The Stone Zone dissects rural hospitals’ endangered role as 24/7 lifelines while exposing Letitia James’ alleged mortgage fraud—dismissed by three Democratic-appointed judges—and ties it to her Trump prosecutions, calling them politically weaponized. It warns NYC’s Zoran Miamdani will worsen crime, accuses Comey’s indictment dismissal of judicial bias, and frames declassified docs as proof of a "seditious conspiracy" against Trump, implicating Obama, Biden, and intel figures in a coup narrative. The episode ends with a call for MAGA accountability and skepticism over justice without Florida’s intervention. [Automatically generated summary]
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.
Don't cut rural health care.
The Stone Zone.
Entertaining and informative.
On the Red Apple Podcast Network.
Welcome to the Stone Zone.
Well, Letitia James, the New York Attorney General and her supporters may have been popping the champagne corks a little prematurely because yesterday in the Eastern District of Virginia, a grand jury refused or declined to bring a bill of indictments against the New York's leading law enforcement official for simple mortgage fraud.
But in all honesty, I smell a rat.
A little background here, just so you remember, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was charged with investigating this case and the case of James Comey, the FBI director, failed to disclose in that case that he had a serious conflict of interest.
You see, the prosecutor, a man named Evan Siebert, father-in-law, that is his wife's father, was the godfather to former FBI director James Comey's daughter.
Interestingly enough, the same individual, prosecutor Siebert's father-in-law, had represented Comey as a private attorney, a stunning conflict of interest that meant that Siebert should have recused himself from this case.
Although Siebert was technically appointed U.S. attorney by President Trump, it was done with the acquiescence of the two senators, Senator Kaine and Senator Warner.
That makes his appointment suspicious to begin with.
And then when the Senate declined to confirm Siebert, he was confirmed by the federal judges in that district.
Well, if the Democrat appointed judges like you and the two Democrat senators like you, that it means that you are a partisan prosecutor.
The president fired Mr. Siebert and he appointed Lindsay Halligan, who came off the White House staff where she was an attorney.
Now, Lindsay Halligan is extremely attractive, and some in the low-rent media have gone to calling her a beauty queen.
Others say that she is, quote, just an insurance lawyer.
In fact, she graduated summa cum laude from college.
She was first in her law class, and she rose to be the partner of the civil division of a major, major Florida law firm where she supervised all of their real estate and mortgage activity.
So she was actually an excellent prosecutor.
She took the case of Letitia James to the grand jury, a simple case of mortgage fraud.
If you can read, you can go to whitecollarfraud.com.
There's a great body of research there, but it is abundantly clear that Letitia James, while a resident of the state of New York, obtained a favorable mortgage rate, insurance rate, and tax rate on a mortgage in Virginia by signing a sworn declaration that says she would inhabit the property and that she was a, that would be her principal legal resident.
That is a crime.
It's an open and shut crime.
This was a documents case, and Lindsay Halligan took it to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia.
And there was an indictment on every count.
There are multiple counts of lying under oath.
What I was accused of in the Congress, even though the misstatements I made before Congress were immaterial, and therefore there was no intent.
In this case, Letitia James knew exactly what she was doing.
Then, of course, three federal judges, a Clinton appointee and two Obama appointees, threw that case out, not based on the merits or any judgment of the case itself, but on a technicality in which they wrongly ruled that Lindsay Halligan had been improperly appointed to the position of interim U.S. attorney.
That could go to appeal, but by the time Halligan would be reinstated on appeal, there'd be 60 days left on her 120-day term, and this case would have been dismissed.
Very clever how the judges did that.
I have a major expedite coming on how the three Democrat judges in charge of both the Comey and James case violated the law and the Constitution and the canon of ethics to reach a political decision.
Now, the Justice Department, in my view, sandbagged Lindsay Halligan in that first trial by giving her no resources.
And I find it disturbing that the prosecutor who took it back to the grand jury for re-indictment on the same issues, a person named Keller, was reportedly handpicked by the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch.
So I think we were sandbagged here.
This was an easy indictment to win, but the grand jury did not return it.
If you go right now to whitecollarfraud.com, there's a terrific analysis because grand juries come and grand juries go, but the documents just don't lie.
The documents here, by the way, are all matters of public record, meaning anybody with half a brain and a laptop can see that Letitia James has a 43-year history of mortgage fraud.
She's a one-woman crime spree.
Every property she's ever purchased, she violated crimes.
In the first home she bought, she claimed falsely that her father was her husband in order to use his balance sheet to obtain the mortgage.
Yet on the deed for the actual property, she correctly reflected that the co-owners were daughter and father.
That's a fraud.
In another instance, she qualified for a very special type of loan for an investment property.
It was called a hemp loan, hemp loan, pardon me.
But by law, the rental unit that you're buying had to be four units or less.
That's what Letitia James said her property had in her mortgage application.
Unfortunately, it had five units, and she knew that.
This is just the second example.
Her financial disclosure forms are a disaster.
She actually reports mortgages that don't exist.
She fails to report mortgages in question here that do exist.
On various years, she shows rental income from her allegedly rental properties.
Other years, she says it's not a rental property.
I'm not sure who prepared these forms, but I would fire them.
But now the question is, what happens next?
I think it is unlikely that the Department of Justice seeks to re-indict Letitia James on these particular charges.
And I think they would undermine an effort to do so again, as I think they have done so.
Why they don't want to pursue this case is a bit of a mystery to me because Letitia James herself, as the New York Attorney General, has prosecuted many people for the exact same crime that she now stands accused of.
But here's the good news, and that is in terms of those who are for accountability and justice.
I believe there's a high probability that Letitia James will be charged with bribery in the northern district of New York.
I believe that there's also a case to be made that she knew about and covered up claims of child sex trafficking and human trafficking in a Bronx operation operating out of a public restaurant and club.
Those complaints went to her office and they seem to have disappeared.
Could it be because the owners and those involved in this trafficking operation are major donors to Letitia James, the New York Attorney General?
Something a grand jury should certainly be looking at.
And then there's the question of how she financed her path to the Attorney General's office.
We understand that she ran on the platform of elect me and I will get Donald Trump.
That would be prior to her having any evidence of wrongdoing on his part.
Then, of course, she fabricates an extraordinary case under a law in which no one has ever been prosecuted in New York State, in which she claims ludicrously that Donald Trump inflated the value of his assets in order to obtain commercial development loans, which he paid back in full and on time, and from which the lenders made $40 million in interest.
She fails to mention that every one of the lenders, banks, use their own due diligence and do their own examination of the value of the assets.
No one, of course, would take the property owner's claim because it's always going to be higher than market.
So Trump defrauded no one.
That's an extraordinary case now on appeal.
She won an enormous judgment.
The judgment is stayed.
It remains to be seen how Trump's lawyers handle this going forward, but I think there's a high probability that that fine will disappear.
Just as I believe that there's a very high probability that the E. Gene Carroll sexual assault case against Trump will ultimately be reversed.
This one is interesting.
The New York state legislator, a cabal of left-wing Democrats coached by George Conway, the former conservative, now Democrat activist lawyer.
I think he may be transitioning.
I saw him on TV last night.
He looks terrible.
But he persuaded the legislature to pass a bill that extended the statue of limitations in New York State against sexual, specifically for sexual assault.
That was how Eugene Carroll, a woman who comes across as crazy, if you ask me, filed claims that Donald Trump assaulted and raped her in the women's changing room in Bergdorf-Goodman on Fifth Avenue.
She was claiming she was wearing a designer dress.
I think it was by Diane von Furstenberg.
That's how she remembered so well.
There was only one problem.
On the date in question, that dress had not yet been produced or marketed.
This is the same woman, E. Jean Carroll, who in an interview on CNN told Anderson Cooper she thought that the whole concept of rape was sexy.
By the way, she has a long history of accusing men of sexual assault.
Little did the Democrats know that they would get Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Andrew Cuomo in that same snare because women came forward and filed sexual assault cases against them as well.
That case will ultimately also be overturned on appeal, in my opinion.
She provided no physical evidence.
All we had were her claims.
But we had a liberal Democrat judge.
You see, when you have a left-wing activist judge, whether it's at the federal or state level, the Constitution, the law, the rules, the evidence, the precedence, none of these things matter.
When you have a politically motivated prosecutor working with a judge who is philosophically and politically in the tank, anything can happen.
And we saw it in all three cases in New York.
The third case against Donald Trump, the so-called hush money case, is also an absurdity.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, couldn't even define the underlying crime.
So he details all these financial transfers, but he cannot say for the grand jury what crime has been convicted.
It's not a campaign finance crime.
So that case will also ultimately be overturned.
This is what's called lawfare.
They went after Donald Trump and they fabricated all of these charges.
Manipulating Crime Statistics00:04:32
But now when there's actual evidence of wrongdoing by Letitia James, well, no, this is about retaliation and revenge and Trump's just trying to hurt his enemies.
Anybody who sat through those trials or the coverage of those trials in New York, or who remembers how the FBI violently raided Donald Trump's palatial home in Palm Beach, Mar-Lago, with FBI agents rooting through Melania's panty draw, knows what really happened here.
I'm Roger Stone.
You're listening to the Stone Zone, and we'll be back with more about Letitia James and whether we're ever going to get accountability and justice for those who committed horrendous crimes against Donald Trump and his supporters.
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.
The Stone Zone, entertaining and informative, on the Red Apple Podcast Network.
And we're back.
Still, I find it stunning that the supposedly inexperienced Lindsey Halligan, who's never been a prosecutor, got an indictment from a grand jury against Letitia James on all counts, while an experienced career prosecutor assigned to the case by the Justice Department in Washington could not secure an indictment.
Can you say sandbagged?
In any event, as the listeners of the Stone Zone know, we have long predicted what would happen if New York City elected progressive jihadi mayor Zoran Mamdami, the Ayatollah, as I called him.
I know what the end result is of his soft on-crime, high-tax, redistribute the wealth policies.
And now it is beginning to manifest itself.
New York City Mayor-elect Zoran Miamdami, who, by the way, has raised millions of dollars from special interests for his transition.
So much for this being a people's movement, has stated that the city will no longer conduct sweeps of homeless encampments when he gets to be mayor.
This will follow what has happened in cities like Portland, Oregon.
And in the name of humanitarian compassion, they essentially let vagrants, homeless people, run the streets.
As a result, in places like Portland, drug abuse has skyrocketed.
Parts of the city have been literally abandoned as the entire town devolves into a modern wasteland.
That is ultimately what will happen in New York if Miam Dami is allowed to implement his policies with no check from Albany or Washington.
We've already seen the results of cashless bail in New York City.
The New York City crime statistics as put forward by the New York City Police Department and submitted to the FBI are what my friends in law enforcement, the real professionals, call a fagazi, meaning that they've been manipulated to try to persuade you that crime is down by reclassifying certain crimes as what they are not.
There's a dozen ways to manipulate the crime statistics.
I have to get my friend, former New York police officer Sal Greco on the show to explain how crime is actually up in New York City, but how they've manipulated the facts.
I'm Roger Stone.
You're listening to The Stone Zone.
Three Corrupt Judges Submarine Comey Case00:15:01
When we come back, I'm going to tell you how three corrupt left-wing Democrat judges submarine the very legitimate case against FBI Director James Comey.
So don't go away.
We'll be right back.
The Stone Zone, entertaining and informative.
On the Red Apple Podcast Network.
Welcome back to the Stone Zone.
I mean, I lived in the Washington swamp for many years.
I'm a veteran of 13 national presidential campaigns, beginning with Richard Nixon, all the way through Ronald Reagan and culminating with perhaps the greatest of them all, Donald J. Trump.
I spent 50 years in the corroded rectum of the two-party system.
I've seen it all.
And now I'm going to tell you how three left-wing Democrat judges dismantled the federal indictment of FBI Director James Comey in an outrageous example of judicial overreach.
The American public expects prosecutors to prove cases and defendants to challenge them.
But in the case of United States versus James B. Comey, the former FBI director, something very different than that occurred.
A federal grand jury voted to indict the former FBI director on two felony counts.
And then three federal judges unraveled that indictment using conjecture, media narratives, personalized attacks on prosecutors, and procedural anomalies that would have had no precedent previously in federal criminal practice.
Together, everything that happened reveals a pattern of inconsistent, a pattern completely inconsistent with the concept of judicial neutrality.
These judges abandon their ethical obligations and they ignore the constitutional role of the grand jury.
First, there is Judge Michael Maknamoff.
He, of course, was appointed by Joe Biden.
He engaged in extraordinary bias, open admission that he was relying on the media to ascertain the facts of the case, and outright hostility towards the prosecutor, Lindsay Halligan.
Judge Nachmanoff began the case by introducing a loaded political framing of the U.S. attorney herself, Lindsay Halligan.
He said that she was a stalking horse, a puppet, or for a better word, doing the president's bidding.
Judge, you just revealed you're biased.
You must recuse yourself.
Had Halligan made that motion, of course, this judge would have declined.
Then the judge went on to rely on newspaper accounts instead of the actual evidence in front of him.
Nachmanoff, the judge, actually referenced specific stories and news reporting as the factual basis for his views.
This was reported that the president said the following.
The judge cannot rely on external reporting.
Canon 3 of federal judicial presence forbids it.
But this reporting shaped his skepticism towards the Department of Justice's independence, and he was so dumb he actually said it from the bench.
Can you say complaint to the Office of Professional Responsibility?
Then, of course, he continually interrupted the prosecutor, all those interruptions being one-sided.
So when prosecutors attempted to explain the internal process at the Department of Justice, the judge said, well, let me stop you right there.
The government was repeatedly interrupted.
The defense, Comey's lawyers, were never interrupted once in their arguments, not once.
Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor, was interrupted numerous times by this hack Democrat judge.
The government then filed a notice correcting the record after silencing the U.S. attorney and first misstating the record.
So in other words, the judge made a false statement regarding the case from the bench.
When Halligan tried respectively to correct the judge, he ordered her to sit down.
He was then compelled to file a notice correcting the record, basically admitting that his recounting of the facts before the grand jury had been factually wrong, biased.
Then, of course, the judge also pre-judged the prosecutorial independence.
Most concerning, I think, was his statement that he would struggle to find independence even if Halligan asserted it under oath.
Given the sequences of events in this short time, it would be very difficult for the court to make a finding of the true independence and objectivity of the prosecutor.
What about the independence of the judge?
The evidence in this case was overwhelming.
There's no question whatsoever that Comey made material statements under oath to Congress to hide his involvement in the Russian collusion hoax.
But it really didn't matter because the judge in this case was going to dismiss anyway.
Then there's Judge Cameron McGowan Curry.
She was an out-of-district intervention.
That's illegal.
She, again, she depended on the media and she made personal attacks on the prosecutor.
Senior Judge Cameron Curry of South Carolina was designated for a case, dismissed the indictment outright.
Her written opinion describes Halligan, the prosecutor, as a White House aide who has no prosecutorial experience.
That is prejudicial.
Also, she said there was not legal reasoning in her arguments in case.
That's character belittlement.
David Schoen, Alan Dershowitz, everyone who's examined this case says it has merit and it's open and shut.
But not when a left-wing Democrat judge is on the bench.
It is also interesting that Curry, the judge brought in from South Carolina, said that she relied on media reports to explain the facts of the case.
She said there was abundant newspaper reporting.
Once again, under the canon of ethics, they're not allowed to make assumptions based on media points.
Cases must be ruled by either evidence submitted to the court or sworn testimony.
So in other words, a judge from another state was brought in to overturn a Virginia indictment.
There's really no explanation as to why a dispositive constitutional motion in the Eastern District of Virginia was routed to a judge hundreds of miles away for a decision.
This creates the unmistakable abhorrence of forum shopping.
This is about as likely as the spin of the wheel giving Judge Boesberg in D.C., the federal judge, every single case that has to do with Donald Trump.
Sorry, that defies the odds.
Why hasn't the Trump Justice Department asked the clerk of the D.C. courts to see the evidence of the selection, the random selection, which by law must be maintained?
But that, of course, hasn't happened.
You may remember when it was learned that Lisa Cole, I think her name was, who was a Federal Reserve Board governor, who had also cheated on her mortgage forms.
That case went to a federal judge.
It was assigned to a judge who was her sorority sister.
Once again, the clerk of the D.C. courts should be asked to prove the judge was picked on a random basis as required by law.
So this case of Comey just continues to shock me.
Now you have forum shopping.
Federal courts take extraordinary care normally to avoid even the appearance of judge shopping, especially in a highly charged, politically sensitive case like this.
That was not the case in this case, however.
A dispositive ruling in a high-profile criminal case was made outside the district by a judge who was brought in by the federal judges, by a judge with no connection to the venue, with no record explanation for why this assignment was made, and no indication why the presiding judge ever had even reviewed the grand jury evidence.
There's no evidence that the judges looked at the grand jury evidence.
Because they had predecided to dismiss this case.
Also, by the way, the judge dismissed the indictment against James Comey, contrary to all legal precedents.
Curry quoted the United States versus Calandra, a very famous case, saying the validity of indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence.
She then dismissed the indictment based on the character of the evidence, evidenced by her own admission, she had never even examined.
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick was the third of the three Musketeers.
This guy is just as crooked as the other two.
I think he distorted the facts in this case.
You hear from the bench conjecture, a number of false statements, and other ethical breaches that violate the canon of ethics for a federal judge.
Of the judges involved, I think Judge Fitzpatrick's actions represent the most extreme departure from our normal judicial standards.
His rulings were built on altered transcript context, inverted suspicion, and full disregard for sworn clarifications.
The government explains that Fitzpatrick did not simply misinterpret Halligan's instructions, he rearranged them for the jury.
He splits what was a single continuous statement into two at one point, I read it, creating a meaning not present in the actual text of what Halligan submitted.
In other words, he rewrote her proposal.
He took one uninterrupted instruction and treated it as several parts of an independent document, essentially manufacturing complete confusion.
The admitted part of the instructions for the jury was dispositive.
It proved that the prosecutor acted incorrectly.
In filings, Lindsay Halligan emphasized the gravity of what Fitzpatrick had excluded from her filings.
The portion that Fitzpatrick omitted was dispositive of whether the prosecutor acted correctly, showing she gave whether or not Halligan had given the jury correct legal instructions, meaning she rewrote the Fitzpatrick rewrote the judge's motion that would go to the jury to undermine her, and he also put words in her mouth.
Judge Fitzpatrick's conclusions would be called distorted and unsound by the high-level lawyer I had read the transcript.
The government's language is unequivocal.
Prosecutor said that they relied on the signed documents in the case.
The judge said that that analysis was unsound.
Once again, demonstration of bias.
And he factually reconstructed the government's own submissions in the case.
There's so many violations here that it's hard to believe.
Canon 2A speaks to the integrity and avoidance of speculation.
All three of these judges speculated from the bench.
Canon 3A, part 4, says findings must be based only on the record.
In other words, you can't rely on news reports.
You must rely on the actual documents in the case.
The judges here didn't do so.
The missing minutes theory was false.
That was contradicted by the transcript.
Judge Fitzpatrick suggested that a gap in the transcript of Lindsay Halligan's presentation to the grand jury was somehow nefarious and claimed falsely that she had never presented two of the 12 counts against Comey to the grand jury.
That was false, but he speculated about it from the bench.
So if you wonder why FBI Director James Comey was able to lie to Congress regarding material matters, lie repeatedly about whether he had leaked or ordered others to leak classified documents to the New York Times, don't look to this case as the adjudicator of whether or not that happened.
The manner in which this case was dismissed violates everything we know about our legal system.
And it is analogous to what happened in the case of New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The other thing that happened here that I found shocking was the judge in the Comey case ordered unprecedented disclosure of grand jury materials.
Based on that distorted foundation, he ordered all grand jury materials, including the audio.
This is a breach of secrecy that was later stayed by a higher court for lacking actual grounding.
So the fix was in on the Comey case, just as the fix was in on the Letitia Brown case.
But my question going forward really is a broader one.
In the larger case of the largest single dirty trick in American history, the abuse of power and the seditious conspiracy behind the Russian collusion hoax, two false impeachments, the January 6 hoax, the so-called documents hoax, and this tsunami of law fare in New York State.
Is anyone going to be held accountable?
Now that all the documents have been declassified, showing the criminal actions of people like Brennan and Comey and Clapper and James and Adam Schiff and others, will anybody be held accountable?
Will we see justice?
I'm Roger Stone.
You're listening to the Stone Zone and we'll be right back.
The Stone Zone.
Entertaining and informative.
On the Red Apple Podcast Network.
Welcome back to the Stone Zone.
I was reviewing the outrageous judicial decisions.
Judicial Dismantling00:05:05
First, the decision to dismiss the case against former FBI Director James Comey, then yesterday, the failure of a grand jury to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James.
These indictments didn't fail.
They were dismantled over and over again.
The record shows.
The bench was working harder.
The judges were working harder than the defense to find reasons to doubt the case.
In some cases, the judge volunteered new theories, new suspicions, new obstacles.
The defense then adopted, rather than simply refereeing a fierce contest between the prosecution and the defense, the judges appeared as just another member of the prosecution team.
Exactly what happened in my trial.
This case against Comey, as well as the case against James, didn't collapse because of evidentiary weakness.
They both collapsed because of outright judicial bias.
At key moments, the judges themselves seem to be generating more attacks on the case and the prosecutor than the hapless Abby Lowell offered on behalf of his client, Letitia James, supplying new doubts instead of simply weighing the ones already raised in the legal filings.
Again, this wasn't a judicial review.
This was a judicial dismantling.
If judicial integrity matters, if what happens, of course, matters in the United States, then this case deserves far more scrutiny.
But more importantly, it remains to be seen whether we will have justice in the greatest crime of the century.
Because there is no question now, based on the documents declassified by the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that there was a seditious conspiracy that began on April 17th, pardon me, April 12th, 2016, to fabricate a narrative against Donald Trump to claim that his campaign was waged with the assistance of Russian intelligence.
And we know definitively that they used two pieces of completely fabricated evidence to make that case.
The Steele dossier, which the FBI and the DOJ knew was unreliable, knew had been fabricated and paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign.
This was a report that claimed that Donald Trump had partied with Russian prostitutes when he visited Moscow as a private businessman.
It was a total fraud.
And then the false claim that the Russians hacked the DNC, and they gave that sensitive information about the Democrats and Hillary Clinton to WikiLeaks.
And to this day, no one can produce any forensic evidence that proves that the Democrat National Committee was the target of an online hack by the Russians or anyone else.
In fact, all of the forensic evidence shows that the data stolen from DNC was downloaded to hard drives and taken out the back door.
How do we know that?
We know that from the time of the download, the timing of the download.
So they used those two fraudulent claims to claim that Donald Trump had engaged with the Russians.
Later, they would say Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, shared sensitive polling information with a Russian intelligence asset, except for the man they claim that Manafort shared data with, Konstantin Kalimit, has now been proven to be a U.S. intelligence asset.
So will these people start at the top?
Obama, Biden, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, the ringleader, CIA director John Brennan, admitted communist, Islamic convert, James Comey, again, the FBI director, Andrew McCabe, his henchman, Robert Mueller himself, although he'll probably use an insanity defense at this point,
epically corrupt prosecutor Andrew Weissman.
Will any of these people who engage in unconstitutional and illegal activities in order to execute a coup be prosecuted?
It began in the Oval Office, but the seditious conspiracy continues through two fraudulent impeachments in which the two Vindman brothers show up and lie about what they heard on a phone call in the Ukrainian impeachment.
It goes on to the January 6th nonsense and then the raid on Mar-a-Lago at Trump's home.
I say it is time for justice.
If we don't hear something from the Southern District of Florida where jurisdiction is, other than the fact that there were some subpoenas announced months ago, then many people in the MAGA movement are going to lose faith.
Me?
I'm praying for justice and accountability.
Thanks for joining us today in the Stone Zone.
I'm Roger Stone.
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.
Stone Zone Update00:00:52
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.
At Manhattan University, a graduate degree is not out of reach.
You'll gain real-world skills, credentials, employers' value, and connections to New York City's top companies.
Choose from their new Master of Science degrees in healthcare, informatics, digital marketing, and analytics, business analytics, or financial analytics.
All built around hands-on learning and industry partnerships.
Graduate ready to lead, not just work.
Take the next step at manhattan.edu/slash graduate.