this thing because he had picked a faction in the family and the other faction had had someone murdered in it.
But he's been caught giving out information to allow Keller to commit their crimes, participating in crimes, and so on, all under Andrew Weissman's watch.
We have another assistant U.S. attorney who worked for Weissman at the time, was given an affidavit saying that Weissman told her to withhold evidence in the case.
It's just shocking.
And the guy went on to the Mueller Commission and other things, commentator on TV, and no one questions these actions.
All right, I'm afraid we have to leave it there.
I want to thank our guest, David Schoen, for joining us today in the Stone Zone.
America's Lifeline Hospitals00:00:56
Rural Americans deserve access to the best of what our nation has to offer, especially health care.
Across every state and every community, America's rural hospitals are the first line of defense, protecting our families, neighbors, and loved ones.
No matter where you live, hospital care doesn't clock out.
They're there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
Each year, America's over 5,000 hospitals care for millions of patients, providing 24-7 emergency care, delivering babies, cancer treatments, and other life-saving care that patients rely on.
Behind every one of those patients are doctors, nurses, and caregivers working tirelessly to keep people healthy and safe.
Hospitals are our community's lifelines.
They employ our neighbors and keep our families healthy.
But now, some in Congress are threatening access to care.
Tell Congress, protect patient care to keep America strong.