Roger Stone dissects Howard Stern’s $100M SiriusXM exit as a "woke sellout," linking it to Trump’s political decline in his ratings, while exposing Senator Adam Schiff’s mortgage fraud and declassified evidence of his role in the "Russian collusion hoax." Legal analyst David Schoen reveals Jeffrey Epstein—under oath—denied any Trump wrongdoing, authorizing the disclosure, and argues declassified files could impeach Obama via constitutional clauses, despite D.C.’s politicized courts. Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s $15M pro-Trump donation and call to federalize D.C. contrast his past anti-establishment stance, while Microsoft’s Pentagon cloud security lapses expose corporate negligence. The episode ties Trump’s Ukraine diplomacy, Nobel Peace Prize speculation, and the "go woke, go broke" backlash—culminating in a legal and cultural reckoning where accountability may finally outpace partisan narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
If you're looking to create, grow, and sustain your wealth, download and subscribe to the Pain Points of Wealth podcast at bebullish.com with Bob, Ryan, and Chris Payne.
It's your podcast for market insights, money tips, and real talk on the economy.
Download and subscribe at bebullish.com.
The Stone Zone.
Entertaining and informative.
on the red apple podcast network this is the stone zone with roger stone They went after a guy named Roger Stone who's sitting in the office.
And I'll say this to Trevor Roger.
He's no baby.
And right now he's cleaner than anybody in this place.
No, they treated him very unfairly.
Now, get him a zone.
It's the stone zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
You are now entering the Stone Zone.
Well, washed up shock jock Howard Stern is reportedly getting the axe from Sirius XM Radio.
The satellite radio provider announced that they will not be renewing his contract at the same princely salary of $100 million when it is up at the end of the year, which will effectively conclude Stern's 20-year run because it's unlikely that an egomaniac like Stern would ever consider taking a pay cut.
Howard Stern is typical of those who used Donald Trump to pump their ratings before Trump decided to get into politics and make America great again, but then he turned on Trump like a rabid dog when Trump decided to enter the fray and become President of the United States.
SiriusXM is expected to negotiate a deal where they are able to air replays of Stern's show.
Back when he was a revolent cultural icon and produced an entertaining show, I, for one, kind of never got it.
I remember when my friend Mankow, who was the dominant shock jock in the windy city of Chicago, drove Stern out of town, outpointing him in the ratings consistently.
Stern was once the voice of the working-class Americans, peeved with increasingly political correctness, becoming incredibly popular for his raunchy, uncensored, and sometimes illicit programming back in the 1980s and the 1990s.
But by the time the 2010s rolled around, Stern had become stale and eventually fell into wokeism and what I saw as a desperate attempt to stay irrelevant.
Stern became one of the loudest and most belligerent critics of Donald Trump, trashing him at every opportunity.
Howard Stern received plaudits from the fake news media as a result, but this only further alienated his core audience.
Now SiriusXM can no longer justify his profligate salary, and Stern, in my opinion, will now fade into oblivion, being remembered mainly for his massive fall from grace.
Schiff's Mortgage Scam00:06:25
There is no greater example of a sellout than Howard Stern, a sad, weak man who became everything he once hated.
Good riddance from the airways, Howie.
I'd be glad to never hear you again.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland has announced that they are conducting a criminal investigation into Senator Adam Schiff of California over credible allegations of mortgage fraud.
This follows news that Schiff had previously received a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.
It was the director of the Federal Housing Finance Administration's fraud unit that first determined that Congressman now Senator Adam Schiff had declared both his condominium in Burbank, California, and his home in suburban Maryland as his principal legal residence.
He was exposed for declaring both of those as his political legal residence, pulling off a massive mortgage scam.
A memo from Fannie Mae's fraud unit asserts that Schiff submitted incorrect information about his properties while applying for home loans, listing his primary residence first as his Burbank condo, despite the property not being suitable for a family of four.
But then Schiff also lied about his primary residence in Burbank so he could receive a property tax reduction in California under false pretenses.
Unfortunately, Schiff also declared his home in suburban Maryland, which he refinanced four times, as his principal legal residence.
So unlike what Schiff says, that Trump objects to him owning two homes, because that's incorrect, what Trump objects to publicly is that Schiff has claimed both his homes as his principal legal residence and therefore received favorable tax treatment, a lower mortgage rate, and a lower insurance rate on both properties.
Apparently, Schiff believed he was above the law because of his Democrat connections.
I guess he didn't anticipate that President Donald Trump would be able to overcome the entire Russia gate narrative that Schiff and his Democrat cronies completely concocted.
Now that Trump has completed his political comeback, Shifty Adam Schiff is no longer being protected by the deep state.
His fancy title of senator does not put him above the law.
Hopefully, Schiff will receive justice soon, hopefully not just for mortgage fraud, but also for his involvement in the greatest single dirty trick and abuse of power in American political history.
That would be the Russian collusion hoax.
Today, there is no longer any doubt whatsoever, based on the declassification of documents by the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and revelations made by CIA Director John Ratcliffe,
that Schiff and others engaged in seditious conspiracy and treason to try to use two pieces of fabricated evidence, the steel dossier and the false claim that the Democrat National Committee had been the target of an online hack by Russian intelligence as the rationale for the removal of a duly elected president.
Hopefully, Schiff will face prosecution for far more than mortgage fraud, but it's something he has in common with New York Attorney General Letitia James.
In her case, the Federal Housing Finance Administration found a 22-year crime spree in which the New York Attorney General, famous for saying that no one is above the law, conducted multiple examples of mortgage fraud involving properties in New York and Virginia.
You see, these politicians, particularly Democrats, seem to think that they are above the law.
We'll soon see whether anyone is above the law.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk has demanded that President Trump initiate a federal takeover of Washington, D.C.
The billionaires calling for President Trump to initiate this federal takeover of our nation's capital after one of Musk's Doge lieutenants, Edward Big Balls Korostine, was viciously beaten by a gang of thugs after he attempted to intervene when he saw a group of young people attempting to accost a young woman.
In response to President Trump's call to federalize Washington, D.C., billionaire Elon Musk concurred.
He said the following in an X post, X used to be known as Twitter, today known as X.
A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in D.C.
A Doge team member saw what was happening, ran to her defense, and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her.
It is time to federalize D.C.
This is a far cry from the Elon Musk of a few months ago who was bemoaning the increase in federal authority in the big, beautiful bill and demanding a third party.
Since then, we've learned that Elon Musk gave $15 million to pro-Trump and pro-Republican super PACs in the month of June alone.
And it seems like it may be time to, well, bring Elon Musk back into the MAGA fold as he has stood tall for free speech.
And I do think he played a significant role in President Trump's victory in the greatest comeback in political history.
We need him back in the tent.
He's demonstrated the tenacity, and he certainly has the cash to be a valuable ally in the 2026 elections.
Joining us a little later here in the Stone Zone, David Schoen, the criminal defense attorney who defended President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, joins us to talk about whether Barack Obama has anything to worry about in the burgeoning scandal regarding the Russian collusion hoax.
Microsoft And The Pentagon Concern00:03:20
Also, I'm going to ask him about that civil suit that President Trump filed in Miami several years ago.
In that case, the entire Russian collusion case was laid out in a civil lawsuit, but the judge, who was a Clinton appointee, not only dismissed the suit, but he fined both Donald Trump and his lawyer, Alina Abba, $1 million apiece for even filing it.
Now that all of the assertions in the lawsuit have been proven to be absolutely true, I want to ask David Schoen what happens to that lawsuit.
In another shocking story, Chinese engineers were able to access crucial Pentagon files for years by providing cloud computing support through Microsoft.
Microsoft announced that they will be cutting off these Chinese engineers from accessing the data following an expose by ProPublica.
Microsoft was revealed to be operating a system where quote-unquote digital escorts from the U.S. were used to relay tasks to Chinese engineers who would do them more cheaply than their American counterparts.
This opened the door for the communist Chinese engineers to implant malicious code into the Pentagon systems.
After the scandal broke, Microsoft said in a release statement, in response to concerns raised earlier this week about U.S. supervised foreign engineers, Microsoft has made changes to our support for U.S. government customers to assure that no China-based engineering teams are providing technical assistance for the Department of Defense, government cloud, and related systems.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, he's among those stars appointed by Donald Trump to his cabinet, has vowed to root out agreements between the Pentagon and multinational corporations that refuse to put America first.
Microsoft's actions show how corporations have become beholden to China because they have put the almighty dollar ahead of what is best for the country that made them so big to begin with.
This has resulted in the absurd policy of putting Pentagon technology in the hands of, quote, digital escorts who are then giving carte blanche to Chinese agents to subvert and undermine their policies that should have never been considered in the first place.
This should be a lesson against giving big tech more ability to make decisions over our military as the values of big tech CEOs do not necessarily align with those of America First Patriots.
Meanwhile, a man wearing a Make America Great Again hat was kicked out of a major league soccer game in St. Louis, showing how sports leagues are still going woke even after President Trump's victory last year.
The MLS rules state that displaying signs, symbols, or images for commercial purposes or for electioneering, campaigning, or advocating for or against any candidate, political party, legislative issue, or governmental action is banned at their events.
Former President's Immunity Debate00:15:13
So one could argue that a man in the MAGA hat was violating the league rules, as silly as those rules may be.
To me, this is very clearly a free speech First Amendment issue.
However, on the opposite side of the stadium in the video, you can see countless rainbow LGBT pride flags flying without anyone hassling them who are carrying them.
Those flags make as much of a political statement as a MAGA hat, and they should both be allowed as matters of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Republican soccer fans should consider boycotting this team or perhaps the entire soccer league and putting the principles of go woke, go broke into place once again.
If you're just tuning in, I'm Roger Stone, and this is the Stone Zone on the Red Apple Audio Networks.
We're covering all the news here, so whatever you do, please don't touch that dial.
We'll be right back.
And of course, coming up, we have Trump Impeachment Attorney David Shoan, who's going to bring down the latest news regarding the Russian collusion hoax and who may be in line for criminal indictment in the greatest single dirty trick and abuse of power in American history.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
This is The Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
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.
Now, get in the zone.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
Welcome back to the Stone Zone right here on the Red Apple Audio Networks.
President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that his special envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, had a highly productive meeting where great progress was made, to quote the president, towards peace between Russia and Ukraine.
President Trump has also stated that everyone agrees this war must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come.
This suggests that President Trump might be willing to extend his deadline for Putin to come back to the table beyond this week.
At first, the president announced that Putin had a 50-day deadline, then he revised that to say his deadline was a mere 10 days.
President Trump has threatened to sanction and put heavier tariffs on Russia and also to punish Russia's trading partners with secondary tariffs if the Russians continue to initiate war with Ukraine.
Witkoff has been perhaps the individual within the Trump administration most willing to embrace peace and cooperation in foreign policy.
Witkoff is using his diplomatic abilities to push back against the military-industrial complex and his defense engineer lobbyists in Washington who want to have an endless foreign war between Russia and Ukraine.
You see, war is unfortunately highly profitable for some people.
Donald Trump ran for president as the peace candidate, and it is his goal to bring peace both in the Middle East and also in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Every American should be praying for the president's success as we see this bloody conflict come to an end.
Every night, the president I know himself prays for peace.
He's worked diligently to bring both parties together and reach a final settlement.
I am confident that he will do so.
But will they give him the Nobel Peace Prize?
He's already ended the war between Rwanda and the Congo.
That was a bloody conflict.
He got a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.
He has a track record now of solving these international conflicts.
He's brought Syria in out of the cold.
But will the elitist, globalist-dominated Nobel Peace Prize committee give him the peace prize he so richly deserves?
Sadly, I fear not.
Donald Trump still has the title that I think history can bestow, the most impressive and I think honorable title, that of peacemaker.
The president works for peace every day, and every American should pray that he ends both of these bloody conflicts, both in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine.
When we come back, David Schoen, criminal defense lawyer extraordinaire who defended President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial on the floor of the U.S. Senate, joins us.
I'm anxious to ask David Schoen, attorney, whether justice is going to be seen in the Russian collusion case and whether there is a way for these cases to be tried somewhere out of Washington, D.C.
You see, having been through the Washington, D.C. meat grinder myself, I realize that in the District of Columbia, the Constitution, the law, the rules, the evidence, none of these things matter in the most politicized jurisdiction in the country in which no Trump supporter can get a fair trial and where no Trump antagonist will be held responsible for their illegal actions.
If you're just tuning in, I'm Roger Stone, and this is the Stone Zone.
you do don't touch that dial this is the stone zone Now, give him a zone.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
Welcome back into the zone.
Since President Donald Trump's historic victory in 2016, Democrats have relentlessly pushed the now debunked narrative that his campaign colluded with Russia to sway the election.
They didn't just question the outcome.
They amplified the narrative with politically charged rhetoric that deepened national division.
The actions of the Trump presidency have revealed the dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections, declared Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on September 24th, 2019.
For four years, Democrats relentlessly pursued Donald Trump, weaponizing investigations and working to delegitimize his presidency.
Then in 2021, they shattered political precedent entirely by voting to impeach him after he'd already left office, an action no former president had ever faced.
Their justification was rooted in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
Impeachment, they argued, isn't solely about removal from office, but it also serves to bar individuals from ever holding public office again.
But now, with the recent release of declassified documents by the Director of National Intelligence, Telsey Gabbard, revealing how the Obama administration manipulated intelligent assessments to sabotage President Trump's 2016 victory, Democrats may have opened a constitutional door they now regret.
Former Trump impeachment attorney David Schoen, criminal defense attorney extraordinaire, who ably represented Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, joins us now because he believes that this precedent could hit Obama squarely in his legacy.
David Schoen, welcome back in to the stone zone.
Thank you very much.
Always an honor to be with you.
So, David, we saw a clip the other day of the president.
He was asked directly whether this recent Supreme Court decision regarding the president having immunity would protect Barack Obama from prosecution based on everything we know.
And I think he said kind of cavalierly, yes, it probably helps him a lot.
But you put forward a very shrewd analysis that the Democrats now have the risk of being hoisted on their own petard, so to speak.
Lay this out for us.
Yeah, sure.
So President Trump was absolutely right when he said that the immunity decision, Trump versus United States, would help former President Obama evade prosecution at this point.
All of this is based on the idea, the premise, that the evidence shows, as Director Gabbard has said, that former President Obama was directly involved in a scheme with others to skew the election results, undermine the will of the people in the election.
If the evidence doesn't show that, then the discussion is simply academic.
But assuming for these purposes, the evidence shows that, President Trump was right that the immunity decision helps President Obama matter first course.
But what doesn't help him with is the impeachment process.
Without any question, 100%, according to the Democratic members of the House of Representatives and the Senate vote in the second impeachment trial, former President Obama absolutely can be impeached and convicted in a trial before the Senate.
I argued vigorously against that position that a former president is not subject to impeachment and conviction in a Senate trial once out of office because removal from office is a prerequisite for an impeachment concept.
However, the House managers argued some 30 pages in their brief that that's not at all the case.
The history and other interpretive tools tell us that without any question, a former president can be impeached and convicted going back as far as George Washington and any other former president.
And they go on to explain all of their reasons why and why there are two separate provisions in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7.
One provides for removal and the other provides for disqualification from holding future office.
And that's why their reason is essentially a former president can be impeached and convicted because they say it's just as important that person could have followers even after leaving office.
And so the person should never be able to hold high office again.
But in fact, they went much further.
And this is particularly telling, it seems to me, if the evidence shows, what Director Gabbard has suggested, it shows it goes right to the heart of the democracy, the power of the vote, the will of the people exercised through their vote.
What they wrote, the House managers, Jamie Raskin and Crew, wrote in their brief was this, the framers anticipated the risk of someone being out of office, and they explained that presidential abuse aimed at our democratic process itself was the single most urgent basis for impeachment.
Well, of course, the evidence we're talking about here, if it's proven, goes to the very core of the democratic process and therefore there would be an imperative to impeach former president Obama because, as the House managers wrote, if you do let someone get away with attacking the democratic process uh, it'll send a horrible message throughout the rest of American history, and so I think you know their words are very powerful in there.
But this goes beyond it Roger, and I think this is an important point to make.
The immunity decision, as I say, and president Trump said in the matter of first course, would probably, probably prohibit prosecution.
Some have suggested otherwise, and the key here is understanding what that decision held.
Very simply, it held that if something is within the core official acts of the president, then it's absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, just as it is from a civil lawsuit in Nixon versus Fitzgerald and if it's within that outer limit of the official acts, it's presumptively um immune.
Is presumptive immunity.
Something that's not an official act wouldn't have the benefit of immunity, but we're also not allowed to look into the motive behind the action, so let's just say that the evidence is there.
However, former president Obama and his colleagues can spin a tail so that this was somehow his view of, you know, ensuring the integrity of the election, something like that.
So he has the benefit of immunity.
Now he gets impeached by the House, majority of the House impeaches him, and he gets tried before the Senate and convicted because the evidence Is overwhelming.
Let's just assume for argument's sake.
Now, according to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, in my view, he would be able to be prosecuted criminally.
Why?
Because the text of the Constitution expressly provides for it in that case.
In the case here, it says: judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office of disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, et cetera.
But the party convicted shall nevertheless, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.
And so one would argue this would supersede that immunity decision because it's an intervening event, an impeachment and a conviction by the Senate under Article 1, Section 3.
So therefore, it triggers this clause, and he could be indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury criminally.
This, by the way, is perfectly consistent with an argument that President Trump made in the immunity case, and that is, using the impeachment clause, he argued, and a position that was rejected by the Supreme Court, he argued that the only way a person can be tried criminally is if they're first convicted after an impeachment trial in the Senate.
So it's perfectly consistent with his view on that, but it's in the language, the express language of the Constitution.
So, David, President Donald Trump filed a civil lawsuit in March of 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, specifically against Hillary Clinton, the Democrat National Committee, and others, alleging a conspiracy to falsely tie his 2016 presidential campaign to Russia.
Declassified Truth and Legal Consequences00:11:27
The case was dismissed in September of 2022 by U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, a Clinton appointee, who described it as being without merit, as having glaring structural deficiencies, and he imposed sanctions of nearly $1 million against President Trump and his attorney in the case, Alina Haba.
Now that the assertions in that lawsuit have been proven by the declassification of these documents to be completely and totally true, what happens to this lawsuit?
And more specifically, what happens to this million-dollar fine?
Yeah, well, that's a great question.
On the one hand, federal courts make it very difficult to come back and revisit a final judgment in the case.
I would add, by the way, Judge Middlebrooks is not one of my favorites, but that's beside the point.
So anyway, the federal courts make it difficult to come back and revisit a final judgment.
However, there are tools under Rule 60D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that in certain circumstances do allow it.
Some of them are time-sensitive, but some aren't.
There's a catch-all clause, 60B6.
But it may be that 60B4 and 60B5 apply here because, as you said, there's a fine involved here of a million dollars.
If you can show extraordinary circumstances, and certainly it seems like extraordinary circumstances, to uncover previously classified or secret documents that now expose events that are at odds with the basis on which the judge made his judgment, that's an extraordinary circumstance, it seems to me.
But beyond that, they're using that judgment for prospective purposes.
It's not just that the judgment sat there and had some impact at that time.
It can be used now to collect on that judgment.
And one would argue that it's an invalid judgment for the reasons of the extraordinary circumstances of this disclosure explained.
And therefore, another mechanism to get back in could be either 60B5 or 60B4, arguing that we can't allow a void or invalid judgment to be used for prospective purposes.
How unfair would that be?
You were wrong, Judge, but we're still going to let you collect a million dollars in sanctions for the other side.
So yesterday, John Solomon with Just the News reported that the Attorney General Pam Bondi had ordered a federal prosecutor to begin presenting evidence to a grand jury against those who were exposed in the declassification of documents by Tulsi Gabbard.
But the speculation was that that grand jury was in Florida rather than in the District of Columbia.
I obviously welcome that news, if it is correct, but I'm trying to determine why that venue.
And here's a theory.
The raid on Mar-Lago, since it was actually designed to seize evidence of the guilt of those involved in the Russian collusion hoax, was part of a continuing seditious conspiracy continued until that date.
And that took place in Florida, thus allowing the case to be pursued in the Sunshine State.
Now, that's so much for my amateur lawyering.
How could this case against Brenning, Comey, Clapper, Biden, Rice, Weissman, Mueller, this list goes on and on, how could this be pursued someplace where there could actually be a fair trial and where there's a reasonable probability of conviction based on the evidence?
Good question again, and I think your analysis, you know, your theory is a good one.
But remember, you know, in the Florida case, they convened a grand jury in Washington, D.C. to hear much of the evidence then used or could be used in the Florida case.
Here, I think there could be a theory also.
First of all, the point is they want it outside of D.C., ideally, because it's one of the jurisdictions in the country in which the voter is overwhelmingly Democratic.
And we see a lot of political decisions from the judges in that jurisdiction and from juries.
It's human nature in a sense.
I think one could make an argument that if the evidence here really is evidence of seditious conspiracy under 18 UFC 2384 or in some offense that relates to undermining the vote, the will of the voters, theoretically, it affects, it has the effect in every state in the Union.
And therefore, a grand jury could be convened anyplace.
I think that's one theory that could be floated out there.
Every American has a stake in seeing justice done because it affects the vote of every American one way or another.
But we have to see, I think, what the evidence is, what the conduct at issue was.
It might be that if there were discussions like this, some discussions took place over the telephone or the internet from various places outside of Washington, D.C.
I don't know.
We have to see what the evidence is, I think.
I appreciate that analysis.
I hope Springs Eternal that this trial will be take the trials will take place in a jurisdiction other than the District of Columbia.
I personally been through that meat grinder, as I said earlier in the show.
In the District of Columbia, the Constitution, the law, the facts, the evidence, the rules, none of these things matter when the court is in order.
It is the most politicized jurisdiction in the country.
In my particular case, when we learned that the jury forewoman, who denied during jury selection and the trial that she had any knowledge of me or my case, had been attacking me on Facebook and Twitter by name, but had those postings on a private setting.
Once that was revealed, the judge actually ruled that none of that was evidence of bias.
Wherever you do, don't touch that dial.
This is the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
This is the Stone Zone.
Now, get in the zone.
It's the stone zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
And we're back in the stone zone.
We're talking to perhaps the preeminent criminal defense attorney in the country today, David Schoen, who very ably represented President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
David, you were back in the news only days ago because of this vicious effort to smear Donald Trump as having had a somehow inappropriate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes in Florida, was indicted in 2019 in New York on one count of child sex trafficking and a second count of the conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking.
But you revealed to the American public that you discussed this matter with Jeffrey Epstein just before his death.
Why don't you take it from there?
Sure.
Well, you know, as one might imagine, any criminal defense lawyer in meeting with a client who's facing a federal indictment would want to know what kind of leverage that defendant might have to help himself in some kind of deal or something like that.
I happen to have made it a practice in my practice because I don't represent cooperators, but everyone ought to be advised of that opportunity.
I just don't believe it philosophically that one should turn against friends, all that.
But everyone should have that opportunity to help him or herself in a case.
And a lawyer has an obligation to explain that to the client.
I won't, you know, I never go into attorney-client privilege discussions regarding any of my conversations with any client.
However, in this case, I expressly discussed with Jeffrey Epstein whether he had anything, any information that could help him by hurting Donald Trump.
That is, any information that Donald Trump did anything illegal or improper.
And had he not authorized me to, I wouldn't have disclosed the answer to that.
But he did.
And he said to me, in no uncertain terms, that he had no information that could hurt Donald Trump in any way because Donald Trump had not done anything illegal or improper with him.
And then he made it clear that he wanted that known.
So that's why I've revealed it now.
I revealed it in response to Mr. Musk's tweet suggesting that maybe President Trump was withholding documents here because he had something to fear for himself.
I thought that was an outrageous suggestion to make.
And I knew it not to be true.
So I felt an obligation to come forward.
But again, I would not have had Jeffrey Epstein not authorized it.
He felt strongly about it.
He didn't want anybody, but particularly Donald Trump, and I'll explain why, being falsely accused of having been engaged in conduct with him.
It was illegal, etc.
With Donald Trump, they had had a friendship like tens or hundreds of wealthy, successful people in the world had with Jeffrey Epstein, some friendship on some level.
And Donald Trump, among all of the other people, is the one person who cut off that relationship, cut it off for a couple of reasons, but cut it off, we're talking, you know, decades ago.
And so, you know, that hurt Epstein to some degree, but he also respected it, appreciated it.
In any event, whether he wanted the friendship back or not, he made clear that Donald Trump had done nothing illegal or improper with him, and he wanted that made known.
Now, you know, some suggested, oh, gee, that's convenient.
You know, here you represented Donald Trump in his impeachment trial.
Now you're saying this about Jeffrey Epstein.
I didn't know Donald Trump at that time.
We're talking about 2019.
I got a call to represent President Trump in his impeachment trial two weeks before the impeachment trial in 2021.
So, you know, one can suggest anything they like, but I've got no other motive here, except that I think it's important to bring the truth out.
I think what's going on here, quite frankly, in my view, is an attempt.
But look, the left and the right have separate agendas here.
But on the left, to drag the thing out, out, out, to make it sort of muller two, try to paralyze the government, try to distract from all of President Trump's accomplishments, and help themselves in the midterms with these suggestions of maybe something improper.
But it defies logic.
You can be sure the accusers of Jeffrey Epstein filed lawsuit after lawsuit with lawyers who have made millions of dollars against anyone who those accusers said they had any illicit affair with through Jeffrey Epstein.
So you can imagine that if some accuser were out there and had some knowledge about Donald Trump, they would have filed a lawsuit a long time ago.
I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there.
Accusers And Lawsuits00:00:56
I want to thank our guest, David Shoan, and for our many guests.
Until tomorrow, God bless you and Godspeed.
Thanks for listening to the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
You can hear the Stone Zone with Roger Stone weeknights at 8 on 77 WABC.
If you like the podcast, share it with your friends and listen anytime at WABCRadio.com and download the WABC Radio app.
Hit that subscribe button on all major podcast platforms.
Plus, follow WABC on social, on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and X. See you next time for a new episode.
So you never have to wonder what the heck is going on here.
If you're looking to create, grow, and sustain your wealth, download and subscribe to the Pain Points of Wealth podcast at bebullish.com with Bob, Ryan, and Chris Payne.
It's your podcast for market insights, money tips, and real talk on the economy.