Aug. 31, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
29:18
3398 Stealing The Election From Donald Trump | Roger Stone and Stefan Molyneux
Roger Stone joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the volatility of the American electorate, the history of medical concerns in electoral politics, Donald Trump's recent shift to scripted policy speeches, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the presidential debates, Roger Stone's favorite president Dwight Eisenhower, the similarity between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump and a brief history of election rigging. 0:45 - Trump Acting Presidential3:27 - Hillary Clinton's Health8:01 - Donald Trump's Spontaneity9:36 - Upcoming Presidential Debates12:17 - Roger Stone's Favorite President15:00 - The Hijacking of Political History18:01 - Who Would Ronald Reagan Support?19:57 - Voter Fraud and Election RiggingRoger 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.”Roger Stone: Can the 2016 election be rigged?http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291534-can-the-2016-election-be-rigged-you-betJeb! 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.comStop The Steal: http://stopthesteal.orgFreedomain 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
Back with Roger Stone, a well-known political operative and pundit.
He is a veteran of nine national presidential campaigns, 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 Clinton's War on Women and Jeb and the Bush Crime Family, The Inside Story of an American Dynasty.
We can find his information at RogerStone.com and StoneZone.com.
Roger, thanks for coming back.
Stefan, great to be here.
Let's start with the big picture of where Trump's campaign is, where Hillary's campaign is.
It seems to me that Trump is acting pretty presidential heading out to the flood ravaged victims areas and I guess jetting off to Mexico to meet with the Mexican president.
Does it seem to you like he's Feels he's passed the audition and is really on a dry run for the presidency?
Well, I think the important thing to recognize, Stefan, is that in politics a day can be a lifetime.
And therefore people reach all these cataclysmic decisions based on what's happening today, not realizing that the electorate is so volatile, so fluid, that things can change tomorrow.
So roughly two weeks ago, the mainstream media wanted to put this race away.
They were talking about, you know, Hillary winning 70-30 and her new nine-point lead and Trump's stumbling over the gold star father and so on.
What I found in this race more than any other campaign in which I have been involved is that the news cycle moves inherently quickly.
And last week's news is virtually forgotten with this week's news.
And Trump has had a very stable and I think productive three weeks.
A major entree to African-American voters, a major entree to Latino voters, a solid foreign policy speech that was put together under Paul Manafort and executed under the new leadership.
Meanwhile, Hillary has had nothing but a torrent of bad news.
The WikiLeaks, as I have predicted right here on your program, are coming back to bite her.
We've just seen the beginning of them.
But they are going to dominate, I think, the race at crucial turns as the DNC leaks hurt Hillary going into their convention.
The leaks regarding her health have hurt her in this current debate over who has the stamina and health and mental clarity to be president.
She is a candidate on defense.
The Clintons announced that if she's elected, we're not going to take any more bribes through the Clinton Foundation, which is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.
So this remains a very close, very competitive, very tight presidential race.
And don't let anybody else tell you otherwise.
This is not a blowout, not for Donald Trump, not for Hillary Clinton.
This is a race in progress.
Well, and Trump has offered to release his medical records, which would put a lot of pressure, I think, on Hillary Clinton to do the same.
Yeah, if you look at this historically, of course, there's a lot of monkey business involved.
In 1960, Dr.
Janet Travell, who was the physician for candidate John F. Kennedy, was under pressure to put out a letter regarding JFK's health.
Somebody, Lyndon Johnson, He broke into Kennedy's doctor's office in New York and swiped his medical records.
Only days later, John Connolly, a Johnson crony, held a press conference and charged that John Kennedy was a very sick man, probably could not live out four years of the presidency because of his Addison's disease.
So Dr.
Travell put out a letter to the media saying that Senator Kennedy was in excellent health, And he indeed did not have Addison's disease.
Of course, we know from his autopsy at the time of his assassination, which was made public, although it had been altered, that he did, in fact, was in the later stages of Addison's disease.
So Dr.
Trevelle was rewarded with the position of White House physician in return for writing this letter.
So anything that candidates, doctors say, needs to be regarded with some serious Well, thinking back to FDR, who suffered from polio when he was younger, they made a significant effort to avoid making pictures available of him in wheelchairs and so on to try and make him look as robust as possible.
Yeah, the media has played this role for their favorites.
So John Kennedy's infirmities, his bad back, the fact that he had a crystal meth Habit that he was being attended by Dr.
Max Jacobson, who was injecting him with a proprietary blend of methamphetamine, not only to address the pain in his back, but to give him a level of energy.
Very controversial, but in those days, Dr.
Jacobson was attending all the beautiful people, Leonard Bernstein, Marilyn Monroe, Marie Calle, so opera singers, actresses, movie stars.
These were his clientele, and of course he was shooting them all up.
It also explains why JFK had such a voracious sexual appetite when he could barely walk, his back was so bad, but we still know he bedded an 18-year-old intern, Mimi Beardsley, kind of shades of Monica Lewinsky here.
In any event, health is an issue.
The Clinton campaign came out and attacked me by name a week ago in a written statement saying that the entire question of Hillary's health was invented by right-wing conspiracy theorist Roger Stone on the basis of forged documents.
I don't know what forged documents they refer to.
I have released no documents.
I have promulgated no documents.
I have put forward no documents.
My concerns about Hillary's health, Stefan, are based on my own two eyes.
I've seen video of her having coughing fits.
I've seen videos of her having brain freezes.
I've seen videos of her falling down.
I've seen more videos of her falling down.
I've seen even more videos of her falling down.
I've seen videos of her being helped up three landings of steps.
I've seen this heavyset African-American physician who seems to attend her with an injection device in his hands until the media started asking questions, then he disappeared.
And then there's the very obvious clue of her campaign schedule.
Why has she done no press conference?
Why is she not doing any vigorous campaigning?
Trump last week actually did four full campaign stops and speeches in one day.
No Republican candidate has done this in my memory.
They conserve their energy.
So Trump is working like a Trojan.
She's barely working.
They're keeping her off the trail because I don't think she has the stamina or the balance or the mental acuity to be president.
No conspiracy based on what our eyes see.
You've talked in the past about Donald Trump being unscripted, authentic, connecting with the people just based on spontaneous communication styles, not necessarily reading speeches written by other writers and so on.
Do you feel that process is still continuing, Roger?
Do you think he is becoming more scripted?
Do you think he's attempting to become more restrained and presidential and less spontaneous than he was before?
Or do you think he's just shifting to a different gear to show that he can?
Even spontaneously achieve the kind of gravitas that a lot of people are looking for.
I don't think it's all that premeditated.
Frankly, one of the reasons he's using scripted speeches is because he has so much to say and when he attempts to do it from memory or notes, he tends to leave out key points and then he's angry at himself afterwards saying, you know, I should have said X. It's a very common thing for people who speak extemporaneously.
On the other hand, I think people recognize that Trump is Trump.
And he's always entertaining.
He's always got something off script to say.
It's not that premeditated.
You see, all these career politicians, they go into the debate with a premeditated, you know, pre-memorized zinger so that they're prepared.
Trump shoots from the hip.
He's every bit as clever.
He can be every bit as devastating.
Ask little Marco about that.
But, you know, it's more free form.
That is, of course, what guarantees the enormous audience for these debates.
The one concern that I have is that Trump, in my opinion, should not play the game of the Presidential Commission on Debates.
Donald may think that he has some requirement to debate through this non-profit organization, but to be very clear, the Presidential Commission on Debates is not appointed by the President.
Is not a commission.
And it's about limiting debate.
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, now on the ballot I believe in 44 states.
Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, Libertarian Party candidate, probably on the ballot in 48 to 50 states.
These candidates should both be in the debate.
Who made up this rule that that decision is made on the basis of a polling number?
Whose rule is that?
Donald Trump never agreed to that rule.
So the Commission has decided you can't get in the debate until you show 15% in the polls, and you can't show 15% in the polls unless you get in the debate.
It's the proverbial chicken and egg.
It's entirely unfair.
There are only four candidates who meet the criteria of being on the ballot in enough states to comprise the theoretical 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
All four of them should be in this debate.
Censoring Green and Johnson is exclusionary, and it is outrageous.
If I were Trump, I would demand their inclusion from the get-go.
Oh, I think in particular, having the American public exposed to Gary Johnson's arguments, and to some degree Jill Stein's, would be fascinating.
It would break up the sort of monoculture, the bichromatic rainbow, as it's been called, of the American political zebra system.
So having more Perspectives to bring to the American public couldn't do anything but enrich people's choices.
More choices.
This is really about more choices.
Look, I think, in all honesty, and I have great affection for Gary Johnson and great respect for him.
I supported him proudly four years ago, helped him get on the ballot.
If Donald Trump were not in this race, that's who I'd be for.
But I also think it's important to recognize that That Governor Johnson's impact on this race will be greater than previously, hopefully Jill Stein also, if for no other reason, at least the mainstream media is giving the Libertarians and the Green Party candidate, to some extent, a fair shake.
So, I love history and I've done a lot of work on this channel in the historical arts and You made a comment that I'd love to get more information about, Roger.
You said you'd have to say that Dwight Eisenhower is your favorite president.
And I wonder if you could help people understand your reasoning behind that, your thoughts behind that.
Sure.
First of all, history is a set of lies agreed upon.
History is written by the winners.
If the losers wrote history, history would be quite different.
And of course, history cleans a number of things up.
I've read Oliver Stone's terrific, you know, kind of hidden history of the United States.
He's wrong about some of that.
He's right about some of it.
But of course, the government, who is the official keeper of history, rarely tells you the entire truth.
What I like about Dwight Eisenhower was that he was a military man who understood the geopolitical world in the 1950s Yet he kept a string on defense spending.
He never let the generals at the Pentagon go into the kind of deficit spending that they wanted.
He wanted a strong national defense, but he didn't think we needed to go overboard.
Being able to kill everybody on the planet one time was enough.
He didn't think we needed the firepower to kill them five times.
So you had under Eisenhower a balanced budget.
You had unprecedented prosperity.
You had low taxes.
You had peace.
He had not only ended World War II, ended the Korean conflict, but tried to warn Kennedy about getting into Vietnam unsuccessfully.
It was a very low-key presidency.
Eisenhower was a very clever and cagey and, I don't want to say duplicitous, but at least manipulative guy.
He posed as kind of an elderly grandfather, tried to act as if he was slightly befuddled and very lovable.
Richard Nixon once told me he was the toughest bastard he'd ever met in his life.
He said he had ice water in his veins and that he was a coolly calculating prick.
So, the idea of Ike as the kindly grandfather, there you have it from his understudy, Vice President Richard Nixon.
A very effective president, Dwight Eisenhower, But because he was not flashy, because he was very 50s, very kind of down the middle and humble, he doesn't get the kind of credit that he deserves.
I recommend a book called The Hidden Hand Presidency by Professor Fred Greenstein.
It's a classic.
There is this frustrating aspect of history that the more activist a president is, in other words, the more he generally expands the size and power of the state, the more respect and praise he seems to get If you look at someone like FDR as opposed to Coolidge,
well, Coolidge inherited a big mess coming out of World War I, the Spanish flu and a huge and sharp recession that occurred in the early 1920s that was actually worse than the crash of 1929 but he said the market will self-correct more or less and he didn't do much and then within 12 to 18 months, the market had self-corrected.
And you don't hear anything about that.
On the other hand, you look at FDR's response to the crash of 1929, which was to put in endless amounts of government thumb twackery and union strengthening and tax raising and shoveling money back and forth using the America, like the higher American workers to dig ditches and fill them in kind of programs. like the higher American workers to dig ditches and fill And, you know, this kind of activism, instead of a market self-correcting in 12 to 18 months, you ended up with 14 years of intermittent and catastrophic depression culminating in World War II.
But you'll hear a lot of positive things about FDR's activism, but you won't hear anything about the fact that Calvin Coolidge let things self-correct.
and they did.
And that's one of the frustrating things.
The historians seem to love reams of paper coming off the presidential desk.
And the one who does less always seems to be less of a president, although I would argue that's really the job of the president, is to do as little as humanly possible.
Well, but you have also serious stylistic differences.
Calvin Coolidge, one of our greatest presidents, let's face it, is very boring.
He has very little to say.
He's kind of a taciturn, sourpuss personality.
No, the real reason he gets us out of the post-World War doldrums is because of his tax policy.
He resists the temptation to raise taxes.
He keeps taxes low, and we return pretty quickly to a boom economy.
In the case of Roosevelt, Roosevelt had no ideology.
He ran to the right of Hoover in the 1932 election, promising to balance the federal budget and to cut federal spending.
Interestingly enough, and people don't realize this, A majority of African American voters, almost 65%, voted for Hoover over Roosevelt.
Roosevelt comes to office with no plan, really, so he tries a little of this, he tries a little of that, but his personality, particularly at a time when people want to be reassured, Roosevelt is a reassuring presence on radio, in public, talking the country through its fears.
He's also wearing an officer's naval cape.
Pince-nez glasses that have been out since the 20s, a cigarette holder, a crushed fedora.
This guy is all style.
He's got a personal persona, whereas Coolidge had very little.
A very key element of leadership, I think.
Right.
Now, there has been some discussion, as there generally always is, at this sort of juncture in the Republican run for the president, which is Who would Ronald Reagan pick?
Who would Ronald Reagan have supported, even though Reagan was to some degree despised by a lot of the mainstream Republicans at the time and everyone thought that he could not possibly take on the Soviet Union and end the Cold War and so on?
He is now, of course, turned from, I don't know, skeptical malcontent to, you know, venerated saint of conservatism.
And there does seem to be a sort of levering of who would he support.
And some people, of course, say, oh, my goodness, he'd have nothing to do with that bumpkin Trump or anything like that.
But I think you've made a pretty good case that Reagan would have a lot in common with Trump.
Well, first of all, Reagan was a party man.
He never abandoned his party.
He campaigned for liberal Republicans like Chuck Percy and Jacob Javits, He felt very strongly in the two-party system, and he was opposed to the notion of a third party.
He said, no, conservatives need to take over and control the Republican Party.
And, of course, that is the change that he drove.
I think he would have had a lot in common with Trump.
They share that can-do spirit.
They share an optimism about America.
They are both opposed to the idea of a globalist agenda.
Reagan was our last nationalist president.
Trump will be our next national president.
Bush to Clinton to Obama has been a run of globalist presidents.
I don't think Reagan would have approved.
So I'm quite confident that Reagan, who I spent an enormous amount of time with, having worked in his 76 and 80 and 84 campaigns, would have been proudly So the last topic I wanted to drop on, Roger, is this question of voter fraud or potential for voter fraud.
Always, of course, one of the weak links in any democracy.
And you have talked about a study by Richard Charnin, a mathematician, a liberal democrat, who has done some pretty thorough analysis of exit polls and actual votes.
And tried to figure out where discrepancies might be arising.
I wonder if you could help illuminate this information for our fine listeners.
Sure.
I have put forward the proposition, Stefan, that these electronic computerized voting machines by Diebold, they changed the name of their company to Premier Election Services because the machines became in such disrepute publicly that they needed a quickie name change.
I've made the case that these machines are easily hacked and rigged.
There is a Stanford University study that shows that this was done by Hillary to Bernie in at least 12 states.
And in fact, the criteria that the U.S. State Department uses under Hillary or used under Hillary to determine the transparency and honesty of foreign elections, that criteria has been violated in 12 of the Democratic primaries in this state, in this country.
Secondarily, a study by Professor Appel of Princeton shows that the machines can be rigged in under seven minutes using a very simple $15 device that one can buy at Best Buy or Radio Shack.
Yet another study by the mathematician Richard Charnin charting with great precision Poll results, actual results, and exit poll results in the state of Wisconsin lending themselves to a credible charge that the Republican machine in that state may have rigged as many as five elections.
There is a CBS video that shows how easy these machines are to rig.
CBS television, not exactly right alt media.
There is a new paper by Dr.
Richard Davis, which I have read just this morning, making the case that these machines are easily rigged.
So now, since there is no technological question about the rigability of the machines, what the political establishment is telling me is, no, we have to rely on the integrity of those in the process not to engage in those kind of activities.
I want to be very clear That there's a distinct difference between voter fraud and election theft.
Voter fraud is people voting multiple times.
It's people who aren't registered voting.
It's people voting in the place of dead people who are still on the rolls.
It is immigrants voting.
That's voter fraud.
It exists.
It's more limited than it used to be, but it is not, as some on the left say, non-existent.
And then there's the entirely different issue of Of election rigging.
This is a two-step process in which first you rig the public polls.
AP got caught this week.
I think the Washington Post got caught this week.
Reuters got caught a week ago oversampling Democrats to create a false lead by Hillary in order to create a public perception.
And then you rig the machines to meet that perception and nobody is the wiser.
Is not a science in the sense that at the end of the day, we're not absolutely sure who's going to show up and vote.
And therefore, any poll you see by anyone is in fact outdated the minute that it has been concluded because voters move around and they change, particularly with this level of volatility in the election.
So yes, I do fear that this election can be rigged.
It is not outrageous.
It's not a...
conspiracy theory.
It's a technological fact that these machines can and have been rigged.
The Clintons know what they're facing here.
Donald Trump's made it very clear.
If he becomes president, their activities at the Clinton Foundation and elsewhere are going to be reviewed by the Justice Department and they could face prosecution.
So would they rig the voter machines to stay out of jail?
You bet your ass they would.
The Clintons would steal a hot stove.
Nothing, nothing whatsoever can be put beyond them.
And therefore, I have affiliated with a group called StopTheSteal.org.
We are going to demand inspection of the software by a neutral, respected third party for all these voter machines at the lowest possible jurisdiction to determine that the machines are not pre-rigged.
We are going to organize to run scientifically balanced Exit polls in key precincts, in key counties, in key states, so that we can then compare them to the machine results to determine whether there is a pattern of irregularity.
These are the only ways that I can determine we can ensure that this election is not stolen from Trump.
I think Trump is going to close fast.
I think he will gain in the closing days.
I think Hillary Clinton's at her high watermark today.
I still believe a narrow Trump win is in the cards.
And that exacerbates my fear of theft.
Because if it's Trump by two, believe me, in Illinois and Pennsylvania, the Democratic bosses who control custody of the voter machines, the computerized voter machines, will not hesitate to monkey with the results.
Now, there is a long and ignoble tradition of questions about the legitimacy of certain votes in America.
I wonder if you could take us on a quick sprint through some of the highlights of questions that have been raised about voting patterns in the past.
Well, of course, the most celebrated case is 1960.
1960 was the closest presidential race in American history.
John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson versus Richard Nixon and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.
That race began even after a bad debate, after injuring his knee and laying in the hospital for several weeks, and then coming out and debating before he was really ready.
Nixon drops behind in that race, but Nixon hoarded his money for the final 30 days, whereas Kennedy had unlimited money from his gangster bootlegger father.
And spent at the same clip through the end.
The late momentum in that race was with Nixon.
President Eisenhower breaks out for the first time in campaigns in New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.
I believe Nixon won by a hair.
In my book, Nixon's Secrets, and also in my book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ, I spend a lot of time Reviewing the Chicago results on a precinct-by-precinct-by-precinct basis.
Those who now say, revisionism, oh, the election wasn't stolen in Chicago, that's false, that is incorrect.
The New York Herald Tribune did an excellent five-part series on it, and I cite, for example, one precinct where there were 485 registered voters and the final result was 622 for Kennedy and 98 for Nixon.
This happens again and again and again.
More voters casting votes than are registered.
Historically it's important to recognize that Nixon would have needed not just a flip of the state of Illinois but he would have needed a second state to turn the election.
That state was Texas but Lyndon Johnson was in charge of the vote count there and frankly The Lyndon, Johnson, Kennedy ticket carried Texas by around 26,000 votes.
We now know that 95,000 paper ballots for Nixon and Lodge were burned in Dallas County alone, one county, as being improperly marked and then destroyed so that there would be no evidence.
Nixon threw in the towel on a recount because the Texas steal was undocumented.
There's no provision in Texas law in 1961.
Well, these are exciting times, to be sure.
Roger, thanks so much for your time.
Always a great pleasure to chat.
Just wanted to remind people, please, go to rogerstone.com and stonezone.com to pick up some of Roger's excellent books and read his articles and listen to his interviews.
Always a great pleasure, Roger.
Thank you so much for your time.
Great to be back with you.
And of course, if you want to get in the fight, go to StopTheSteel.org.
We need volunteers for these exit polls.
And we would appreciate the manpower and womanpower.
