June 16, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
54:37
3320 Hillary Clinton's Corruption Crisis | Roger Stone and Stefan Molyneux
Despite finally beating Bernie Sanders and becoming the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton continues to be plagued by the threat of indictment, continued corruption scandals and the massive amount of skeletons which have been accumulated in her political closet. Roger Stone joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss Huma Abedin's troubling connections, the Clinton corruption speech from Donald Trump which didn't happen, the Bill Clinton University scandal, the massive amount of Clinton campaign financing from Saudi Arabia and the race for President of the United States. Roger Stone is a well-known political operative and pundit. A veteran of nine national presidential campaigns and has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents. He is author of the New York Times bestseller “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ,” as well as “The Clintons' War on Women” and “Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty.”Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty: http://www.fdrurl.com/bush-crime-familyThe Clintons' War on Women: http://www.fdrurl.com/clintons-war-on-womenThe Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ: http://www.fdrurl.com/who-killed-kennedyFor more information from Roger Stone, go to: http://www.rogerstone.com and http://www.stonezone.comBlacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evanshttp://www.fdrurl.com/blacklisted-by-historyUnlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House by Gary Aldrich:http://www.fdrurl.com/unlimited-accessVenezuela Immigration Sanction: Section 2:https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/venezuela_eo.pdfFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Our last interview floated up to the mainstream media.
So now, Fox News, this is the time you can start taking stuff out of context.
Roger, great to have you back.
Great to be here.
Now, for those who are just tuning in, didn't see the first one, Roger Stone is a well-known political operative and pundit.
He is a veteran of nine, count them, nine national presidential campaigns and has served as senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents.
You gotta get his books...
They will blow your mind.
Very well written, very well researched.
The man who killed Kennedy, the case against LBJ, reawakened some of my skepticism around conspiracy theories as they're called around the JFK assassination, and Roger makes a fantastic case.
The Clintons' war on women is one I would recommend as particularly salient to the current election cycle.
And Jeb!
and the Bush crime family, the inside story of an American dynasty, will put links to all of those.
Below, but let's start with the latest and greatest in the current campaign.
So, one exotic scarecrow with very, very red lips that seems to pop up as Hillary Clinton's shadow is Uma Abedin.
And she started, if I understand this correctly, she started back in the days of Monica Lewinsky in the White House.
Monica ended up, of course, servicing President Clinton and Uma went more towards the Hillary side of things.
What has developed since then or what knowledge has come out that you think people need to know about Uma Abedin?
Well, Uma Abedin is an exotic, beautiful, obviously highly intelligent, very chic young lady who began as an intern at the White House, correctly as you said, working for Hillary, When Monica was working for Bill,
or I should say working under Bill, or In any event, once their affair spilled out into public and onto her blue dress, she was gone, but Huma stayed in there, and she emerged over time as the confidant, closest aide to Hillary.
Now, she comes from a very interesting background.
Her parents are radical Islamic leaders in the Muslim World League, The Muslim World League was founded by a man named Omar Abdul Omar Nassif.
Nassif and the World Muslim League go on to form the Rabatha Trust, which is identified by the US government as having funded Bin Laden and the attacks on America on 9-11.
Huma pops up in Washington, and there's a terrific article, an interview with her.
Before she's met the Clintons, before she's on this great career trajectory, she says that she never likes to carry the same handbag two days in a row, and she prefers the handbags by Marc Jacobs.
That's $1,500 to $3,000 a handbag.
She buys a $649,000 house in Washington, although her parents appear to be poor academics.
Her own career, editing a radical journal sponsored by the Muslim League in college.
Her brothers, her parents are all deeply involved.
Her mother is the leading proponent in the Middle East on genital mutilation as an Islamic custom.
So she has very clear, undisputed, indelible ties to terrorist organizations.
My question, therefore, is we know that Huma Who, by the way, was on my 2015 International Best Dressed list.
And Cheryl Mills.
That's why I always dress up when we talk, Roger.
I'm just hoping to crack the top 500.
Steve Bannon at Breitbart jokes that he paid me to get on the worst list.
So Huma and Cheryl Mills, the former Chief of Staff For Hillary are the people who vetted and reviewed every one of the emails on the illegal server in order to tell us what or in order to determine what should be destroyed and what should be turned over.
Ergo, Huma has had access to the highest priority, top secret, top clearance, most sensitive documents.
How did this woman, given her background, Get a security clearance.
I personally believe that she is probably a Saudi asset.
I think the Saudis are, at least in the beginning, were subsidizing her lifestyle.
The other thing that's odd, Stefan, is that Huma gets a special waiver from the State Department that allows her to not only work a full-time job at state and get paid, But to work for Tineo Strategies,
which is a Clinton-based lobbying company that represents a number of Middle Eastern governments, at the same time getting a third paycheck from the Clinton Foundation, the slush fund that the Clintons have set up to augment their lavish lifestyle and pay a phalanx of flunkies.
So there's an inherent conflict of interest there.
The American people need to know more about Huma Abedin.
And since she is, of course, so closely knit with Hillary Clinton and was, of course, a chief advisor, we would assume, during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, was there any evidence of...
Pro-Saudi or pro-radical behavior or decisions or influence peddling when Clinton was in charge of Secretary of State?
Certainly certain Saudi organizations that should be on the terror list is kept by the Attorney General and by the administration are not.
I would argue that their entire policy in the Middle East is beneficial to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabi tradition of Saudi radicalism, whether it is the replacement of Qaddafi or the toppling of Assad.
One by one, we have undermined our allies in the region, as in Egypt, for example, with Mubarak, and we have inserted our worst enemy.
So I think their entire foreign policy is infected.
Let's be as candid as we can.
ISIS exists today because of the policies of George W. Bush, and then they were armed largely by Hillary Clinton.
This is why we have to fight them.
And it is a perfect example of the complete incoherence of American foreign policy.
We are constantly facing guns that we either gave people or we sold people.
Right, okay, so let's talk about a little bit, because this is something that a lot of my, I've hit it a couple of times, a lot of my listeners aren't particularly aware of that, the degree to which it seems pretty clear that American presidents and American foreign policy allied itself with the origins of al-Qaeda that turned into ISIS as a way of helping to Armed rebels who were against particular regimes that they didn't like.
Can you help people understand that process?
Because it's kind of mind-boggling.
It is very hard to understand.
In a number of places, we went in and armed rebels to oppose those that, at least on paper, we were supporting.
And in some cases, were allies of ours.
Qaddafi is no sweetheart, don't get me wrong, but he has renounced his nuclear ambitions.
He is sharing all of his intelligence on Al Qaeda with us.
Society in Libya is relatively cosmopolitan.
In Gaddafi's Libya, women can own property, women can go to college, women can choose their own husband, women can drive a car.
If a woman is raped, her rapist is prosecuted, not the woman.
Today, under Sharia law, thanks to Hillary Clinton and the toppling of Gaddafi, Women have been set back 200 years into the Stone Ages.
Under Sharia law, none of those things are possible.
How can Hillary Clinton with a straight face hold herself out as an advocate for women?
And there appear to be emails that have floated up where Hillary Clinton is looking forward to toppling Gaddafi's regime.
And of course, Gaddafi at the time was saying, if you get rid of me, because I'm sure he saw the big giant lasers of American foreign policy beginning to focus on his forehead.
He said, if you get rid of me, there will be a tidal wave of migrants pouring into Europe.
I am the wall that holds them back.
Essentially, a precinct prognostication.
Look, their policies in the Middle East are a shambles.
We've gone very, very deep into debt to pay for this endless war.
So we dropped, as I recall, you know, I don't remember the number, but millions of dollars worth of bombs.
I think it was $800 million worth of bombs in Libya.
Because without that air support, the rebels would not have been able to topple Qaddafi.
But we had to go to the national credit card to borrow the money to do this.
So not only will Hillary perpetuate the Bush-Clinton, Bush-Obama-Clinton policy of endless war, but we're going to bankrupt ourselves while doing it, at the same time undermining and eroding all of our civil liberties.
As the government searches in all the wrong places for terrorists.
Well, I've made the case here, Roger, that the migrant crisis represents the greatest existential threat to Western civilization since the fall of Rome.
And everybody who's involved in setting those dominoes in motion is guilty of crimes for which there is no legal statute that I could imagine strong enough, in my opinion.
And this infiltration, this potential infiltration of the State Department that's, I think, June 2012, Michelle Bachmann and four other congressmen We're good to go.
of China and, you know, hundreds of millions of people being swallowed up into the moor of communism.
And it just seems like when the Democrats are in charge, and I don't mean to point fingers, but when the Democrats are in charge, it seems like the gates and the walls open for the civilization threatening treason on a regular basis.
No, I think you raise a very good point.
As soon as I wrote these detailed and documented comments on Huma Abedin, I have, of course, been subjected to a tidal wave of personal attacks and abuse.
Keith Olbermann attacked me on Twitter.
David Brock attacked me on Twitter.
Believe me, I wear these as a badge of honor.
The point is when you can't refute the facts, when you can't dispute anything in my article, attack the messenger and attempt to discredit him.
Vanity Fair and Harper's, to their credit, both have covered this issue in excellent form, essentially uncovering most of the same facts that I did.
And those authors, too, were subject to a vituperative attack that no place really disputed the fundamental facts.
Now, as far as McCarthyism is concerned, it's interesting because some of those Twitter comments says this is guilt by association.
These are McCarthyite tactics.
If you will read Blackballed by History by M. Stanton Evans, you will learn the facts of the 1950s that McCarthy and others did in fact find substantial and serious communist subversion inside our government.
I know the left doesn't like to hear that because they have written a very different narrative that McCarthy, who did have his excesses, but McCarthy had nothing and that no one he pursued was really a communist and of course That's not true.
Well, and Whitaker Chambers has written a great book, and Black Bolt, I was hoping to get the author on, sadly, he died recently, but I'll put that as a link below.
That is grim reading, but it is essential reading to understand just how close America came.
And there is this pattern.
I think Ann Coulter summed it up by saying it was the greatest book written since the Bible.
It's really, it's an incredible book.
Stan Evans was the boy editor of the Indianapolis Star at age 26.
A real major conservative thinker and writer, integral in the rise of Reagan, a mentor of mine, and that body of work is the definitive word on McCarthy in the 50s.
Well, and when you read that book, you, of course, understand the degree to which the narrative of McCarthyism has been completely distorted to serve leftist interests.
And it's one of these books that just blows wide such a false and deceptive and dangerous narrative that, again, I can't recommend the book highly enough.
It's grim reading, but it is really essential, one of these red pill wake-up moments for me that you can't get often enough in these dangerous days.
Agreed.
So...
Let's talk a little bit about the speech that didn't happen, right?
So on Monday, prior to, of course, it was set up prior to the horrifying attack in Orlando over the weekend, Trump was going to take his first salvo, his first really, I think, detailed and precise salvo against Hillary Clinton.
Now, I assume he wasn't just going to read Clinton's War on Women from Beginning to End, although that would not be the end of the world.
What would you have had Donald Trump or what did you think he was going to focus on during that speech that has now been postponed?
Well, when you speak of the corruption and the venality and the incompetence and in some cases the treason of the Clintons, you have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to issues.
You could not Dissect their entire record in a one-hour speech.
There are so many transgressions and failures and lies.
I think that Hillary has three areas of vulnerability.
You have just mentioned the first one, and that is the fact that her husband is a sexual predator.
A substantial number of very credible women have come forward to say so.
In one case, an $850,000 settlement was paid, in the case of Paula Jones.
But Hillary has led the campaign to discredit and bully and intimidate and threaten these women.
Some cases, she's done it personally, as in the case of Juanita Broderick.
In other cases, she has used heavy-handed private detectives or goons like James Carville to call these women sluts, bitches, whores, trash.
So she's not an advocate for women.
She is an abuser of women, as Trump called her, an enabler.
Then there is her entire record as Secretary of State, the disaster of our foreign policy, missing funds at the State Department, and the wholesale sale of public policy decisions.
Oh, you need an arms deal controlled?
Grease the Clinton Foundation.
Oh, you need Qaddafi removed?
Grease the Clinton Foundation.
Oh, you need a defense contract approved?
Paid bill to give a $650,000 speech.
And, of course, the Wall Street connection, the fact that they've loaded up on all of this Wall Street money, makes one suspect That when Bernie Sanders, who I like for his criticism of Wall Street, criticizes Wall Street, Hillary emulates him.
Does anyone really believe that that is what she's done?
She's bought and paid for by Wall Street.
So I think that there are three major areas of vulnerability.
The order in which Trump elects to take them, I cannot tell you.
I got the impression That the speech that was postponed had more to do with corruption and the systematic way that the Clintons have used government service to enrich themselves and their daughter and their sleazy son-in-law.
And this is, I think as Trump said the night of the California primary, the Clintons have raised this to an art form.
And they have, in the past, sold U.S. national security secrets, military missile guidance secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions through the Laurel Corporation.
This is treason.
They have, as Trump said in his speech, taken money from Russia and China and the Saudis in return for preferential treatment.
By the U.S. government.
Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton, having taken more than $25 million from the Saudis, is ever going to release the 28 pages of the congressional inquiry that deal with Saudi involvement in the attack on 9-11?
That 25 mil, Raj, is that something that has gone through the Clinton?
Because as far as I understand it, foreign governments, of course, aren't allowed to make direct campaign contributions.
Is that stuff that gets shuffled through the Clinton Foundation?
Yes, actually.
And we don't know the exact amount because they report in broad categories.
First of all, they have no requirement to report at all.
So they are theoretically, voluntarily posting all of their contributions On a website for the foundation.
The problem with that is, my researchers have noticed, as they update it, people are disappearing who gave earlier.
So, for example, the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who gave $25,000, no longer shows up on the website.
The conservative publisher of Newsmax, Chris Ruddy, who gave $1.5 million to the Clinton Foundation, Right, right.
And it seems to me that anybody who claims to wish to protect the rights of women and gays and lesbians and so on, to have that level of financial involvement with a highly repressive regime, totalitarian regime, and an extremely dangerous regime, For atheists, for gays, for lesbians, and for women as a whole, like Saudi Arabia.
How is it possible for people to look at the syllables and not see all of the Saudi dollars in there and just have the whole sentences of her support for all these groups just disintegrate?
Well, it's far broader than that.
In other words, it's $100 million when you look at Oman and Qatar and other regimes that oppress women and oppress gays.
I think this is disgraceful.
They actually trotted Chelsea Clinton out to try to defend this, and she did a terrible job saying, well, it's legal.
Taking the money is legal.
Essentially, the Clinton defense on all of the quid pro quo, pay-for-play shenanigans of the Clinton Foundation, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars they've made in these paid speeches, those are bribes, in essence, is, well, you have no proof.
Meaning, The entities that want to take control of uranium in the United States for a Russian consortium give an enormous amount of money to the Clintons, and shortly thereafter, we approve their taking control of the uranium.
But because we don't have an email that says, okay, I got the money, I'll let you do it now, People say, oh, that's unproven.
Let the American people decide.
There's too many coincidences here.
Too many things have been bought and paid for.
Well, conviction does not require a smoking gun.
Tons of people go to jail when there's no direct, it's circumstantial, and as far as I understand it, the RICO Act, which was a recognition.
Of the basic fact that corruption by its very nature doesn't leave a paper trail.
That's the whole point.
It's handshakes.
It's turn on the water and we'll whisper in the bathroom of the hotel.
Of course there's not going to be a trail.
But if there are two or more situations that seem to stretch credulity, it's well worth an investigation.
And I don't know.
Conservatively, I think, Roger, we're a little bit higher than two at the moment.
Oh, God.
There are hundreds.
I mean, this is the gift that keeps on giving.
Anybody who's particularly interested should go look at the work of Charles Ortel, O-R-T-E-L, Charles Ortel.
I think it's charleshotel.com.
Not an ideologue, but a green-eye-shade, experienced finance guy from Wall Street who has specialized in a number of areas that allow him to Look at the various business dealings of the Clintons.
So much has been made of the national media of Trump University.
Trump University was a real estate course, in fact.
And while the vast majority of those were satisfied with the course, a small handful of people who took the course and then did not become wealthy filed lawsuits in California and New York and in other states.
I think these suits are without merit, and I think they will lose.
But the media has written about this ad nauseam.
I think the total revenues were $5 million.
The Clintons have a university scandal of their own that is much worse regarding a for-profit chain of schools called Laureate.
Laureate is a stock play.
Laureate was taken private by a bunch of close friends of Bill, including Stevie Cohen, Who's the poster boy for bad hedge fund activity, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, and others.
And then immediately after taking it private, the finances of the school started to fail.
The investors were not looking at a profitable way out until they hired Bill Clinton as the honorary chancellor of their school.
They hid his compensation, I should say.
He hid his compensation.
It was never disclosed by law, but he was paid $16 million.
Interestingly enough, a number of the investors, Goldman Sachs, Cohn, others, also paid Bill to come do some big speeches, so he was double-dipping again.
Shortly thereafter, Hillary Clinton gave the school $158 million in World Bank funds.
This is at a time that the school was graduating less than 14% of their students, but more troubling, they were using boiler room high-pressure tactics, including Bill Clinton's voice and his picture on a brochure, to get students to take on $750 million in debt.
Student debt.
So, hurting the people who can least afford it, Scamming students while they themselves are making millions.
This is one of the most extraordinary schemes I have ever seen.
The school is a disaster.
It is now formed with the Clinton Global Initiative to found essentially Clinton University.
Except for in New York State to be called a university, one must meet certain criteria.
Trump University was busted over this and ultimately had to change their name.
Clinton University is a fraud formed by the Clinton Global Initiative, another fraud, and Laureate Education, yet a third fraud.
Where is the New York Times?
Where are they?
Well, I think to ask that question, to answer it.
So one of the ways that it worked was, of course, the government guarantees certain kinds of student loans.
So you've got a cash inflow coming that way.
You can get money from the State Department or other areas to get cash going in that way.
And so it's another way in which private investors end up, through various channels, getting their hands on public funds to prop up the value and income of a university that, if it was in the free market or a quasi-university, if it was in the free market, would actually have to graduate people at higher rates and show some kind of return on investment for the money that's been spent by the students.
You have better than a 50% dropout rate here.
You have about a 14% actually get-to-graduation rate.
Walden University is a part of this scam.
They are very, very aggressive on laying debt on students.
To be clear, the only criteria for getting into this college is the ability to pay from a loan.
There are no academic requirements.
So this may be the most embarrassing scam that Bill Clinton has been in.
Wow, that's quite a tip of an iceberg there.
Now, I don't know if you've heard, of course I'm sure you have, but there's a Secret Service tell-all coming out, this Crisis of Character book.
Do you know, because I read one of these, I don't know.
Ten years ago, one came out, or actually probably longer than that, one came out about a Secret Service guy who was around the Clintons during the time of their exit from the White House.
Have you heard anything about what's in Crisis of Character, what might be coming down the pipe?
Yes.
First of all, the first book you refer to is by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
A good man, still out there on the circuit talking and trying to educate people about the evil nature of the Clintons.
Among other things that are in this book, of course, are also in my book, The Clinton's War on Women, that Hillary is a violent domestic abuser.
Hillary bites, kicks, scratches, slaps, and throws things at her husband on a regular basis.
On one occasion, she scratched him so bad that it required a bandage, and it was noticed in a presidential So Hillary is violent.
She is very short-tempered.
She is given to volcanic rages.
She can 10 seconds later be sweet as pie.
She's got a dual personality.
If you will.
But the thing that I like the most, Stefan, and I will be publishing a booklet on this for the Cleveland Convention, is she's extraordinarily foul-mouthed.
Every other word out of her mouth is the F-bomb.
This is someone who is epically abusive.
Abusive to doormen, abusive to waiters, abusive to Secret Service agents, Abusive to the ushers in the White House.
Abusive to anybody who works for her.
So the kindly grandmother who you see smiling on the stage and shouting is not the real Hillary.
The real Hillary is a suspicious, paranoid, short-tempered, foul-mouthed, exceedingly greedy, and I think unbalanced, a psychopath.
Somebody who has two personalities.
You can read in my book about her berating and punching Bill on an elevator, and then when the doors open to a reception, they're both smiling broadly and playing up to the crowd.
These people are actors and actresses, they're grifters, and she does not have the stability to be President of the United States.
Well, and as Uma Aberdeen pointed out in an email, she's often confused, which is really not what you want from the leader of the free world, to put it mildly.
And this, Roger, I mean, you've been around the game longer than I have, a lot longer, but...
It just continues to blow my mind and gets my spleen in hyperdrive, thinking about the media, the degree to which they'll pounce on completely innocuous things that women didn't find offensive, jokes that Trump made.
Oh, he said to a beauty contestant, you might want to lose some weight.
Oh, he reviewed in Miss Universe pageant some women in a bikini.
So therefore, sexist, misogynist and all this kind of stuff.
So, even if we accept that, I mean, these things happened, the women didn't find them offensive, and of course, it's a beauty pageant, you're supposed to look good, this shouldn't be brain surgery, but the degree to which that stuff is fastened on, you know, even by media supposedly on the right, like Megyn Kelly and Fox News, and yet, and yet,
when you look at the predations just taking women, the predations that the Clintons have visited upon women, You know, there's this credible allegations of rape biting lips and destroying, trying to destroy women's lives.
I mean, Ivanka keeps getting asked, right, Donald Trump's daughter, oh, how do you think about how your father treats women?
I don't ever remember Chelsea Clinton being asked about that and seeing this from this sort of low-orbit view of the degree of manipulation going on in the media.
By God, I can really understand why media credibility is falling and why conversations like what you and I are having are beginning to displace the nonsense shadow puppet kabuki theater of leftist indoctrination known as the mainstream media on all spectrums.
I'm sorry.
I'm not even going to pretend there's a question there, so just tell me what you think of that.
Most of these allegations against Bill Clinton came up in the 80s.
And this was before the advent of the Internet, as we know it today, before the advent and the rise of alternative media, whether it's talk radio or whether it is...
Well, talk radio is still significant, but not as significant as today.
The Internet, alternative news sites and websites and podcasts like this one.
So if you could suppress ABC, CBS, and NBC, if you could bludgeon them into not covering a story, then it didn't happen.
It was like a tree falling in the woods.
There are only three or four major newspapers.
If you could mau-mau those publishers or those reporters into not writing, oh, that woman, she's a drunk, she's a whore, she's a nut.
This is all false.
You know, in some cases, Clinton's private detectives would bludgeon women into signing affidavits In which they perjured themselves and said nothing happened.
And then they would later determine that they couldn't live with themselves.
But this is very much like the Bill Cosby situation.
If this were one woman or two, you might say, well, perhaps they're looking for their time in the sun, or perhaps they're looking for a payday, or maybe it's a blackmail play.
But when this many credible women come forward and tell identical stories, not just to Roger Stone, but NBC reported that Bill Clinton bit Juanita Broderick's lip.
David Isikoff at Newsweek determined, found a woman in Arkansas who was assaulted by Bill and reported that Bill bit her upper lip.
Roger Morris, then of the Washington Post, Found a woman where Bill had bitten her upper lip.
So this is his MO. This is a disabling move.
These are serious and ugly accusations, but these women deserve to be heard, as Hillary put it.
She's the one who raised the issue and said women on college campuses who are sexually assaulted deserve to be believed.
Well, what of Broderick and Willie and Jones and Christy Zurcher and Helen Doughty and Becky Brown and Liz Ward Grayson and Eileen Wellstone.
The list goes on and on.
Do these women not deserve to be believed?
Now, when Hillary was asked that, not by a reporter, of course, but by a voter, she said, well, they deserve to be believed until evidence is found that indicates they shouldn't be believed.
What evidence does she refer to?
I understand what she's saying.
Once again, the Clintons will attack these women in an attempt to discredit them.
Oh, they're all lying.
Oh, they're all being paid to say this.
I say let the women speak.
Let them be covered on national media and let the voters decide for themselves who's lying, Juanita Broderick or Hillary Clinton.
It's pretty easy, I think.
Well, and I imagine, as I'm sure you do as well, Roger, I imagine that there are Quite a few in the wings, according to one of the women, Bill Clinton.
When she was talking about Wilt Chamberlain sleeping with 20,000 women, according to the basketball legend's own self-reported stories, I think Bill Clinton said something along the lines of, wow, I only have one-tenth of that, or something like that.
So this is way back in the day as well.
So I wonder the degree to which there may not be, you know, like, I mean, if there are that many with Bill Cosby, how many more might there be with Bill Clinton?
Again, I have really tried...
Because I'm a libertine myself and I'm not against sex to say the least.
I have tried to point out that my criticism of Bill Clinton has nothing to do with consensual sex.
This isn't about Maryland fidelity or adultery or girlfriends or mistresses and so on.
This is about something far darker.
It's about violence against women.
It's about rape or sexual assault or exposing yourself to women all against their will.
So I'm not interested in his ex-girlfriends.
I think there are probably thousands of them.
Unless they are girlfriends that were dumped by Bill and then subsequently threatened and intimidated and pressured by Hillary or people working for Hillary to keep their mouth shut.
Then they are Then they are, I think, worthy of discussion because this is germane to Hillary.
Violence against women, threats and bullying of women is germane to Hillary.
So I'm interested in Bill's girlfriends only in that sense.
Well, and I agree with you as far as the criminal element goes, but, you know, if you are supposedly monogamous and you make a vow, and then you break that vow, then you either admit that you're breaking the vow, or you have to lie about it for decades.
And I gotta think that lying about something, hiding something, keeping it squelched, keeping up a false life for decades...
That's a character trait that is kind of dangerous for me, like if I see people like that.
So I want to know if somebody has been hiding even affairs that were consensual.
I want to know if someone's been hiding it because I don't think that you can lie in public for decades, keep things hidden and repressed for decades, even if they're all consensual.
And have it have no effect on your character whatsoever.
No, Hugh Hefner never claimed to have fidelity.
I don't think so.
I don't have any particular problem with all that consensual stuff.
To me, it's the character ability to be able to falsify reality to millions of people for decades.
That, to me, is kind of a creepy trait, to put it mildly.
Well, but in all honesty, if one will look back at it, Franklin Roosevelt had several mistresses.
John Kennedy probably got more ass than a toilet seat, as they say.
LBJ, of course.
LBJ was actually impregnated several women at the same time in the White House secretarial pool, had a veritable harem left to two illegitimate children.
Even Dwight Eisenhower had a mistress during the war.
And if you've read my book, A Nixon Secret, it appears that even Dick Nixon got a little on the side.
So I don't know.
Men of power, I think, have done this.
Human nature doesn't change.
I'm a sinner myself.
I don't criticize Bill Clinton for his For his consensual affairs.
Others may do so.
I see why many voters would see that distrustful and they would like somebody who follows the letter of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
But it has not been the focus of my criticism.
When you assault a woman, Or when you have sex with underage girls, which is certainly a possibility, given the Jeffrey Epstein pedophile connection and Bill's many, many visits to the hedonistic private island that friend of Bill Epstein keeps in the U.S. Virgin Islands, you know, those are serious transgressions in my view.
Oh, I absolutely agree that the two can't even be put into the same category.
Now, The speech that replaced the Clinton criticism piece or whatever it was going to be on Monday was, of course, about terrorism and security and what happened in Orlando.
What did you think of that speech?
I think this is a turning point in the campaign in the sense that Trump was largely on defense the week before.
He is now back on offense.
And this is easy to quantify.
Donald Trump as president will protect gay people.
And all people.
Hillary Clinton will not.
Hillary Clinton will not see the danger that is radical Islam and the threat that it poses to America.
So I think that gay voters, first of all, now that gay marriage is settled law and we're moving into an age of equality, I think gay voters should be concerned with security issues and the fact that these Islamic terrorists target gay people.
We know, due to the extraordinarily good reporting by the East Orlando Post, that the guy who shot up the Orlando nightclub went out and stalked a number of gay clubs before he chose where to visit his carnage.
And then secondarily, I think gay people are interested in economic issues, opportunity, growth, jobs.
And Trump is stronger on those matters as well.
So if Hillary Clinton will not stand up for the gay community, Donald Trump will.
He's not advocating special rights.
He is advocating the same rights everyone has, the right to personal safety.
And I think that this entire attack in Orlando Again, kind of...
It validates Trump's overall campaign theme, which is that we have to come to grips with our immigration problem.
We have to close our borders until we can devise a system that actually vets who wants to come here to figure out who they are, why they are coming, so that law-abiding people who are seeking the promise of America can come here, but those who would do us harm cannot.
That's not racist.
That's not bigoted.
That's not crazy.
That's common sense.
Well, I mean, recently, as partly as a result of the ongoing socialist hellspawn crisis in Venezuela, President Obama banned immigration from Venezuela, the whole country.
And was that called racist?
No, it was just saying, look, there's risks here, there's dangers.
And I find it absolutely fascinating.
And Roger, I can't even tell you the degree to which it was absolutely unexpected and unprecedented in my mind.
To see some of the traditional constituents of the Democratic Party beginning to peel away and go to the other side of the aisle.
I mean, I had Diamond and Silk on this show, had a great conversation where she was talking about the need to get blacks off what they refer to as the Democrat plantation, right?
The welfare and all of the sort of stuff that keeps the voting rolls and entraps blacks in a life of poverty so often.
We've had Hispanic voters coming in and saying, A, we don't want it to turn into Mexico.
We left Mexico to come to America.
We wanted to stay in America.
We have blacks and Hispanics talking about the need for jobs, which Trump is hitting over and over and over again, that these waves of immigrants, both legal and illegal, are just serving to drive down wages and kill opportunities.
And now if gays are moving over more to the Republican side, I just, I can't even tell you how shocking it is to me because that just to me was a law of nature.
Well, you know, these particular groups are almost always going to vote overwhelmingly on the Democrat side.
And a combination, of course, of Trump's capacity to connect with people and an ever-escalating series of events seem to be dislodging this fairly ancient unity between these minorities and the Democrat Party.
I mean, that's shocking to me and could be, at least in my view, an unbelievable sea change in American politics.
Trump has the capacity to break up the old Democratic coalition.
The Clintons are exceedingly...
Vulnerable on their civil rights record.
I understand Bill goes on Arsenio Hall and puts on shades and plays the saxophone, and he's our first black president.
But the truth is, he signed a crime bill that has filled our prisons with young African-American men for nonviolent crimes.
And he did that to get reelected.
He signed three strikes, you're out.
At the behest of Dick Morris, so he could look tough on law and order going into an election.
That has incarcerated thousands of people who could be rehabilitated, but whose crimes don't rise to the level of incarceration.
Some may remember the story of Ricky Ray Rector.
He was a black man, retarded, severely retarded, was convicted and sentenced to death in Arkansas.
People across the globe appealed for clemency.
The man had the mentality of a small child.
But Hillary convinced Bill to execute him on the eve of the New Hampshire primary in 1992, so he could look tough on law and order.
The cuts that Bill Clinton made in welfare to single mothers are pathetic.
All this pandering, not to mention the dog whistle politics.
What was it Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy?
He said, a few years ago, this boy, meaning Obama, would be carrying our bags and fetching us coffee.
It was Hillary who, running against Obama, called black people super predators who must be made to heal.
So the Clintons talk a good talk on civil rights, but when it has suited them, they have played the race card and they have engaged in the very dog whistle politics they claim to denounce.
Well, and not only is Trump breaking up some of the traditional coalitions on the left, but as far as I hear this criticism of Trump pretty consistently.
He's not a real conservative.
By which I think they're referring to people like Boehner and McCain and Paul Ryan and so on, who are more than happy to fund Obama's not exactly constitutional amnesty for illegal aliens.
They want to bail out Puerto Rico with retirement funds.
They want to fund green energy.
They don't seem to have any interest in restricting...
The flow of dangerous people into America.
So the idea that he's not a real conservative is sort of considered by some people to be an insult, but given what real conservatism has turned into, I think it's one of the things you mentioned before as kind of a badge of honor.
They don't want the real conservatives, the rhinos that have been around for the last couple of generations.
Well, I mean, the irony of this is not missing.
The idea that Republicans in Congress Who presided over an 80% increase in the national debt to somewhere between $13 and $15 trillion.
They're trying to decide whether they should soil themselves by endorsing Donald Trump.
I mean, George W. Bush, who both spent like a drunken sailor, no disrespect to drunken sailors, and who massively ran up our debt at the same time Embroiling us in a foreign war in which our national interests were never apparent, never mind clear.
Is that a real conservative?
In other words, Trump may not be a pure conservative, meaning that he is not laying around at night reading von Mises and reading old copies of the National Review.
But on the five major issues that face this country, I should say four or five, I think he is a conservative.
On the issue of our fiscal condition, our borrowing, the bailouts on Wall Street, our wild spending, because Trump is not beholden to any special interest whatsoever, and no lobbyist has influence with him, he could actually cut federal spending.
He'd be the first president you have that could.
I worked in the Senate, I worked in the House, and I worked for a House member who was on the Budget Committee.
And I saw this process up close.
Everything is paid for.
All that wasted money that's in the budget was put there by somebody who will fight to keep it there.
Trump would be impervious to this.
On immigration, obviously, he will build the wall and secure our borders.
On trade, he's going to cashier these globalist trade deals that are killing our job market and start some tougher negotiations to get America a better deal.
He would rebuild our military strength, which is not what it should be today.
He would, no matter what it costs, build a healthcare system for veterans that is second to none in the world.
We're Americans.
We can do that.
We just have to have the will.
So I think that on the issues, he may not be a pure conservative.
He's just the best choice for conservatives in 2016.
Right.
I mean, if I only drank water that was 100% pure, I would die of thirst in about three days.
So purity is the enemy of action almost always.
Now, I want to sort of close up with the big picture stuff.
I myself have been, you know, prior to sort of this election cycle, I've been somewhat skeptical about the value of getting heavily involved in politics.
And I know that's been your life.
So I just wanted to sort of admit that up front.
But a combination of feeling like there is a bit of a choice in America now.
In fact, there's quite a lot of a choice where beforehand there wasn't.
And given how difficult and dangerous the world seems to be coming, I guess I... Plato once said that the price of not being involved in politics is to be ruled by people less capable than yourself.
And that is sort of floating around in my head.
So this summer, right?
I mean, there's the convention.
And then, of course, we've got going into the election itself up to November.
It seems to me a very, very important white-hot, you know, focused of a magnifying glass on a spot of ground...
I know that you're all in as far as political action goes.
There are a lot of people who are indifferent to it or who are skeptical of it.
All the votes are going to be rigged.
It doesn't make any difference what you do.
It doesn't make any difference what you say.
I come from that mindset at least to some degree and I've sort of been turned around to a large degree.
What would you say to the people who are apathetic or cynical, nothing's gonna work, nothing's gonna change, it doesn't matter, given that you've dedicated a lot of your life to achieving change through politics, what would you say to rouse them into connection and action?
Well, first of all, I understand their disillusionment.
As someone who spent 40 years in the corroded rectum of the two-party system, I recognize the frustration with the two-party duopoly, two parties that maybe in the beginning started out Believing in different things, but today believe in nothing.
I mean, the Republican Party was once the party of personal responsibility, small government, low spending, low taxation, strong military, but peace through strength, not an interventionist party that went around the globe looking for trouble.
And the Democrats tended to be the party of civil liberties and in social welfare spending and so on.
The parties, very sadly, have morphed into one party.
It's the Wall Street Party.
It's the party of the special interests.
It's the party of endless war.
It's the party of massive debt.
It's the party of Wall Street bailouts.
It is the party of an incoherent foreign policy that is nonetheless expensive.
Trump has, I think, wrenched his party out of the hands of the neocons.
That's why there's so much resentment.
The not-Trump people are the people that ran this country into the gutter.
They're responsible for the policies we have today.
So Trump, I think, is the last best chance for real reform.
He's not perfect.
No candidate is.
But he's an outsider.
He's not beholden to Wall Street.
In fact, he's not beholden to anyone but himself.
And if elected, the American people.
The idea of a president who is unpredictable and who is shrewd and who knew how to make a billion dollars and who understands the art of negotiation.
This is an attractive idea to me.
The Ivy League intellectuals and the political elites look down on us and say, you can't run the government.
You don't understand all these complicated policies.
Well, they've been running things for 40 years.
How are they doing?
Not too well.
I see a lot of people coming back to the system, Stefan.
I see a lot of new voters coming to the system.
I see people who have previously been disillusioned coming back to the system.
I think in the end, a third of Bernie Sanders supporters, those who oppose war and those who oppose these ridiculous globalist trade deals, People could vote for Donald Trump.
Make no mistake about it.
Hillary Clinton is a neocon and her goal is war with Russia.
The friends of Bill make money on war with Russia.
Donald Trump is not looking for war.
He's looking for peace.
That doesn't mean surrender, but it means a tough-headed negotiation and a coexistence rather than more endless war.
Well, and I do have the suspicion that the Kremlin is a little bit more pro-Trump than pro-Hillary, given what they're about to do with the emails or the information they've managed to scour off the Democrat servers and OPPO research and so on.
I really think that they are putting a bit of a thumb on the scale when it comes to the U.S. elections.
Well, I think, look, it is understandable.
I think in Trump they see somebody who they can, that they can coexist and deal with.
He is as hard-headed and as shrewd as Putin.
And the Obama administration has been unreliable as a partner.
So I don't really blame them for pursuing their political interests.
I wish we had a president who more aggressively pursued our interests.
I think that's the bottom line of a Trump administration.
Look, and I'm a libertarian.
I agree with him on everything, although he is skeptical about the expensive failed drug, a war on drugs.
But by and large, Trump's criteria, whether it is a domestic policy or a foreign policy, is simple.
Is it in the best interests of the United States?
Not the best interests of our allies, not the best interests of our adversaries.
Is it in our best interest?
That, I think, would be the mantra of a Trump administration.
And he fulfills the ancient criteria that all who desire power should never get a hold of it.
And I view him to some degree as a reluctant warrior.
I think it was one of his kids who said that it was the deal with Iran that kind of pushed him.
Over the edge where, you know, this guy could be having a pretty great life for jetting around with his wife and being on TV and making money and making deals and do all the stuff he loves as opposed to, you know, wading into all of the thorny hooks of leftist attack ads and all that.
And taking his life in his hands anytime he goes out in public because there are, you know, he's a very polarizing figure.
He's very controversial and there are haters out there.
Yeah, so the idea that he reluctantly pursues power in order to do what he feels is good in the world, since there is power at the moment, that's the kind of person you want to have it.
So, Roger, thanks so much for your time.
It's always a great pleasure to chat.
I really want to urge people to go to rogerstone.com and stonezone.com.
We'll put the links to those below.
Pick up his books.
His interviews are always fascinating.
The longer, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
So, Oh, it's a great pleasure.
I'm sure we'll see you this summer, and thanks so much for your time.
