Roger Stone hosts "The Stone Zone," dissecting the Mar-a-Lago raid, which he claims was an unconstitutional FBI operation under code-name "Plasmic Echo" driven by DOJ pressure and CREW agitation. The episode covers Trump's Supreme Court defense of his birthright citizenship executive order against "birth tourism" from China, his potential NATO withdrawal, and the "No Kings" protests as NGO-funded "AstroTurf." Concluding with support for new mail-in ballot controls to curb fraud, Stone argues these events reveal a coordinated effort to undermine American sovereignty and electoral integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
Listen to this podcast now on the Red Apple Podcast Network.
Why is the middle class shrinking?
Why are people facing an affordability crisis while marginalized individuals called informals grow in numbers?
Join me as I travel the world, speaking with people living in invisibility, the leaders working to solve it, and uncovering the hard truths shaping our economy and daily reality.
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.
You are now diving headlong into the deep end of the Stone Zone.
You know, there are moments in life of a republic when the veil slips, when the carefully curated facade of... institutional integrity gives way to something far more unsettling.
The raid on then former president and current president Donald J. Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was one of those examples.
This was not a mere law enforcement action.
This was a rupture.
And now documents have been uncovered that reveal even within the FBI, there were grave doubts about the legal foundation for that extraordinary intrusion, doubts that were brushed aside by Joe Biden's Department of Justice, determined to proceed.
At the heart of the matter lies Plasmic Echo.
That's the code name for the FBI's secret investigation into Trump's alleged mishandling of presidential documents.
Now, the Presidential Records Act essentially allows a current or former president to declassify and retain any document.
So one wonders what this entire case was really about.
And now, according to internal communications recently uncovered, the FBI's Washington Fields Office explicitly stated.
That it did not believe that probable cause existed to justify a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago.
Now let that sink in for a moment.
The agents on the ground, the professionals entrusted with the solemn responsibility of safeguarding our constitutional rights, concluded that the legal threshold had not been met for the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
Yet the Department of Justice pressed forward regardless, culminating in an unprecedented raid on the home of a former president.
Having had my own home raided by the FBI, having FBI agents go through my wife's underwear draw the same way that they went through First Lady Melania Trump's, I can understand the feeling of violation that the president and his wife must have felt.
Now, one is compelled to ask, since when does the absence of probable cause become a mere inconvenience?
These bombshell internal emails from mid-July of 2020 revealed that the FBI personnel questioned the justification for searching not only Trump's residence broadly, but even specific areas such as his bedroom and his office.
Concerns were raised about the distinction between boxes of documents and genuinely classified material, as well as the recency of the alleged issues.
These were not fringe objections.
They were formal, now documented and emphatic, and still the Biden Department OF Justice moved forward.
Even more damning is the revelation that FBI officials repeatedly proposed less confrontational alternatives.
They suggested contacting trump or his legal counsel directly.
They floated the possibility of a consensual search.
They even recommended seeking a renewed referral from the National Archives.
Each of those options, which would have preserved both the dignity of the office and the integrity of the law, was brushed aside.
They were all rejected.
Why?
That's because this entire investigation, part of Arctic Frost, was an extra constitutional effort to get Donald Trump.
On August 4th, 2022, email provides more chilling evidence.
A senior FBI official expressed concern. over the DOJ's handling of pre search communications, quoting a Department of Justice official who said, frankly, I don't give a damn about the optics.
Such cavalier disregard for the perception of justice is not merely unseemly, to me it seems corrosive.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
When those entrusted with this execution dismiss optics entirely, they invite the very suspicious that now engulfs this entire case.
The origins of this investigation are now equally revealing.
Plasmic Echo, you wonder who comes up with these names, was opened as a sensitive investigative matter, or SIM, on February 11, 2022, following coordination between FBI headquarters, the deputy director, the Office of General Counsel of the FBI, and the Department of Justice.
Among those involved were senior counterintelligence division officials.
You see, by declaring this a SIM, a sensitive investigative matter, they were able to keep it all secret.
Yet, what catalyzed this extraordinary mobilization of federal power?
Not solely internal deliberations, but external agitation.
There's actually a letter from an activist organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
By the way, they always are engaged in the exact opposite of what their name says.
This is Norm Eisen's left wing quasi legal group that was agitating for the removal of Donald Trump under the fake.
Russian collusion hoax, but their letter somehow got routed directly to the case file and was acted upon within days.
The implication here is unmistakable.
Left-leaning advocacy groups were not merely spectators, but they were actually participants in the genesis of a federal investigation targeting a former president.
That's a very dangerous precedent.
Compounding those concerns were indications of media entanglements.
Months before the raid, a reporter from the Washington Post sought confirmation for a tip that he got that the FBI had begun interviewing individuals within Trump's orbit about his retention of presidential documents.
The inquiry was logged by the FBI's Public Affairs Office, underscoring the extent to which the investigation had already seeped or been injected into the press ecosystem.
Whether through leaks or strategic disclosures, the narrative was already being shaped in real time.
In the dissonance that is most striking on one hand, field agents raise legitimate legal concerns about Probable cause.
On the other hand, the Cedar leadership projecting unwavering confidence in the propriety of their actions.
This is not merely a difference of opinion, it's a chasm.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said it best today the FBI and the Justice Department must go all out to release the nearly 2 million secret FBI and DOJ files on the lawfare against President Trump and whatever else the Obama and Biden gangs don't want the American people to know.
And therein lies the ultimate question.
If the process was as pristine as the defenders claim, why the resistance to full transparency?
Why are these documents still classified and sealed?
Why the hesitation to allow the American people to examine in exhaustive detail what actions were taken that justified the raid on a former president's home?
In a constitutional republic, power must answer to the people.
And when it doesn't, when it cloaks itself in secrecy while dismissing its own internal warnings, it ceases to be a guardian of liberty and becomes something else entirely, something far more dangerous.
We'll be following this question extraordinarily carefully.
The Supreme Court today heard arguments on the question of birthright citizenship.
That is based in the 14th Amendment, the law that holds that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen.
President Donald Trump questioned that in executive order during his first term, an executive order that was struck down by the courts.
Now he has formally questioned it.
person born on U.S. soil must be a U.S. citizen in order for the newborn to be a U.S. citizen.
Peace Through Strength Strategy00:05:30
Later on in the show, Don Brown, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, Navy JAG officer, and Pentagon counsel, also a nationally recognized legal and national security analyst, is going to join us for a breakdown of today's hearing and that entire issue.
You're going to want to definitely hang on for that.
Meanwhile, President Trump announced Tuesday that the U.S. military operations in Iran dubbed Operation Epic Fury, are nearing a successful conclusion, with a withdrawal expected within two to three weeks, or possibly sooner.
As I've said here in the Stone Zone multiple times, Donald Trump was elected as an anti-war president, and our actions in Iran are not a continuation of the endless foreign war, boots on the ground, massive U.S. casualties, and multi-billion dollar payday for the defense contractors.
They are something very different.
The projected limited but incredibly lethal use of American power.
Not since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were steering our foreign policy has any president used the combination of military strength, economic persuasion and pressure, and diplomatic efforts to run their foreign policy.
Speaking to reporters after signing a new election integrity order, President Trump made clear that the mission so far has achieved its Primary objective, which was always stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Just to be clear, that has been Donald Trump's position since 1988.
That's when I first urged him to get serious about running for president.
He has said it throughout his public career, and therefore there should be no surprise that he took the action in Iran that he did.
The president also underscored his commitment to putting American interests first, signaling that responsibility for securing the strategically vital Hormuz Straits from which at least 20 percent of the world's energy must float,
will soon shift over to other nations that rely far more heavily on the region's oil flow than we do, as the conflict has shown us that our European so-called allies in NATO will not have our backs when it most matters.
President Trump pointed out that maintaining constant U.S. involvement in such hot spots is neither sustainable nor necessary nor the aim of his administration.
President Trump stated we're finishing the job, noting that remaining operations will target key infrastructure to insure lasting stability and deterrence.
At the same time, President Trump left the door open for a negotiated settlement.
Always the businessman, remember the art of the deal.
suggesting that Iran could avoid further strikes by coming to the table.
Early reports indicate that commercial shipping is already resuming through the strait, a sign that U.S. efforts have restored a level of order in the region, and the U.S. efforts are, pardon me, and the president is planning to address the nation tonight, actually, at 9 p.m. to fully outline his plans regarding Iran, with victory secured and only a small amount of work remaining to ensure that they will not be a threat moving forward.
I said from the beginning that I supported the president's effort, even though I'm, like him, an anti-interventionist republic.
But I also don't think that this effort was going to be ongoing.
The slight increase in oil prices will be worth the cost of not allowing the lunatics in Tehran to have a nuclear weapon.
I believe, as I said earlier, this is peace through strength, not endless foreign war.
Peace through strength is when you use American power in a limited but purposeful way.
Thanks for joining us in the Stone Zone.
I'm Roger Stone, and we'll be right back on The Other Side.
This is the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
He likes politics, and he's a professional at the highest level.
Roger Stone.
Where's Roger?
Let Century Management Solutions get you to your next medical appointment.
They specialize in non-emergency medical transportation, connecting patients to care, safety, reliability, and on time.
Their advanced technology platform seamlessly coordinates patients, healthcare providers, insurers, and transportation partners all in one powerful network.
With over 200 trusted transportation providers, they deliver scalable solutions backed by real-time tracking and complete transparency.
Go to SENTRYMS.com.
This is the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
Roger Stone, who's a very, very, one of the smartest political minds.
Roger Stone was persecuted.
People forget he's actually a brilliant, brilliant political analyst.
Now, get in the zone.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
Separation of Powers Crisis00:15:36
Well, in a historic first, President Donald Trump... appeared in person at the Supreme Court of the United States today as his administration defended efforts to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
The case centers on President Trump's executive order challenging erroneous interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which have been widely used to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
This has created a birth tourism racket that has led to a demographic overthrow of the country.
The administration correctly notes that this policy has been abused for decades and was never intended to apply broadly to those in the country unlawfully.
During two hours of oral arguments, liberal justices raised concerns about how such a policy would be enforced in practice.
However, conservative justices signaled a willingness to revisit the issue.
Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that the amendment was originally designed to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves.
not necessarily to create a blanket policy covering modern immigration scenarios.
President Trump, seated in the front row alongside senior officials, did not speak during the proceedings, but later criticized the current policy, calling the United States the only country allowing such ridiculous and expansive citizenship rules.
The case represents a long overdue effort to restore the original meaning of the Constitution and to secure America's borders.
Critics, meanwhile, claim it would upend decades of precedent.
A final ruling is expected.
Just around the corner, Don Brown, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, Navy JAG officer, and Pentagon counsel, is going to join us to help break this issue down even further.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has signaled that NATO may have outlived its usefulness and that the U.S. should consider pulling out of it entirely.
Well, I've said this for some time.
Now Donald Trump is saying it, indicating that is exactly what he's working on.
In a recent interview, Trump blasted the NATO alliance as a paper tiger, signaling he's seriously considering a U.S. withdrawal after real frustration with our European allies reached a boiling point.
While the United States has long shouldered the burden of defending its allies, from Ukraine to the broader European security, Trump made clear that that commitment must be a two-way street.
Now, when America called for assistance in the war in Iran, many of our key allies declined, refusing military cooperation and even denied access to some of their key bases.
That reluctance, critics say, exposes a fundamental imbalance in NATO, one where U.S. taxpayers fund global security while other nations hesitate when it matters most.
In that interview, President Trump also took direct aim at European leadership, including the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of prioritizing costly green energy policies over military readiness.
The President's broader message is absolutely clear.
Allies who depend on American strength must be willing to stand alongside it when we need them.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed that sentiment, warning that NATO's future must and will be revaluated if it fails to support the U.S.'s strategic needs.
As tensions rise abroad, the debate at home is really sharpening.
Should America continue to carry the world on its shoulders, or should we start demanding accountability from those who rely on us?
This isn't isolationism.
It's just common sense.
NATO needs to straighten up or be tossed into the ash bin of history.
I think Donald Trump is on the right track here.
Thanks for joining us today on the Stone Zone.
When we come back, Don Brown, former federal prosecutor, Navy JAG officer, Pentagon counsel, a recognized expert on constitutional and military law, as well as geopolitical affairs. is going to join us for a breakdown on the debate over birthright citizenship that was before the U.S. Supreme Court today.
You're listening to The Stone Zone.
Please don't touch that dial.
This is The Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
Roger Stone, who's a very, very, one of the smartest political minds.
Roger Stone was persecuted.
People forget he's actually a brilliant.
Brilliant political analyst.
Now, get him his own.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
Welcome back into the Stone Zone.
Joining me now is a man for whom I have enormous personal respect.
Don Brown is a former U.S. federal prosecutor, Navy JAG officer, and Pentagon counsel, but he's also a nationally recognized legal and national security analyst with extensive experience in constitutional law, military law, and geopolitical affairs.
If you haven't read his best-selling book, Kangaroo Court, let me strongly recommend it to you.
I'm really honored to have you with us today.
Don Brown, welcome into the Stone Zone.
I appreciate the plug on Kangaroo Court.
By the way, I have the personal thank you note you wrote me when you read the book, and I keep it in my jacket all the time as a personal inspiration.
So you're an inspiration to me, too, and I appreciate being here today.
Very, very kind of you to join us.
So, what did you make of the arguments before the Supreme Court here?
First, let's kind of set the table.
Birthright citizenship is essentially the concept that says that any Individual born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizenship.
It's, according to many on the left, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868.
This was primarily intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War and after the overturn of the Dred Scott decision.
But as I said earlier, it's turned into something very different.
We have a booming, booming tourism.
Industry here in which people come to the country so that their children will be U.S. citizens entitled to the rights and privileges thereof.
You're right, Roger, and the booming tourism industry you're referring to is largely from communist China, and it's a big problem.
But it really goes back to the Congress's attempt to deal with the issue of the children of slaves at the end of the Civil War.
And of course, the citizenship clause is put initially into the 14th Amendment.
And the author, the principal author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, who was a personal friend of Lincoln, said in the congressional record that citizenship was only to be granted to children of emancipated slaves for that generation.
American Indians were specifically excluded, and the language had to do with the reference language, all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction or, But actually, the Civil Rights Act, just two years before that, 1868, was even stricter on limiting birthright citizenship and used the phrase children born not subject to any foreign power.
And so it was pretty clear in the early days, and especially after the 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, that just anyone born here of illegal parents don't get the right of citizenship.
And this was a case up until 1898, there was a case called Wong.
Wong Kim Ark, which is discussed today in the argument, I'll list the entire argument, by the way, which had a distinction.
There were two Chinese folks who were living in San Francisco legally.
They were legal residents of the United States, gave birth to a son, and the court in that case allowed, said that kid has citizenship because his parents had legal residence.
Now, Roger, that's different from illegal aliens who come across the board.
The border, who don't have any legal residence rights at all, the Won Kim Ark case was a limited situation.
But the left and leftist courts have taken and drove a Mack truck through it and tried to expand it all the way.
It really got expanded to outright birthright citizenship under the FDR administration when the State Department began to push that narrative.
And the Trump administration is right on mark to try to come back to an original intent interpretation, and we'll see what happens.
So, you sat through today's hearing.
How did the U.S. solicitor John Sauer do in his arguments, in your view?
I think he did a really good job.
The only thing, and it's easier to play armchair quarterback, Roger, the only thing I wish he'd done differently.
There was a question, it may have been from Justice Gorsuch.
Do you want us, you asked us to reverse Wong Kim Ark?
And I think at one point he said yes.
Actually, I don't think you need a reversal of Wong Kim Ark.
I think you simply need a clarification of it.
But I think the justice were able to see through that.
They asked the ACLU attorney a number of times, why is it that the court in Wong Kim Ark kept using the phrase domicile, domicile, domicile, domicile, in fact, 20 times, you know?
And you can't have domicile, really, if you're here illegally because you're subject to being arrested.
And the conservative justice kept driving that point home.
But other than that, I thought it did an excellent job.
The briefings were excellent, and we'll see how the court comes down on it.
I mean, am I wrong, or could this case fundamentally change how citizenship is defined in the United States?
Well, sure.
And of course, to be clear, Roger, the Trump administration is attempting to secure this interpretation to end birthright citizenship moving forward.
And the birthright citizenship will be moving forward for those children born of illegal parents.
If one parent is here legally, That doesn't even necessarily mean citizenship.
And that's what happened with Juan Camarque.
The parents were here legally.
They were legal residents, but not citizens.
They were here legally, and they got citizenship.
But we have so many that have no claim to citizenship at all, at least the parents don't.
And so, moving forward, if the court adopts the administration's argument, folks who are born to parents who are not here in the United States legally would no longer have the automatic right to citizenship.
It is not retroactive.
So, Anyone who has been recognized as being a U.S. citizen under the interpretation of the Juan Kamarck case, which I think is wrong, would maintain that citizenship status.
It would simply change moving forward, and I think it needs to happen.
So basically, you're arguing, and I agree, that the courts have overstepped their authority in this matter for decades, which is part of a broader pattern of judicial overreach that we see across the board in America today.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
And And not just the courts, but the Roosevelt administration began pushing this birthright citizenship thing.
And now what you're having is you're having certain courts latching on to those cases and interpreting them in a different way.
But if you think about it, Roger, from a common sense standpoint, none of the nations of Europe have birthright citizenship.
The principal argument, really, that the ACLU was making today was that Britain once had it.
You know, if you were born on British soil, you were deemed to be a citizen of the sovereign.
But Britain has changed that now.
But to the courts overstepping, you're absolutely correct.
We've got a problem.
In this country, with these Article III courts, these federal district courts just overstepping the authority.
When you go back to Federalist 78, when Alexander Hamilton wrote to the states to try to persuade them to adopt the Constitution, the states were afraid, Roger.
One of the biggest fears they had was judges acting as tyrants, wearing black robes to try to legislate and serve as the executive.
And Alexander Hamilton said a couple of things we ought to take heed of from Federalist 78.
One, that the judiciary is to be by far the weakest branch of government.
So, the Supreme Court was put down below the other two branches.
And then, of course, he also said that you don't have to worry because judges don't have the authority to issue injunctions against either the legislative or the executive.
And the Constitution clearly gives the authority for immigration and naturalization to the legislature and to the executive and not to the courts.
The courts have overstepped.
I believe we need a Judicial Separation of Powers Act to basically clip the wings of any court trying to step in and meddle.
In issues concerning immigration and naturalization and the United States military.
I think that is long overdue.
Congress has the power to do it.
The question is do they have the guts to do it?
I wondered if you had a view on this decision by a D.C. judge halting the construction of the ballroom that President Trump is building within the White House compound, the White House Executive Office compound in Washington, D.C.
Sure, it's a separation of powers issue, Roger.
You know, the Constitution divides our government into three branches.
The Supreme Court is a branch of government.
But the executive has the authority to operate within the agencies under the executive.
And that's what this is.
And so to have a judge step over and to insert that court into the decision making of the President of the United States on an executive matter, on an administrative matter, essentially, is judicial overreach and is a violation of the time honored doctrine of separation of powers.
These federal judges, Roger, have got to be brought under control.
Congress has the ability to do it.
I saw the other day that we had defunded the immigration court in San Francisco.
Because they've gone out of control with so many very, very liberal decisions.
Congress has the ability to ring these judges in.
The question is, will they do it?
But it's a separation of powers problem.
Yeah, this is a long pattern.
First, we found some obscure New York best court that actually rules that the President of the United States doesn't have the authority to negotiate a tariff agreement with another country.
I mean, where do they come up with this stuff?
It is really quite extraordinary.
The president seems to have won more than his share of these cases before the Supreme Court, but it is clearly that they're running a game of judicial tyranny.
They lost the election.
The No Kings rally is kind of amusing.
Let me get this straight.
The party who nominated Kamala Harris, who didn't receive a single vote from not a single primary voter or caucus voter or delegate, she was just anointed, that party is calling Donald Trump, who won an election with a Record number of votes a king.
The whole thing seems upside down to me.
Mail Ballot Control Debate00:09:14
It is.
The Democrats, they call you what they are.
So they disagree with you politically, they call you a racist.
They are the party of tyranny themselves.
They say that you are a king.
If Donald Trump left the White House after the 2020 election, even though he won the election, in my view, and I've delved very deeply into that, if he were a king and a tyrant, he would have stayed in the White House and called it the National Guard.
But don't let the facts get in the way.
And I want to know, Roger, with regard to these No Kings protests, who is behind the funding of all this?
I mean, it's analogous to what we saw with all the George Floyd riots, and all of a sudden brickbats show up.
Now, we haven't seen brickbats so much, but somebody's paying for the signs and somebody's coordinating it.
Who's behind it, and what's their objective?
I think the people have a right to know.
Actually, I did a little research on this.
There are over 300 NGOs that were involved in the funding of the.
No Kings operation.
So the idea that this was some indigenous grassroots uprising, if you looked at them, the average age of the protesters was about 80.
A lot of them had pink hair.
But it is very clear that this was AstroTurf.
And I think I'm really very hopeful that JD Vance and the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Besson, who I think is Really, among the president's very best appointees, will get to the bottom of U.S. taxpayer financing of these completely political, non government organizations who they always have very highfalutin and And democratic sounding names,
but they're very rarely committed to the goals stated in their title.
How much of our money is going to subsidize people who are calling for violence against the United States?
We had a demonstrator in San Francisco, I believe it was, or to take it back, Los Angeles, who spray painted kill your local ICE agent on a federal building.
Who paid for that?
Who's paying for the flatbed trucks?
Who's paying for the buses?
Who's paying for the pallets of bricks?
Who's paying for the lawyers who immediately show to bail out the very few people who get arrested?
I really think it is essential the administration gets to the bottom of that.
This is not how the American taxpayers want their money spent.
There should be an aggressive investigation.
Elon Musk made the comment, or worse to this effect, that many of these NGOs basically are set up just to funnel federal tax dollars, our tax dollars, into leftist organizations.
We had a decision or a sentencing.
Decision came down from Minnesota yesterday in connection with this Somali food fraud case, where you have an umbrella NGO taking money from the Department of Agriculture.
And of the 79 defendants under that umbrella organization, 72 were Somali, and they're billing the federal government for meals and for catering services where there's no catering, they're just pocketing it all.
When we come back, I'm going to ask Don Brown about the executive order President Trump signed today in an effort to tighten the controls in. on mail-in ballots, a system long used by Democrats to cheat through ballot harvesting.
You're listening to The Stone Zone.
I'm talking to my friend Don Brown, and we'll be right back.
This is The Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
He likes politics, and he's a professional at the highest level.
Roger Stone.
Where's Roger?
This is the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.
Roger Stone, who's a very, very, one of the smartest political minds.
Roger Stone was persecuted.
People forget he's actually a brilliant, brilliant political analyst.
Now, get him a zone.
It's the Stone Zone.
Here's Roger Stone.
And we're back in the Stone Zone.
We're talking to Don Brown, former U.S. federal prosecutor, Navy JAG officer.
Pentagon counsel.
He's a nationally recognized legal and national security analyst with extensive experience in constitutional law, military law, and geopolitical affairs.
Don, you've done a lot of research and a lot of talking and writing about election integrity.
Today, the president took decisive action to restore confidence in our election, signing a new executive order aimed at tightening controls on mail-in balloting, a system that I think has long been used to To cheat the vote through ballot harvesting.
Speaking from the Oval Office, the president emphasized a core principle saying, if you don't have honest elections, you can't have a nation.
The order reflects the president's ongoing commitment to election integrity, a central issue that remained in the forefront of the MAGA movement since the famous election steal of 2020.
Now, under this law, the Department of Homeland Security will compile a verified list of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state.
Only individuals on the list will be permitted to cast absentee ballots.
Ensuring that ballots are tied directly to confirmed citizens.
And additionally, ballots would also feature secure envelopes with traceable barcodes.
My question, Don, is since the Election laws are generally done by the states.
Does the president have the authority under federal law to mandate this across the country?
Well, I believe so, and I'll tell you why.
First, you're correct, the Constitution contemplates that the states run their own elections at Article I.
But then we get into the issue of mail in ballots.
And mail in ballots, in my opinion, have been one of the most, one of the ripest cancers for voter fraud.
I have a friend of mine in Oregon, a Republican, who said, Well, mail in is easy.
You just drop in the mail.
And I said, Chip, I said, How many times have Republicans won since you guys in Oregon started that?
But that's beside the point.
The point here is when the Democrats began to push the concept of mail in ballots, what method did they use for the mail ins?
They used the United States Post Office.
Democrats brought the federal government into local and congressional and federal elections by using the post office as the means for delivering mail in votes and collecting them.
Who is the commander in chief and who is the head of the executive branch?
The post office is part, is under the executive branch.
The president of the United States has full authority to issue executive orders to agencies operating in the executive branch and therefore can and has signed an executive order to try to curtail fraudulent voting.
So the Democrats are going to come attack this, trying to use the argument that you suggested it should be vested with the states, but this is an executive order to a federal government.
Agency of the United States government, which doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights.
It's not an unconstitutional order.
What is unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens vote?
So I think the president is on solid legal ground here, and I think this is where you're going to see the issue break down.
But understand when I say breakdown, I mean this is where the line of demarcation is going to be between left and right when we get into the courts.
But what I told some of the folks on Newsmax today, I was discussing this earlier in another interview.
If you want to Deal with this problem altogether, then you end mail in voting altogether and end the post office's involvement, and then you don't have to worry about it.
But if you're going to bring the federal government in and bring a federal agency in, the president has the ability to issue executive orders that don't violate the law, and that's exactly what he's done here, in my opinion.
It astounds me that today there are 50 votes in the U.S. Senate for the Save Act, sometimes called the Save America Act, which simply requires that one be a U.S. citizen in order to vote.
In a federal election and that one have a photo id and we can't get that to the floor for a vote because of an antiquated Senate rule, the filibuster rule.
The real problem here are not the left-wing socialist, Marxist Democrats.
The real problem are the gutless feckless weak-kneed lily-livered, white wine, swilling country club belonging establishment Republicans who just don't have the guts to stand up for this country.
All right, I'm afraid we have to end it there.
I want to thank my guest, Don Brown.
Once again, I want to highly recommend his book, Kangaroo Court.
That's about it for us today in the Stone Zone, folks.
Until tomorrow, God bless you and God speed.
Critique of Establishment Republicans00:00:40
We're here five days a week talking about history, politics, politics, politics, and politics.
Talk to you tomorrow.
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.
And 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.