Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 13, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:37:06

Live interview with Roger Stone!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, everyone.
	This is officially a first in-studio, in-person interview with none other than Roger Stone, but we'll get there in a second.
	For those of you who've been around the channel for long enough, I've done on-the-street interviews.
	I was at the Ottawa protest, but interviewing people spontaneously on the street, far different feel, far different vibe than this, and this is amazing.
	In the local studio, we are broadcasting exclusively on Rumble.
	And locals.
	And at the end, we're going to have a 15-minute segment strictly for locals.
	So stay tuned for that.
	I will not be reading chats.
	I will not be bringing up Rumble Rants or Super Chats.
	This is just going to be me talking to a guest for the first time ever.
	And I'm super excited because this is like one of those parts of the journey also where I'm now meeting in person the human behind the story that I was covering from the driver's seat of my car in Westmount, Canada, Roger Stone.
	We know what happened during Operation Crossfire Hurricane thing there.
	We know what happened with the investigation.
	We know what happened with the charges afterwards.
	We know what happened with the trial.
	We know what happened with some of the jury members on that trial.
	And now I'm meeting Roger in person, and we're going to talk about that more and Roger as a person.
	Roger, thank you for being my very first in-person Locals interview.
	How's it going?
	Very happy to be here.
	You're no longer a virgin in this regard.
	Yeah, I was going to say that, but...
	Roger, you're very comfortable with the cameras, very familiar with the cameras.
	You've done this more times than you can probably count.
	I've done an interview or two, yeah.
	I'd like you to start off with a 30,000-foot overview.
	Because I like to delve into childhood.
	We'll do it a little bit.
	I know you might have described this in other podcasts, but there's going to be a lot of people watching now who might know Roger only from MSM demonizing.
	And I mean straight up MSM demonizing because I remember what I initially thought of you based on the aura of what the media said.
	Oh yeah, he's a dirty trickster.
	A dirty trickster.
	It's even worse than that.
	A self-described dirty trickster, even though I've actually never described myself that.
	Other people have described me that way, but I of course have never described myself that way.
	On the other hand, one man's dirty trick is another man's civic participation.
	One man's foreign interference is another person's opposition research if you're Clinton versus Trump.
	We'll get there.
	30,000-foot overview.
	Who are you?
	Where are you from?
	I like how many generations American you are, what your parents did, before we get into the meat of things.
	Well, neither of my parents went to college.
	They're working-class folks.
	They have now both passed.
	I'm half Hungarian and half Italian.
	I'm Italian from the waist down.
	And I grew up in a very rural area outside of New York City in Connecticut.
	And because there were no...
	Children my age for 25 miles away, that kind of lets out any team sports, basketball, baseball, football, anything that involves more than one person.
	I never had that opportunity, so I have no hand-eye coordination.
	So that meant that I had to begin lifting weights, and long-distance running was actually what I did first.
	People just say, how long do you run?
	I don't know.
	It's not how or how far do you run?
	I said, it's not how far you run.
	It's how long you run.
	So I never really measured.
	But I had a pretty happy childhood.
	I was baptized as a Catholic.
	My mother was a very aggressive church lady.
	And I have two sisters.
	My parents, when I was younger, Kind of were very odd about my choice of career.
	In other words, son, become an electrician, become a plumber, become a drywall man.
	Those people make a lot of money.
	And initially I wanted to be an actor.
	And then I suddenly realized that politics was show business for ugly people.
	And I was transfixed by a book that I read when I was 11. It was called Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, and it was about freedom.
	Is that what it was about?
	Small government, small, inobtrusive government, privacy rights, a strong national defense as a deterrent, not as a vehicle to go around the world looking for foreign wars where the country's inherent national interests were not clear, low taxation, minimum regulation.
	Minimum regulation of people's private lives.
	People can do in their own homes what they wish.
	And, of course, an ardent, hardline anti-communism.
	And I was transfixed by this book.
	In other words, that was everything that I believed in, that I thought I believed in, or that I was beginning to believe in.
	So I became a Goldwater zealot in 1963.
	How old were you at this time when you read this book?
	I would have been 12 years old.
	And, of course, when you're 12 years old, you have no political realism.
	I would go by the New York Daily News and I would go by the New York Times at a local convenience store.
	And I would follow the campaign on television, the three networks then.
	And, of course, I was crushed when Goldwater lost.
	I had no idea he was going to lose.
	I mean, Lyndon Baines Johnson was the most obvious criminal I had ever seen.
	He had been mired in major scandals.
	So it was at that juncture that I wrote a letter to Richard Nixon.
	I began to study not the 1964 campaign, but the 1960 campaign, and I determined, based on what I read even then, that Nixon had been robbed.
	I would later write two books on it.
	I later located, which is not available online, a multi-part series.
	Written by the New York Herald Tribune, which documented the theft of the 1960 election.
	I had to crawl around in the basement of a warehouse in New York and find it on microfiche.
	You're a teenage young adult at this point?
	Well, that comes a little later, but I'm just trying to lay out to you how I became friends and how Richard Nixon became a mentor of mine.
	So I wrote Nixon a letter.
	This would have been 1965.
	And I said, look, you got fucked.
	I mean, they stole this election from you.
	And if you ever decide to run again, I really want to get involved.
	Now, of course, I didn't mention how young I was in the letter.
	But to show you how meticulous the Nixon people were, my letter went on file.
	And two years later, I got a phone call.
	These are the days when the phone was on the wall in your house.
	Well, this was when you had switchboards.
	This was rotary and switchboards.
	And my mother said, there's a phone call for you, son.
	It's a man named John Whitaker who says he's with former Vice President Nixon.
	So I took the call, and he said, we have your letter on file.
	Are you still interested?
	Back it up just one second.
	How old are you when you write a letter to the president?
	I guess I would have been 14 at that point.
	In retrospect, you can appreciate this is highly abnormal behavior for a 14-year-old to write.
	I mean, I guess children do write letters to the president.
	Well, but not really, because you see, I'm living in a rural area.
	There are no children my age around, and therefore reading is my greatest single endeavor.
	Television is very limited, although what I would do is I would get the TV guide.
	In the TV Guide, there was always a listing of movies that would play that week.
	So if there was a movie with the Marx Brothers or a movie with Al Jolson or a movie with Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy or a movie with Eddie Cantor, even if it was on at 3 o 'clock in the morning, which is when most of those movies were on, I would set my alarm so I could watch television and see those movies.
	There were no videos available.
	Videos become a thing of the future.
	So I basically liked reading history.
	I liked reading biographies, and that's what kind of led me to politics.
	And then in terms of sports, all team sports were out of the question, but, you know, yeah, I was running nine miles a day.
	This is why my knees are bad today, as a matter of fact.
	So you write the letter at 14. I presume because of your interest in politics, you don't forget about that letter.
	When you get the call, you know exactly what it is?
	Or had you forgotten about it?
	In 1966, I had an opportunity to go to a dinner at the National Women's Republican Club, which is in New York City.
	They have a building, Brownstone.
	And I got a ticket from the woman who lived next door to us, who was a very active Republican.
	And then I got a chance to meet my hero.
	I mean, in one dinner, I met Nelson Rockefeller.
	I met Senator Ken Keating.
	I met Senator Jacob Javis.
	But most importantly, I get to meet Richard Nixon, meaning shake his hand.
	I still have the autograph program that he gave me.
	There's not many people who get to meet their hero, never mind to work for their hero, or in his post-president years become an intimate friend of their hero.
	And, you know, people say, oh, he was a criminal.
	He was tricky.
	No, listen.
	This is all nonsense.
	He's one of the most consequential and successful presidents in history.
	He reached a strategic arms limitation agreement with the Soviets.
	He opened the door to China at a time that China was dirt poor, had no nuclear capability, no technical capabilities.
	It had more oxen than cars.
	Nixon cannot foresee that 30 years in the future, Bill and Hillary Clinton are going to trade our most secret military secrets to the Red Chinese in return for illegal campaign contributions.
	And he has no way of seeing that the Bushes are going to give the Chinese most favored nation trading status the two things that make them a superpower.
	So Nixon is not responsible for China's threats to this country today.
	He had no way of seeing into the future.
	Nixon also desegregated the public schools without incident.
	People think, oh, that was Kennedy, that was Johnson.
	No, that was actually Richard Nixon.
	86% of the schools in this country were segregated when he became president.
	That was 17% when he left.
	He ended the war in Vietnam.
	He ended the military draft.
	He gave us the 18-year-old vote.
	He launched the war on cancer.
	Unilaterally, in an act of heroism, he saves Israel.
	From total annihilation in 1973.
	In a total failure in Israeli intelligence, there's a surprise attack on Israel by the Egyptians and the Syrians, and the Israelis have their back to the sea.
	It's curtains.
	And Golda Meir appeals to Nixon, who orders the airlift of $37 million worth of lethal aid overnight to Israel.
	Henry Kissinger's opposed.
	The Pentagon is opposed.
	The Joint Chiefs are opposed, saying that it will be provocative to the Soviets.
	Nixon says, I don't care.
	He gives the order.
	This is the tape they never play for you.
	The next day he comes in and he says, so have the Israelis, Henry, did the Israelis, did they receive the aid?
	Well, sir, it hasn't gone yet.
	What do you mean it hasn't gone yet?
	Well, we can't decide what kind of airplane to send it in.
	Nixon says, get...
	Get Tom Moore, who is the Joint Chief of Staffs, the Admiral Moore on the phone, and he says, if this plane is not in the sky within an hour, I'm coming over to the Pentagon and I will put my foot up your ass.
	They don't play that tape.
	So it's deeds that matter, not words.
	Yeah, Nixon said some virulently anti-Semitic things when he was in the White House.
	But if you love Israel, no Nixon, no Israel.
	Well, what I love is, I mean, I studied a little bit of history in university.
	I remember Nixon's greatest confusion was why people still hated him despite everything that he did.
	And, you know, when people call Nixon a criminal, it's relative, I guess, if we compare it to current leadership.
	I'm not sure that it even compares.
	Well, I mean, they say they, of course, have to point to Watergate.
	Well, that's the impact of Watergate.
	Watergate is a situation in which a number of private individuals who are misguided...
	And whose Berkeley team has been infiltrated, as we now know, by the CIA.
	So this whole thing is being monitored.
	Break into the Democratic National Headquarters, which has no consequence at all.
	The bugs never work.
	They never learn anything.
	They're breaking in so they can get...
	Not opposition researchers, so they can get information on what the political adversary is planning to do for the campaign.
	Yeah, but that doesn't even make sense, because anyone who's been in a presidential campaign knows that that information is not retained at the National Committee.
	That would have been over at George McGovern's headquarters.
	No, the real reason they broke into the Watergate was because John Dean wanted to get the evidence that his wife had worked as a hooker, which is in a portfolio locked in a draw there, because the call girl ring in question is being used when out-of-town dignitaries...
	The Republican National Committee and the State Department, they're all using the same call girl ring.
	These were very fine call girls, evidently.
	But that's the real motive.
	In other words, Nixon's leading in 49 states in the polls.
	He's headed for the greatest landslide in American history.
	So why do they need to break into the Watergate?
	Now let's contrast that with today.
	Barack Obama and Joe Biden use the authority of the United States and the capability of the intelligence communities to take what they know is falsified evidence, the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrikes report, to rationalize an investigation into Russian collusion, which they know does not exist, to rationalize an investigation into Russian collusion.
	We're going to get there.
	Boy, howdy.
	And I'm much less familiar with Watergate, but it's the thing that everybody knows.
	It's the gate that made all the future gates.
	And we always say it wasn't the break-in, it was the cover-up.
	So what was it about the cover-up that was so egregious?
	I think this is Nixon's great mistake.
	Other than taking us off the gold standard, an egregious mistake.
	And some say the war on drugs, although I disagree with that.
	I'm a 30-year critic of the war on drugs.
	But Nixon's war on drugs was focused on drug traffickers and drug kingplans.
	It's Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Bill Clinton, who turbocharged the war on drugs, and they pushed through the harsh mandatory penalties for the first-time nonviolent crime of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use.
	This has landed tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of poor people and black people in prison.
	That's the war on drugs that I'm opposed to.
	But Nixon's major mistake here was, first of all, he was lied to for 19 straight months.
	John Dean told him for 19 months, no, there's no involvement by anybody at the White House.
	When Dean publishes his book, The Nixon Defense, which he claims...
	These are the transcripts of every single one of the Watergate tapes.
	He leaves out three specific days.
	Why?
	Because those are the three in which he lies to Nixon about what's really going on, and he coaches Nixon about how to engage in perjury.
	John Dean is the perp.
	He is the man who planned, pushed...
	Covered up and lied about the Watergate break-in, and then when he saw that the crap was going to hit the fan, he decided to refashion himself as a whistleblower.
	Now, others who have said this have gotten sued.
	If Mr. Dean wants to sue me, bring it.
	And I don't know enough about that history to even know what subsequent questions to ask, but the scandal itself...
	Is what Nixon is remembered for.
	It is his move to cover up what happened, not his involvement in what happened, but when he realizes that this thing does reach to the White House, instead of making a clean breast of it, he does seek to cover it up, and that's what ultimately took him down.
	But on the whole, he had an enormously successful presidency, despite some...
	He also had a deep distrust of the Central Intelligence Agency because they had double-crossed him.
	First of all, he was well aware of the CIA's involvement in John F. Kennedy's murder.
	A new tape surfaced only weeks ago in which Nixon, who is now mired in Watergate, trying to find a way out, meets with the CIA director.
	And in a very backwards way, threatens them.
	And he basically says to Richard Helms, who is the head of the CIA, look, Dick, I know about a lot of dirty stuff over there, you know, the Department of Dirty Tricks.
	He's referring to the CIA's involvement in a coup in Guatemala.
	He's referring to the assassination attempts by the CIA against Fidel Castro.
	Let's just say I know who shot John.
	There it is.
	He just laid it out and he said it right out loud.
	But you can count on me to keep the agency's secrets if things get bad.
	He's threatening him.
	This is a very historic tape.
	Politico broke this story, surprisingly enough.
	Of course, it got very little pickup.
	And we're going to get to the little coverage that the most recent JFK assassination revelations have garnered among the media.
	are less interested in what I think is probably the turning point of America deep state governments, or at least the revelation to the general public, birth of conspiracy theory, etc., etc.
	We're going to come back to this in a bit because it flows back from where we're going Over the next 35-40 years, what are you doing in politics up until Trump running for president?
	Well, of course, I'm a veteran of 12 national Republican presidential campaigns.
	So I worked for Richard Nixon in 1968 in a very junior position.
	In 1972, in his re-election, I was the youngest member of his senior staff.
	Because Nixon and Reagan were from the same Southern California political base, there's a great commonality in their staffers and their major donors.
	So I knew John Sears, who at 26 years old really was an integral part of Nixon's comeback.
	Sears would then get hired by former Governor Ronald Reagan for his 1976 campaign.
	Sears would hire me.
	I worked for Reagan in 76 when we challenged Gerald Ford.
	I worked for him again in 1980 as the political director for the Northeastern states.
	Then I worked for him again in his 1984 re-election.
	In 1988, I did not support George H.W. Bush.
	I supported Jack Kemp for president.
	But in the last 45 days of that election, Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater asked me if I would go to California and take over the campaign there for the final 45 days because, as Ailes put it, every week I spend a quarter of a million dollars more for television and every week we drop another point behind.
	Something's wrong.
	So I did work for the ticket.
	Then, moving forward, I was an assistant to Senator Bob Dole in the Senate.
	I was a staff assistant to him for two years.
	He was one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
	He would have been a great president, but 1988 was his year.
	By the time we got to 2000, I guess it would have been 2000, 1996, I guess, he was really kind of past his prime.
	By the way, people don't realize this.
	He carried five more states and got several million more votes than George H.W. Bush got as an incumbent.
	He ran a much better race against the Democrats.
	And then, of course, in 1979, when I went to New York to begin organizing for Reagan is when I met Donald Trump.
	And I pitched Donald Trump and his father on joining the Trump Finance Committee.
	And pardon me, the Reagan Finance Committee, which they both did.
	And we became very good friends.
	But Trump was like a man who had made an investment.
	So once he gave money to Reagan, he was checking on his investment every couple days.
	And he was far more interested in politics and far more knowledgeable about politics than people realized.
	But at that point, of course, he was a universally loved...
	Mogul, real estate mogul, entrepreneur, businessman.
	I was in his office when Jesse Jackson came and picked up a check.
	I was in his office when Al Sharpton came in and picked up a check.
	Trump gave to both Republicans and Democrats.
	He was always very contemptuous of the system.
	He knew we had a broken system.
	He didn't really need that much from government.
	In truth, certainly almost nothing from the federal government.
	I do remember there was one incident in which he was building a skyscraper in Chicago, and the final architectural renderings, the building was five feet too high for the FAA regulations, so he needed a waiver from the FAA.
	I worked on that.
	There was another incident in which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi what would become the Trump princess, an all-white luxury yacht.
	The problem was the Atlantic Sea Harbor was not deep enough to bring the yacht in, so it required dredging, and a dredging permit from the Army Corps of Engineers normally took five years.
	I think I got it in five days.
	So he had a few federal interests that I took care of.
	All right, and so Trump had jokingly, or at least the clip circulated, joked about running for president back in the day.
	Well, it wasn't a joke.
	I mean, people understand is that, yes, he enjoyed the publicity that it generated.
	Yes, he liked the way that it burnished, you know, the public reputation and the brand.
	But he was always epically unhappy with our national leadership because he insisted, not wrongly, that our leaders were stupid.
	You know, the last president he liked was Reagan.
	Reagan made sense to him as a president.
	He was an anti-communist.
	He cut taxes.
	He was pro-business.
	But after that, he was deeply disappointed in his support of the Bushes.
	There's a great story that didn't make Maggie Haberman's recent book, but which she spoke about in an interview about George Bush at National Airport, now Reagan Airport, leaving Washington.
	And Trump is coming into the airport.
	And they tell Bush, you know, Donald Trump just came in.
	Do you want to see him?
	And Bush said, no, I really don't want to.
	And then Bush hid behind a newspaper so that Trump wouldn't see him.
	I said, funny, Maggie.
	That's not what George Bush said when Donald Trump raised a quarter of a million dollars for him in 1988 at the Plaza Hotel.
	So he was very disappointed in the Bushes.
	He was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq.
	He was more than smart enough to know that the attack on America on 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq and that that was Dick Cheney maneuvering for oil and power and money.
	And he, both in 1988, when there was the first talk about Trump running for president, which he really used as a platform to denounce...
	The abuse of this country and NATO, something he's always felt strongly about.
	Like, why does everybody pay their fair share?
	Why are we paying for the Germans and the Italians?
	Why isn't anybody paying their fair share but us?
	He started saying that in 1988.
	When he became president, he was able to make everybody pay up.
	Even then, he was talking about the inequitable trade deals that we had made.
	A good trade deal is a deal that was supposed to be good for both partners.
	But we had these one-sided trade deals.
	He's been talking about that since 1988.
	So in 1988, when he talked about running for president, in 2000, when Ross Perot, who's a friend of his, all these billionaires know each other, and Jesse Ventura.
	Who had wrestled professionally at Trump Plaza, but who by that time was the governor of Minnesota.
	Both tried to persuade him to run as the Reform Party candidate, which he did not do.
	He resents it when people say, well, you ran and lost.
	No, he explored it and elected not to run.
	The reason there's some confusion is months after he dropped out formally, the Reform Party had primaries.
	I think it was in California and Michigan, and Trump won both of them, even though he was not an active candidate.
	He put forward a tax plan.
	He put forward a number of specific public policy proposals.
	But he knew instinctually that an independent or third-party candidate ultimately could not win, that the barriers were too great.
	You couldn't get into the debates.
	They let Ross Perot into one debate.
	That was the last time that ever happened.
	You couldn't get into the debates because the presidential commission on debates is not appointed by the president, is not a commission, and it's most definitely not about debates.
	If it were, then the Green Party candidate and the Libertarian Party candidate would have been in the last two presidential debates, but they weren't.
	The criteria that they use to keep you out is, well, you're not showing in the polls.
	That's a ridiculous criteria.
	Here's the criteria.
	If your name is on the ballot in enough states to potentially win 270 electoral votes, you should be in the debates.
	I don't care whether you're the Green Party candidate or the Libertarian Party candidate or the Vegetarian Party candidate.
	But the two-party system, you know, one hand washes another.
	So all of your ballot access laws, which are different in all 50 states, They're written by Republicans and Democrats working together to make sure that a new party will never rise.
	And while they're at it, let's make it difficult for us to have any intra-party challenges.
	Let's make it extremely difficult for anyone to challenge an incumbent.
	It is a very broken system.
	Something similar in Canada.
	I ran for federal office and had no chance of winning, but we had the same problems where a small new political party was being denied into the debates.
	Because you don't have a certain percentage, even though we were running basically a full ticket across the country.
	But it's a way to make sure that...
	It's tougher to enter, it's tougher to succeed, and it's tougher to win, and it's good for the existing parties, but I had a similar experience.
	I have high hopes for the new True North Party of Canada, which has finally gotten its approval.
	You have to be approved by the government to form a new party.
	I ran with the People's Party of Canada.
	They got approved.
	It's the second federal election, and yet candidates were still not being invited to debates because they didn't have...
	2% or 4% in polling.
	It's an arbitrary measurement.
	It's a rigged system, as some might have said.
	Okay, but let's get into the juicy part of this, because now your whole political life is culminating in what we've known for the last four, six years now.
	Trump decides to run.
	What was your role in the campaign?
	And I guess we're going to go into when it started to go very south very quickly and your experience with that.
	How did it happen?
	Well, I was a paid consultant to the campaign in the early parts of it.
	I became convinced of two things.
	One, life was too short to have to deal with Corey Lewandowski because you can always tell when Corey's lying, his lips are moving.
	He's a talentless, advanced man.
	He also, I thought, had a tendency to reinforce Trump's most negative instincts, which I tried to avoid.
	And therefore, I decided that I could be more effective on Trump's behalf outside the campaign.
	I published my book, The Clinton's War on Women, which is the definitive history of Bill, Hillary, and all their corruption, whether it is the systematic sexual assault of hundreds of women raping some of them.
	Their names are all there.
	I interviewed 36 of them.
	But Hillary's role in hiring the heavy-handed private detectives and the nasty lawyers to silence this woman.
	You can't run for president as an advocate for women when you yourself have abused women like Juanita Broderick, my friend, or like Kathy Willey or Christy Zurcher and so many others.
	But I also talk about, you know, Bill and his partners.
	Taking blood from those in the state penitentiary system in Arkansas and selling it abroad without ever screening it for HIV.
	That's in the book, too.
	The reporter who revealed that in Arkansas had her car bombed and her house burned to the ground before she got the message and left the state.
	I detail how Bill sold our most basic military secrets, including...
	Missile targeting secrets to the Red Chinese for campaign contributions, another egregious example.
	So that stood as the definitive rundown on the Clintons.
	Trump made reference to the book several times during the campaign.
	Let me ask you one obvious question right now.
	You write a book like that.
	Set aside the jokes of, you know, Clintonside or whatever they call it, Arkenside.
	You write a book like that.
	You get sued.
	You get letters of demand.
	You get cease and desist.
	None of those things happen because the Clintons cannot stand up to any public scrutiny on any of these questions.
	My books are all very, very fully documented.
	I would have a field day if the Clintons wanted to sue me.
	It would be the media circus of the century, but they won't do that because they are essentially the penicillin-proof...
	Venereal disease of the American political culture.
	They just never go away.
	They would steal a hot stove.
	Hillary Clinton is a short-tempered, foul-mouthed, angry, entitled psychopath.
	And she's a kleptocrat, as we know.
	Nothing even remotely likable about her.
	Bill, at least, had a roguish charm.
	You know, there was something...
	You can kind of see that...
	He was just a good old boy having a good time.
	He was more interested in drugs and women than he was, or I would say as interested in drugs and women as he was in politics.
	But he had a good time.
	He enjoyed life.
	I think Hillary, she's not a happy person.
	She will never be a happy person.
	But here's the good news.
	No matter what happens, she will never be president.
	So if Donald Trump did nothing else, he saved this country from that calamity.
	Well, it's an amazing thing.
	Look, my political discovery journey has been slow and then fast, but I got into following American politics when Trump was running, and then that's when I had my, call it the red pillish moment.
	I was a wet-behind-the-ear virgin, so to speak, back when 9-11 happened.
	I was believing intelligence, believing the government.
	Oh, they had reports.
	They had weapons of mass destruction when they don't find them.
	Oh, they had Scud missiles.
	That was bad enough.
	When Trump ran, and I fully appreciated and realized the degree to which the media is thoroughly twisted, thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly, let's say, partisan, for lack of a more hyperbolic term, and that Hillary Clinton, it was her turn, media saying 99...
	I remember New York Times, 99% chance Hillary wins the day of.
	And I said, it takes someone...
	And Trump was loathed.
	Trump was loathed by people who voted for him, I presume.
	That she was so loathed that she lost to Trump.
	That was when I was like, holy cows.
	Well, they were obviously both exceedingly polarizing figures.
	But let's recognize she and her husband had vast experience at presidential campaigns.
	He had run twice.
	They had both worked in the McGovern campaign.
	She had once run once previously for the nomination.
	They had extensive experience in how this works.
	Now comes along the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump.
	They wanted to run against Donald Trump.
	They wanted to run against the one man who could beat them.
	They underestimated him tremendously.
	Yes, he was polarizing, but not more polarizing than she was.
	And it's important to recognize the media role.
	They build Trump up in the nomination process.
	They want him nominated.
	Biography of Hamilton Jordan, who was Jimmy Carter's chief of staff and chief political strategist.
	They wanted to run against Ronald Reagan.
	God, that guy's a brainless actor.
	We'll slaughter him.
	How'd that work out?
	So this is very similar.
	The Clintons, they didn't want to run against a professional politician who had experience in running a professional campaign.
	Let's run against Donald Trump.
	That's why they were petrified when Paul Manafort replaced Corey Lewandowski as Trump's campaign manager.
	Manafort is a highly capable person with its extensive experience at the task at hand.
	He knows how to win national elections.
	He had been involved in many of them.
	This is one of the reasons beyond the fact that he beat them in a Ukrainian election and they could never get over that because it delayed their plunder of Ukraine, which was really the reason why Manafort was targeted.
	He was targeted for two reasons.
	Remember, he was not charged with any crime that had anything to do with Donald Trump.
	And we'll get to this also, but no one ultimately convicted, you, Flynn, Manafort, of that entire event, had anything to do with the underlying Russia collusion?
	There is no Russian collusion.
	Because there was none.
	They got you on the procedure, and they got the others on the process.
	Right.
	Sorry, so carry on with Manafort.
	So in Manafort's case, Victoria Nuland, who's the criminal at the State Department in charge of Ukraine, We could never get over the fact that Manafort had gotten Viktor Yukonovich in as the president of Ukraine, and just for the historical record, was pushing Ukraine to join the European Union over the objections of Vladimir Putin and the Russians.
	So the idea that Manafort is a Russian stooge doesn't hold up when it comes to history.
	After $30 million...
	It's spent on the Mueller investigation, plus Adam Schiff's phony investigation in the House Intelligence Committee, plus the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.
	Here's what they come up with.
	Manafort gave poll numbers from the Trump campaign to a guy named Konstantin Kalimnik, and he was a Russian agent.
	There's the Russian collusion.
	Kalimnik is a U.S. government intelligence agent.
	He was reporting regularly to the Ukrainian embassy in Ukraine.
	That is such a secret that his name is redacted in all the cables that are sent from the embassy back to the State Department and the CIA to keep them up abreast of what's going on.
	So Kalimnik is not a Russian agent.
	And at the time that Manafort supposedly passes this polling information to the Russians...
	Trump has no proprietary polling information.
	He's still in the field.
	So public polls, which could be read in the newspaper, were given to Kalimnik, who's an associate of Manafort's.
	But Kalimnik is not a Russian intelligence agent.
	Adam Schiff recycled that chestnut a couple weeks ago on Meet the Press.
	Andrew Weissman, the epically corrupt de facto head of the Mueller investigation, rolls it out as, well, here's the proof of the Russian collusion.
	So, in other words, you have none.
	Not the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at the White House.
	The woman, Russian, is working for GPS Fusion or Fusion GPS.
	She meets with them before the meeting for a briefing.
	She meets with them after the meeting for a debriefing.
	It's a setup.
	No Russian collusion there.
	The Russian Alpha Bank connection, that was disproved in a federal courthouse.
	There is no Russian collusion.
	So you're absolutely right.
	But the goal here...
	It's to get people who are competent in helping Donald Trump elected out of the campaign.
	Those would be Paul Manafort, Roger Stone.
	I'm helping from the outside, but I'm certainly plugged in.
	And Michael Flynn, who gives them real authority and a depth of knowledge on foreign policy and national security issues.
	We had to be taken out.
	And to set an example to anyone else who would dare work with Trump and to go with what would ultimately become the three years of undermining.
	A duly elected, presumably duly elected president.
	Correct.
	Look, you have the Republican-Democrat divide in America is a Hegelian act.
	Look, I have deep sentimental attachment to the Republican Party of Goldwater, of Reagan, of Trump, of Lincoln.
	I'm a proud Republican, but when the party nominated Mitt Romney, I thought he was such a shithead that I switched to the Libertarian Party for two years.
	Then we find out how disorganized and crazy and anarchistic they are.
	I had to switch back to the Republican Party.
	I only know the Libertarian Party from their tweets on Twitter, and some of them are tweets that even I wouldn't put out.
	Well, I met a lot of great people in the Libertarian Party, but the Libertarian Party has two wings.
	It has a sane wing, and it has an anarchist wing.
	But think about this.
	If one is an anarchist, then one should not belong to an organized political party.
	I unfortunately was not able, because of Florida state law, I couldn't switch back to the Republican Party in time to vote for Trump in the 2016 Florida Republican primary, because there's a waiting period.
	You can't just switch parties and then vote.
	So the last vote I cast in a Republican-nominating primary was for Dr. Ron Paul in his last bid for president.
	Because I want to get into...
	You being arrested, charged, convicted.
	You had a trial, which some people can question the fairness of the trial.
	Anybody with half a brain.
	We only find it out afterwards because the sleuthing of the internet can discover material information in five seconds.
	But you've been in politics for 40 years, give or take.
	What I've witnessed and what I've seen and what I've learned from American politics as of Trump is a level of corruption that I can't believe existed.
	Prior to the same degree, has it always been this cutthroat, this vicious, this weaponizing of all government institutions to persecute ideological adversaries?
	And as I ask the question, now I'm thinking right back to the assassination of JFK, so maybe it's always been like this to some extent or another.
	But has what you've experienced in the last six years been worse than anything you've ever seen in your life in politics?
	The answer is yes.
	Lyndon Johnson ordered the FBI to wiretap Barry Goldwater's, pardon me, Richard Nixon's campaign plan in 1968.
	The government is most definitely complicit, particularly Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, and the FBI, all complicit in the murder of John Kennedy.
	We get closer and closer to it.
	People say, well, why didn't Trump...
	He did release about 80% of the documents.
	Then they say, well, why didn't Biden release all the documents?
	He also released a substantial number.
	I mean, we're getting closer and closer to it.
	Ultimately, they'll throw in the towel.
	But right now, just based on what's already been released, the CIA's lies about their knowledge of Oswald are absolutely clear.
	Oswald was trained to speak Russian in the CIA language school in North Carolina, and the reason that they never released his tax returns or his tax information is because he's getting 1099s from the FBI, who he is working for as an informant.
	And you describe this, this is in the 60s or maybe even the late 50s, and then we fast forward to the Whitmer kidnapping plot where you have informants on FBI payroll.
	You fast forward to January 6th where you have FBI involved in infiltrating, and I'll put it in quotes, Just as the CIA infiltrated the Watergate burglar team, just as four members of the Watergate burglars were also on Daily Plaza in 1963.
	What an incredible coincidence that is.
	It is Mark Twain's history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	So I guess the bottom line of this is never have they been so overt about it.
	Never has it been so obvious.
	So in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s, we sought to defeat our opponents in elections.
	We did not seek to destroy them and send to prison if we disagreed with them.
	We just sought to beat them in the elections.
	The civility in politics that did exist is completely gone.
	So take Paul Begala.
	He's a Democrat.
	He's a very smart guy.
	I like Paul Begala.
	He's Hungarian descent, as am I. We were relatively friendly when we were both bumping around Washington.
	We would occasionally have a drink together.
	That kind of camaraderie is no longer allowed.
	In other words, all Democrats hate all Republicans and vice versa, and they spend most of their time in a criminalized judicial system.
	Trying to throw people in jail, or they spend their time on Twitter trying to stop people from posting anything that contradicts their official narrative.
	The idea that Adam Schiff and Senator Dianne Feinstein and Vietnam War hero Richard Blumenthal, who never served in Vietnam but lied about it, would pressure Twitter to essentially...
	Co-opt any discussion of Devin Nunes' absolutely now proven correct report on Russian collusion issued as head of the House Intelligence Committee based on the claim that the people pushing it on Twitter are Russian bots, while Twitter technicians know that that is completely false, is outrageous.
	Now Adam Schiff wants to go to the U.S. Senate.
	We're talking about this on the way down.
	I think I'm going to set up pencil neck.
	And our project's going to be called Schiff Busters.
	And here's what we're going to do.
	I'm going to hire people to follow Adam Schiff around the state with bullhorns and exercise their First Amendment rights to question him any time he appears in public.
	Now, maybe you can't get into the forum where he's speaking, but you can catch him on the way to the car or on the way out because he's got to answer a lot of questions.
	It's got to be peaceful.
	I'm not advocating that people beat the crap out of him.
	I'm not advocating that people ask him questions.
	Give him the George Santos treatment.
	George Santos now, and I say rightfully so, as he walks the corridors of Capitol Hill, is being grilled by reporters.
	Why did you lie?
	Do you think he gets right?
	Do what reporters do to the Republicans.
	I say the reporters are finally learning how to do their job when it's a candidate that they don't mind doing their job against.
	Adam Schiff told us that he had, quote, seen more than circumstantial evidence of Russian collusion.
	Did he not use the word smoking?
	All right, pencil neck.
	Produce it.
	Where is it?
	Produce it.
	The guy made up a conversation between Trump and Zelensky and read it into the congressional record.
	He did use the word smoking gun at one point, right?
	I believe.
	I think he did.
	And from my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he was making statements which could not be contradicted without committee members breaching.
	Confidentiality rules?
	Well, in my particular case, he violated both House rules and the law by leaking my sworn testimony.
	But what really happened here was I was targeted not because of any involvement with the Russians.
	I was targeted probably because I could read.
	So I set a Google alert for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and any time he said anything about Hillary Clinton, I put it up on my Twitter feed.
	Yeah, there was a gadfly radio...
	Talk show host in New York, Randy Credico, who did tell me that he knew a woman lawyer who had worked for Assange.
	I have his text message and his email in which he says this.
	They were not allowed at my trial.
	Who told me that Assange has a bunch of information on Hillary, which he will release in October.
	Well, the reason that's not proprietary is Assange himself had said that prior to October.
	So all I did was amplify what Assange was saying.
	I had no connection to WikiLeaks.
	I had no inside track on information I could read.
	But I was epically trolling the Clinton campaign about this.
	They knew that there was bad stuff there, obviously, and they knew it was coming.
	So I was targeted not because of that, but in order to pressure me to testify against Donald Trump.
	I have no previous criminal record.
	If you wanted to arrest me, the normal way to do that would be to call my attorneys and say, we're going to charge your client.
	You need to bring him in for arraignment.
	But they didn't do that.
	They instead, at 6 o 'clock in the morning, 29 heavily armed FBI agents in full SWAT gear brandishing fully automatic M4 assault weapons surround my house with a CNN camera in tow.
	Thanks, guys.
	And they perform this arrest.
	I couldn't have raised a dime for my legal defense had they not done that.
	I raised two and a half million dollars for my legal defense in the 48 hours after my arrest.
	And I still couldn't fathom what they were arresting me for because there is no Russian collusion.
	You were called to testify before Congress.
	No, I went voluntarily.
	And the object of your testimony was supposed to be what?
	How you knew of WikiLeaks, what your connection was?
	They did focus on that.
	I answered all the questions honestly.
	Here's the point.
	To violate the False Statements Act, your false statement has to be willful and material.
	So there is no Russian collusion to cover up.
	There is no WikiLeaks collaboration to cover up.
	So any misstatement I make is completely innocuous and immaterial.
	I've been trying to understand this from the beginning.
	You got convicted on five charges of lying to Congress, one charge of obstructing, was it obstructing justice?
	No, it was one charge of witness tampering, which is absurd because the witness in question threatened to shoot one of the grand jury witnesses who was exculpatory, who went to the grand jury, threatened to shoot him in the head.
	In a text message, but he didn't get charged with witness tampering.
	In my case, because I had an argument, I threatened to take this guy's dog away from him because he wasn't feeding the dog.
	Because of his drug habit, the dog was going hungry.
	But that, oh, you threatened to take this guy's dog.
	That was deemed to be witness threatening.
	That was Andrew Weissman putting a cherry on the top of a very weak indictment.
	But in a D.C. courtroom with a judge who could not...
	Hide her disdain and hatred for me and Trump, and who strangely seems to believe that federal judges can't be questioned or can't be criticized.
	So when Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones would question her or criticize her on the air, protected First Amendment speech, she would go out of her mind, out of her mind.
	And, of course, we learned later I had an all-Trump-hating jury.
	No Republicans, no evangelical Christians.
	You're in D.C., 95%.
	Yeah, but still, the odds are good you get one military veteran, right?
	You get one non-Democrat, Green Party member, independent, Republican.
	Statistically, it would be 95% Democrat, Clinton supporting Washington.
	But they were uniform in their hatred of Donald Trump, I will say that.
	The jury for a woman had been the Democratic candidate for Congress in Tennessee.
	She testified in the jury selection.
	She never heard of me and didn't know anything about the case.
	Never made any social media posts.
	She had been posting attacking me and Trump specifically regarding the case in which I was charged for a year before she was chosen as a juror in that same case.
	She had her social media postings on a private setting.
	She tried to quietly delete them right after my trial.
	She got caught.
	She should be in prison.
	First of all, I was going to make the joke that I thought threatening to take someone's dog was not illegal, as we saw with Chris Cooper and Amy Cooper in New York, Central Park Karen, but set that obvious joke aside.
	You go through this trial.
	You're in D.C. I've been following enough of these trials now to know that they will convict based on ideology and they will acquit based on ideology.
	Your trial was quite short, was it not?
	It was relatively short.
	Part of the problem was that my lawyers, for reasons I cannot tell you today, decided to mount no defense.
	Notice, I had over 800 exhibits of audios, videos, text messages, emails, in which I could have proved my innocence.
	My lawyers were either intimidated or they were compromised.
	I don't know which.
	I paid them a huge amount of money.
	But after two days, I realized my biggest mistake was I should have represented myself because I couldn't have done worse than they did.
	On the other hand, I could have had Clarence Darrow as my lawyer, and I still would have been convicted because this was wired.
	And then, of course, when the corruption of the jury forum was learned after I was convicted, the judge refused to set aside my conviction and give me a new trial, saying that this woman's...
	Attacks on me was not evidence of bias, which is...
	I think the judge also said that it was a good-faith error in the jury questionnaire, best of recollection.
	Absurd.
	But the worst part of it was the judge, in the tongue-lashing she gave me...
	Before my sentencing said, you are convicted of covering up for Donald Trump.
	No, sorry, nothing to cover up.
	Absurd.
	By the way, judges can be impeached.
	Are you aware of that?
	In the House of Representatives is actually where such an impeachment proceeding would have to begin.
	It's a very interesting question.
	The question I had is that, from what I understood, of the false statements for which you were convicted, one of which was exaggerating a connection to Julian Assange's WikiLeaks that didn't actually exist.
	Is my understanding of that relatively accurate?
	That's a bastardization of it.
	This is very simple.
	Randy Credico, who is a progressive, was a friend of mine, hated the Clintons, hated the Clintons because Clinton had never done anything on drug reform.
	We had worked together for criminal justice reform, specifically drug law reform, something that we agreed on.
	And he told me that...
	That he knew a woman lawyer who worked for Assange and that she told him that in October Assange had a huge catch of information on Hillary that he was going to release.
	That's the end of the story.
	That woman testified that she never said that.
	She lied.
	He testified that he never said that.
	I had an email and a text message in which he said them.
	But facts don't matter in a D.C. courtroom.
	The judge disallowed any possible defense.
	So, for example.
	The underlying premise of my indictment is that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the information to WikiLeaks.
	I can prove that didn't happen using forensic evidence and expert testimony, but the judge would not allow that defense.
	And that's been a premise for a long time that has been...
	Somewhat disputed, although I'm not sure that people who dispute it are not referred to as conspiracy theorists, is that there is actually...
	It's actually completely debunked, and anyone who believes that is literally insane.
	There is no evidence of that.
	It's not in the CrowdStrikes report.
	No, John Brennan does not retain it.
	There is no online hack of the Democratic National Committee, but the judge would not allow us to prove that in court.
	And that was my next question, is were you denied defenses as...
	Every defense.
	Similar to Steve Bannon.
	So, for example...
	I could not use evidence of corruption by the special prosecutor, by the DOJ, by the FBI, or by any member of Congress in my defense.
	That is specifically unconstitutional under Kyles v.
	Whitley that holds that the investigation, the integrity of the investigation and the indictment is always grounds for defense.
	Evidently, the judge was unaware of the Constitution in my case.
	So I was not allowed any reasonable defense.
	There was no defense to be offered because my strongest defenses were disallowed in pretrial motions.
	This was a Soviet-style show trial.
	It was a lynching.
	And actually, they did me a strange favor.
	They were so outrageous in their lynching that the entire case caught the attention of Donald Trump.
	And when he saw the misconduct by the juror, and he saw the fact that the judge would roll her eyes visibly for the jury whenever my lawyers were talking, my pardon was assured.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Your trial, what year was it in?
	It was...
	2020.
	2020.
	I'm trying to temporalize.
	So I was arrested in 2019.
	I went to trial in the beginning of 2020.
	At the same time as we got your trial, you get Bannon's trial, which is similar to what many would regard as a show trial.
	Strip a defendant of their defenses and then say have fun at trial.
	You got the same thing with Alex Jones' trial going on now?
	There is one slight difference, and that is this is really pretty simple.
	Steve Bannon was subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee.
	I was subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee.
	I showed up and fulfilled my legal obligations under the subpoena, and I asserted my Fifth Amendment rights.
	Steve could have done that.
	Why didn't he do that?
	That would have been the smart thing to do.
	Roger, you're going to say he could have done that, and they still screwed you.
	I think the ultimate takeaway is if the system is out to screw you, they're going to screw you either through defiance, either through compliance, or through the process itself.
	Again, people say, well, you invoked your Fifth Amendment in the January 6th thing.
	Isn't that proof that you did something wrong?
	No, actually, it's proof that I didn't.
	Here's what I do know.
	I evoke my Fifth Amendment right in the January 6th charade because I'm well aware of the ability to take things you say and to twist them into a process crime.
	So any claim that I knew in advance about, participated in, or condoned any illegal act on January 6th is false.
	And Adam Schiff's phony committee has no evidence of it.
	The Justice Department has no evidence of it.
	The FBI has investigated it, and it is a whole cloth.
	I was in Washington on January 5th and 6th.
	I gave a speech on the 5th.
	I stand by every word of that speech.
	Unfortunately, you can't find it on YouTube anymore because, oh, I've been banned on YouTube.
	So it is, you know, it's the third attempt.
	Steve Bannon would have been much smarter to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, but fulfill his legal obligation, and at least he wouldn't have that problem.
	Now, the case, again, in New York, in which he's accused of stealing more than a million dollars from a nonprofit, has nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump.
	No, it has to do with Donald Trump, only in that they're allies, they're friends, and they want to make an example and make life hell for anyone who has had anything to do with Donald Trump.
	After you get convicted...
	You saw the writing on the wall.
	You knew this was coming?
	Well, there was never any chance that I was going to be acquitted.
	I didn't know that in the beginning.
	I thought I could actually mount a defense, but being sold out by my own defense attorneys was very hard to swallow.
	I spent six months preparing exhibits, preparing cross-examination questions that they would not ask.
	One of the most crushing moments of this was when I learned that Steve Bannon would be a witness against me.
	And Mueller produced him at the last minute.
	Now, Bannon had testified for the House Intelligence Committee under oath, but at that time his testimony was still classified.
	He's asked specifically, did you ever speak to Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, or where these emails came from?
	And he says, no, never.
	And Schiff says, on no occasion.
	And Bannon says, no, never.
	Then on the stand in my trial, he's asked the identical question.
	Did you ever speak to Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, or where these documents came from?
	And he says, yes, Stone brought it up in every phone conversation we had in 2016.
	I consider him the campaign's access point with WikiLeaks.
	That's false.
	That's perjury.
	In all honesty, for a couple years, I was very angry about this and very bitter about it.
	But the Bible teaches us to forgive those who have trespassed against us.
	And at this point, I haven't forgotten it, but I have forgiven it.
	And now I see that Bannon is targeted by the same people who tried to destroy me.
	So in truth, I really am praying for him.
	But when people say, why don't you like Steve Bannon?
	Oh, there's a pretty good reason right there.
	By the way, Jonathan Turley.
	George Washington University Law School professor read both transcripts and says there's a serious discrepancy here.
	He perjured himself in either one or the other.
	Well, since I never discussed Julian Assange or WikiLeaks with Steve Bannon, he was prepared to help Robert Mueller put me away.
	Now, what they didn't tell us, did not tell my defense attorneys, was that Bannon was under investigation by the feds at the time he testified.
	They had an obligation to tell us that at trial, but they never did.
	And I assume that Steve made his deal with them and testified against me because he was trying to get off the hook on an unrelated matter, and they ended up charging him anyway.
	So anyway, it's in the past.
	And Jonathan Turley, for anybody who doesn't know, Jonathan Turley became famous when he testified for Trump in support of...
	I guess against the impeachment, and then he became public enemy number one.
	Jonathan Turley is viewed as one of the most knowledgeable attorneys in the country.
	He's not a Republican.
	He's not a conservative.
	He's not really political.
	He's just a brilliant legal mind.
	And I know nothing of the...
	The beef, let's call it a beef, but that incident between you and Bannon.
	I just laid it out for you.
	No, no, and now hearing it, but one thing that also comes to mind is they go after the allies, and then they try to make the allies fight among each other.
	It's sort of like sowing discord among a family.
	So you get convicted, and then they wanted nine years in jail?
	The prosecutors came back with an incredible recommendation of seven to nine years for jail, but when you read their sentencing memo...
	They want to give me extra time for crimes for which I have not been convicted.
	Quoting directly, foreign involvement in foreign interference in the election should get him two extra years.
	That's not what they convicted me of.
	He threatened to kill a federal judge.
	No, I didn't.
	That's the whole thing.
	Was that the whole...
	It's an absurdity.
	The circle on the judge on the thumbnail or something?
	I post a picture, and in the upper left-hand corner is the logo of the organization that created the original image, which is not a crosshair and is not over her face, but...
	When there's a media feeding frenzy, try to say something in the middle of it.
	Any form of truth or explanation comes out.
	I have a sworn affidavit from the graphic artist who built the image, and he said, no, that was a Celtic cross, and it is part of the logo of the organization that created the original image.
	But by the end of the day, it became, Stone created an image with rifle crosshairs over the judge's face.
	That's entirely untrue.
	But they wanted to give me extra time for a crime that I had not been convicted of.
	So the seven to nine year...
	Sentencing was not in line with what the local prosecutors had told Bill Barr, the attorney general.
	And in the end, he did not remove that recommendation.
	All he added was an additional recommended saying, look, this is up to the judge.
	But we think that sentence could be from seven to nine years to three years.
	In the end, she gave me the three years, not the seven to nine years.
	But at 69 years old, with a lifetime history of asthma, sending me to a prison in Georgia when I live on the tip of Florida, where the government insists that there are no cases of COVID.
	But the African-American woman, who's the head of the prison guards union, reads this in the newspaper, contacts my lawyer and says, there are 200 cases of COVID, at least in this prison, which they are suppressing until after your client is incarcerated here.
	So the idea was to make sure that I could never appeal, because my appeal would expose the corruption of Andrew Weissman, would expose the corruption of the judge, would expose the corruption...
	Why would one of the jurors just spit out in a Washington Post interview, you know, the judge never visited the jury room.
	Why would he possibly say that?
	Why would you ever say that?
	Unless, of course, she did.
	Yeah, three years of the life of a 69-year-old man is, to be optimistic, 10% at best.
	I don't think I would have survived.
	It was a death sentence.
	It was meant to be a death sentence.
	Given my health condition, I wouldn't have survived it.
	Under SEAL, we produced all of my medical records to the court.
	They didn't care.
	But the jury for a woman's misconduct, the antics of the judge, who really is run by her clerks and has very little knowledge of the Constitution or the law, the unconstitutionally of virtually every one of her pretrial rulings, which would never have held up on appeal.
	Those came to the attention of Donald Trump.
	No, for those who say, like Jerry Nadlier, you know him, the congressman from New York, Jerry Nadlier.
	I know of Jerry.
	I mean, I've now gotten familiar with all of you.
	Or Congressman Eric Swal as well.
	Or the inexorable Adam Schiff, who said, Stone had a deal with Trump.
	He would maintain his silence about Trump's crimes in return for a pardon.
	That is a damnable lie.
	There is no evidence to support it.
	The claims of Michael Cohn and Mueller witness Rick Gates to that extent, they both changed their story three times under coaching from Mueller, and they all offer that testimony at the time that they are trying to make a deal over the length of their own incarceration.
	It's bullshit.
	So there was a long period here where I didn't know what would happen.
	I've been very forthright of the fact that I had a...
	Religious redemption in that period.
	The stress level was such that you either get addicted to pharmaceuticals or you turn your entire fate over to God.
	I chose the latter.
	I'm glad that I did because once I decided that there would be divine intervention in my case and that if I confessed my sins, if I got right with my God, that he would deliver me from my...
	My persecutors.
	All stress disappeared.
	I mean, I reached a point where I was completely serene about what would happen.
	And I knew that the phone call would come.
	It's not because I had a guarantee.
	It's not because it was done by prearrangement.
	It's not because I had some kind of deal.
	It was because I put my faith in Christ.
	And that was the only way I survived it.
	I mean, otherwise, the stress of being completely destitute.
	I mean, we lost our home.
	We lost my car.
	We lost our savings.
	I lost most of my insurance.
	And for 16 months, I was gagged, so I couldn't come on a show like this and talk about pizza.
	I couldn't talk about anything.
	As you know, I publish an international best and dressed list I have for 13 years.
	The 14th year would have been 2020.
	I was prohibited from doing so.
	I couldn't even comment on that.
	So you lose two years of your life just struggling.
	Under a constant flow of illegal leaks, CNN first beating the drum that your arrest is going to be next week.
	Oh, well, not this week, maybe next week.
	Or not this week, the week after that.
	Mueller tightens the screws on stone.
	Mueller focusing on stone.
	Where are these leaks coming from?
	It's not a fun process.
	Although...
	While I may be materially poorer for the experience, I'm spiritually much, much richer.
	And I have an enormous debt to the tens of thousands, actually almost 65,000 people who contributed to my legal defense fund when I was just out of money.
	The same people who gave to a family fund.
	Almost immediately after my pardon, my wife was diagnosed with very aggressive stage 4 cancer.
	The doctors tell me that the prospects are not good.
	Most of our insurance is gone.
	Not all, but most.
	I had no choice but to go to the same people who financed my legal defense to try to finance, you know, just surviving.
	Just surviving.
	And some of her medical expenses.
	And thank God people responded.
	You can still go to stonedefensefund.com because to this day I have 11. Civil lawsuits pending against me.
	This is called lawfare.
	This is when nutjobs, crackpots, lunatics, Democrats, liberals—oh, wait.
	I'm being redundant.
	They file lawsuits against you that have no basis in fact, but they're highly sensationalized.
	They get huge headlines when they file them.
	When they're dismissed, as six of them have been, that gets no media coverage whatsoever.
	This is news to me.
	Who is suing you for what reasons?
	I'm being sued for defamation because of accurate things that I've said.
	I was sued by the Biden Justice Department in a civil suit in which they implied but did not claim and produced no proof that I had understated my assets in 2006.
	That I had understated my income in 2006, and that my wife and I were secretly living a lavish lifestyle.
	They have withdrawn all those claims because there is no evidence of them, and that suit was settled.
	And I now make regular payments to the IRS, and I probably will for the rest of my life.
	But the legal costs involved in that was a quarter of a million dollars, just to work that out.
	I have to go raise that money.
	I don't have a quarter of a million dollars.
	So the ongoing lawfare, which is what this is called, I'm being sued with Donald Trump.
	We're still jointly being sued in the District of Columbia with a group of others who I don't know, theoretically by three Capitol Hill police officers who say that we endangered their lives.
	But the suit is being paid for by a George Soros-funded legal front.
	This is a newly filed, or is this relevant?
	This has been kicking around for a while.
	We have a pending motion to dismiss.
	Lawyers for the plaintiffs moved for discovery last week.
	We think discovery is premature.
	We're waiting for the judge to rule first on our motion to dismiss.
	The judge has, I think, wisely decided to wait until the end of the Proud Boy trials to do that.
	I think there's every probability, because it's the District of Columbia, this case will be allowed to go forward.
	I don't have much to hand over on Discovery.
	Sorry, I wasn't there on January 6th, and I know nothing about it.
	It's interesting to me that in the House January 6th televised hearings, a woman named Cassidy Hutchison says that President Trump told the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to call Roger Stone and General Flynn on the afternoon of the 5th to find out what would happen on the 6th.
	Were those calls completed?
	Yes, they were.
	That's perjury.
	There is no such call.
	She should be in jail.
	She should be charged with lying under oath to Congress.
	She goes on to say Meadows was going over to the Willard to meet Stone and Flynn and others in a war room to talk about the events, to talk about stuff, I guess.
	And I persuaded him not to go, but he later called Stone and Flynn for a debrief.
	Now you're two for two, Cassidy.
	That's a lie, too.
	Why isn't she being charged with lying to Congress under oath?
	The January 6th television extravaganza by Adam Schiff and his cronies is one of the most disgraceful things I've ever seen.
	Where's the video of Ashley Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran?
	Who was shot and killed in cold blood without warning when she's menacing nobody?
	Where was that video?
	Why didn't we show that?
	Why don't we have the testimony of Officer Michael Byrd, who should be charged with first-degree murder, but instead gets a medal?
	Where's his testimony?
	Why didn't we see that?
	I mean, this is—how about Ray Epps while we're at it?
	The guy admits in his deposition he orchestrated things.
	He's very clearly an FBI...
	Well, the crowd the night before was calling him Fed or chanting Fed.
	But where was his testimony?
	Why did we put him on TV?
	I mean, give me a break.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I was watching that beginning to end.
	I had to stop at one point because it was nauseating to watch what was not a bipartisan committee.
	It was a show trial of show trials.
	You have...
	Adam Kinzinger on the committee making what I think are objectively false tweets.
	He doesn't even have the balls to run for re-election.
	He gets out there with all these charges, but he won't go back to Illinois and run because he would have been pulverized.
	There's two elements to this.
	People are going to look at you and say, this is what you get for being...
	In politics for 40 years, having made enemies with the people who are now in power, it's just par for the course.
	It's the rules of the game.
	You live by that sword.
	Now you have to die by that sword.
	I never tried to send anybody to jail.
	I never tried to destroy anybody's life.
	I tried to defeat people in democratic elections.
	Yeah, that's a pretty sharp elbow process.
	I mean, it can get dirty.
	It can get nasty, I guess is what I should say.
	But I never wanted to send my opponents to jail.
	When the Republicans...
	I tried to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob in the White House.
	I thought that was epically stupid.
	If you're going to impeach Bill Clinton for something, we had absolute proof that he was trading our military secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions.
	That's a serious crime.
	That's what he should have been impeached for.
	Not fooling around with some White House intern, which I thought and wrote at the time was really stupid on the part of the Republicans.
	So the question is this, though.
	How much worse is it going to get?
	And whether or not people...
	Let's just take for granted people think you're guilty and you should be punished to some reasonable extent.
	Nine years for what some might consider to be a lie, but I don't think you could deny that it would be an immaterial lie for the purposes of the investigation.
	Bannon.
	Contempt of Congress.
	I think he's the first person in a long time to get convicted of it.
	How much worse does it get, and what is the way out of this?
	Well, there is only one way out of it, and that is through the democratic election process.
	That process has now been called into question in terms of whether it is fair, transparent, honest, and accurate.
	No, that's not a conspiracy theory.
	Sorry.
	Our precincts in Philadelphia where more people voted than are registered to vote.
	Explain that to me.
	No, the tabulating machines in Arizona are calibrated to take a 19-inch ballot, so why would you deliver a 20-inch ballot?
	That was an accident, Roger.
	Come on.
	It was an immaterial accident.
	Look, I think a couple things.
	First of all...
	I am very pleased with the way the House elections came out.
	I did not want Republican victory by a broad margin.
	I predicted that the red wave would be a pink drizzle, and it was.
	If we had won the House by a margin of 25 seats, Kevin McCarthy would have become speaker like that.
	The rules of Nancy Pelosi would have remained the rules of the House, and nothing would change.
	Nothing whatsoever would change.
	Now, any six members...
	Led by Matt Gaetz can cut Kevin McCarthy's throat in one parliamentary move, and it's a privileged motion.
	So if Kevin does not investigate fairly the abuses of the FBI, if he does not investigate what happened at Twitter and the FBI's role in censoring people, if he doesn't investigate Joe and Hunter and Jim Biden, if he doesn't look into some of the...
	The Chinese Communist Party's antics in this country.
	He will be removed as speaker.
	He just takes one up-and-down vote, and he's right back where he was.
	He needs 218, and he doesn't have it.
	So you have a weakened Kevin McCarthy, whose agenda will now be driven by the insurgents, by the rebels.
	And therefore, I think the House investigations are going to be very forceful.
	I think they're going to be very aggressive.
	I think they're going to be very fair, something that didn't happen under the Democrats.
	But the fact that we did not flip the Senate means that there will be no change in the basic economic policies of the country, which is why I say to you, in 2024, the economy here will be much like it was in 1933.
	And now tell me the prospects for a democratic victory, even with a rigged system at that juncture.
	Record fuel prices, food shortages, inflation.
	On top of it, the real, very real possibility of World War III because of our violation of the 1994 treaty in which we agreed that Ukraine is supposed to remain a neutral buffer zone and we agreed not to mount offensive NATO missiles on the ground in Russia, but on the ground in Ukraine, pointed at Russia.
	Gorbachev signed for the Russians.
	Ronald Reagan signed for the United States, the so-called...
	Budapest agreement.
	We're in violation of that treaty today.
	I have a videotape in which George W. Bush admits it and laughs about it.
	Well, there's also the audio of, now famous audio of Victoria Nuland talking about, I think she referred to them as bio-research facilities in Ukraine.
	So the idea that Putin wants to turn Ukraine into a puppet state makes no sense at all because he can't even afford to do so economically.
	Putin is acting defensively because he doesn't want Western missiles pointed at his country and he doesn't want bioweapons labs cooking up God knows what to dump on the Russian people.
	No, I don't love Vladimir Putin.
	No, I'm not a Russophile.
	Putin is a thug.
	I have family members of mine mowed down by Russian tanks in Budapest.
	I really don't like Russians and I don't like his form of government.
	But Zelensky is not a small-D Democrat.
	He's outlawed all political parties but his.
	He's arrested his political opponents.
	He arrests journalists.
	He closes down newspapers and radio stations and television stations.
	He has outlawed the largest church in the country, perhaps in the world, actually.
	So don't tell me he's a Democrat or that this is about democracy.
	He's not fighting tyranny.
	He is a tyrant.
	He is no better.
	Or worse than Putin.
	So that argument makes no sense.
	Ukraine has been the crown jewel here for the deep state.
	Victoria Nuland pushed for Paul Manafort's indictment because he slaughtered her in an election and they never saw that coming.
	What?
	You mean we can't use Ukraine as a centerpiece for our money laundering and our child sex trafficking and God knows what other corruption?
	So I want to see what documents they are regarding Ukraine that Crazy Joe had in his basement or in his garage.
	It is a locked garage right next to his Corvette.
	Don't worry, it's locked.
	What I love from a cynical perspective is, can't question elections in 2020, but in 2016, because I was just watching the news and pulling up some of your old coverage, 2016.
	2016, invalid elections, Russian interference, Trump is a Putin puppet, and the election was invalid.
	2020, can't question it.
	They set up the January 6th committee.
	I can't get over the hypocrisy and the double standards of the analysis, but...
	That's what I view to be politics in general.
	But the reason they got away with it is simply because you had a monopoly on social media and on media coverage in this country.
	So in one bold stroke, Elon Musk has changed all of that.
	It's really quite brilliant.
	And that is why we're learning so much today about the FBI corruption, about the corruption of Adam Schiff, about the Russian collusion hoax.
	There's so much more to learn.
	So, look, my hat is off to Elon Musk.
	I've never met him, but I admire him a lot.
	I think that the Tesla is the best-looking car since the Citroen DS21 that I used to drive.
	And I think what he's done here is really quite incredible.
	And it is opening the door to greater truths.
	The monopoly is now broken, and that's why they are so petrified.
	So you hear two voices coming out of the political establishment in this country.
	Trump is damaged.
	He's finished.
	He's through.
	I was going to ask you that.
	His popular appeal is on the wane.
	You know, he's increasingly isolated.
	Oh my God, we've got to find some crime to charge him with so he can't run again.
	Why?
	Why do you care?
	There's an intellectual incongruity with that, but some people, and a lot of people, have said it was Trump that is to blame for it being a...
	Pink trickle and not a red wave.
	Yeah, that's an absurdity.
	Then let's give him credit for the election of J.D. Vance in Ohio.
	Let's give him the credit for the narrow election of Ron Johnson, probably his biggest supporter in the Senate.
	Why does he get no credit for those things?
	The Republicans lost through a combination of voter fraud in a number of these states and also because in individual cases.
	Mitch McConnell sends $9 million to Alaska instead of sending that $9 million to Arizona to prop up Lisa Murkowski, who is not the endorsed candidate of the Republican Party of Alaska, in some harebrained, ranked voting system, which makes no sense to me.
	Here's how elections need to operate.
	One day.
	Paper ballots.
	Absentee balloting only if you can prove you have a legitimate reason.
	Say, physical ailment, physical incapacity, or you're traveling for business.
	That's the way it has been, by the way, for a hundred years.
	That's the way it is in Canada.
	No early voting.
	No mail-in voting.
	Those are, as Bill Barr said on CNN, that's an open invitation for voter fraud.
	If they can count 38 million paper ballots in France in one day, the French not being the most efficient people in the world.
	Then we can do it.
	And until you return to that, I don't think we will have honest, fair, transparent elections.
	As the outside observer, when some people refer to it as fraud, and then other people say it's not fraud, I mean, those are just the new rules.
	People are describing the same thing using different terminology.
	You'll say fraud, as many people will agree.
	And then others are going to say...
	It was described in Time Magazine.
	It was just fortification.
	We just changed the rules, controlled the free flow of information, censored all of that.
	And that to me...
	Here's the problem with that.
	So when you legalize mail-in voting, they're right.
	That's a change in the rules.
	But when the mail-in voting empowers people who are not eligible to vote or who don't really exist and those votes are counted...
	That's corruption.
	There's the difference.
	So the Republicans were definitely at the switch when Norm Eisen and Neil Keitel and all these other criminals go out and change the rules, but they don't fight that.
	But when you legalize mail-in voting, when you extend early voting and you remove the requirements for matching signatures, you're enabling fraud.
	Don't necessarily disagree with that assessment.
	In fact, I don't.
	And the issue, Robert Barnes and I talk about it on Sundays is, you know, the signature verification was the biggest thing that was never done.
	Changing the rules, I am still of the view that changing the rules, weaponizing the legal process and weaponizing social media monopolies to influence thought, I mean, that is interference.
	What's phenomenally interesting now to see with Elon Musk, it's not just breaking up the monopoly.
	Of social media.
	It's breaking up the monopoly of the truth.
	And it's not just that he did that, but then he released the information that proves it.
	But what we've seen is election interference.
	Suppressing material stories through government interests, through intelligent interests, through intelligence pressure is itself interference in the purest of forms.
	It's just, you know, people are going to say, well, it's not illegal.
	Private companies can do what they want, but, you know, are they private entities when they're acting at the behest of pressure, wink, wink, nudge, nudge?
	But, I mean...
	We need a solution.
	What is going to be the long-term solution?
	The solution is actually fairly simple.
	Google, Apple, YouTube, these people do not own the Internet.
	What they own is highly influential software that's in wide use on the Internet.
	The Internet can still be free and fair.
	Alex Jones is still on the internet.
	You can go to Infowars and guess what?
	Millions of people go there every single day.
	He's not being censored.
	He may be censored at Facebook.
	He may be censored at Twitter.
	He may be censored on Instagram.
	But he doesn't need those things because you can go directly and get your pure, unadulterated Alex Jones.
	And he gets between 2 and 3 million people a day.
	Why?
	Because he has his own servers.
	Why?
	Because his website is secure.
	So what we need is not the content, but the business model, as it were, of InfoWars.
	Mike Lindell, who's a pillow salesman and a good guy, he's built Frank Speech.
	It's not as sophisticated, but it's still getting millions of views.
	So if you don't like...
	What you see on the Internet, and you want to put forward a contrary narrative that you believe is truthful, then use your own platform on the Internet.
	Use your own servers.
	Use your own secure domain.
	Use your own secure URL, and you can compete in the battle of ideas.
	They don't own the Internet.
	They've just used the existing...
	Establishment social media and news platforms more effectively.
	But they're even beginning to lose at that.
	Well, if they don't sense you, at the very least, they'll try to destroy you through lawfare, as they've done with you, Jones, everyone else.
	And I was thinking this the other day, thinking back to the JFK assassination and what looks like, by all accounts, LBJ having his only...
	It's an impediment to the ascension of the presidency in his way removed.
	And we say, like, people don't do this anymore because they don't need the literal assassinations.
	They can have the character assassinations, the financial assassinations.
	And so they're fighting the same type of war, just with different weapons, so to speak.
	Well, the problem for Lyndon Johnson was his problem was about to become acute.
	A Senate investigation into his taking bribes through Bobby Baker, those hearings opened on November 22, 1963.
	Drew Pearson, who's the most influential columnist, has a column already written in the can for the day after the Kennedy assassination, which accuses Johnson of taking a bribe in return for a general dynamics defense contract.
	Johnson is looking at prison.
	It's kill or be killed.
	And he's got a lot of allies.
	The intelligence community are upset with Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
	Neither one of those public stories are accurate in terms of what we've been told.
	The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco.
	They assured Kennedy that there would be air support for the men charging the beaches.
	It was supposed to come from 29 Panamanian-flagged bombers flown by Cuban pilots out of Panama.
	That is canceled the day before the invasion to try to euchre Kennedy into sending in the Air Force, which is what they wanted.
	And he refused.
	So the Bay of Pigs thing is a disaster, not because of John Kennedy's indecision about air support.
	Air support was in the plan.
	The Cuban Missile Crisis, people did not know until 45 years later when it was declassified.
	There was a secret deal between Nikita Khrushchev and the Kennedy brothers to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and Italy in return for a pledge to remove Russian missiles from Cuba, but there was no on-site inspections in that deal.
	The Pentagon knew that at the time.
	They were furious about it, but the American people didn't know it.
	There's their motive.
	John Kennedy's demanding a silver or gold-backed dollar.
	He preferred silver.
	The international banks are not happy about that.
	John Kennedy wants to repeal the oil depletion allowance, so these Texas oil billionaires are saving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes.
	John Kennedy has double-crossed the mob.
	His father, Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, has made a deal with the mafia that the deportation proceedings against Carlos Marcelo...
	A mobster who runs the mafia in Texas and Louisiana, and Santo Traficante, who ran the mob in Florida and lived a couple blocks from here, would be dropped if John Kennedy became president.
	The mob put up a million dollars for John Kennedy's election, a million dollars in the 1960s, a huge amount of money.
	And then, of course, Bobby Kennedy becomes attorney general, and he double-crosses the mob and goes after Marcello and Traficante.
	They're paying Lyndon Johnson the princely sum of $5,000 a month to protect their illegal gambling operations in Texas.
	So the common spoke to all of these entities is LBJ.
	When Johnson is the Senate Majority Leader, who never by tradition serves on a committee, he appoints himself to the subcommittee of defense appropriations where the CIA budget is secretly prepared.
	He's the paymaster for the CIA.
	When he leaves the Senate, he puts Senator Harry Byrd of Florida in that position, who's his man.
	He controls the budget of the CIA.
	He also controls the budget of the FBI.
	He is deeply involved as the water carrier for Texas Oil.
	He has his own mob connections, as I just said.
	No, in my book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against OBJ, we can...
	Hold this up in a shameless promotion.
	There it is.
	I'm going to need this on audio as well, but when did this come out?
	That came out, you don't have to look.
	It was probably 10 years ago, probably longer at this point.
	So a bit ahead of the curve.
	Well, actually, I wrote it in time for an anniversary of Kennedy's assassination.
	I'm not a lawyer, but I make a compelling case using eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, and deep Texas politics that it's Lyndon Johnson who has the motive, means, and opportunity to kill John Kennedy.
	In fact, he leaves a bunch of clues.
	Before Oswald has even been apprehended, he's in the elevator.
	He's just become de facto become president.
	He's with Malcolm Kilduff, who is a spokesman for John Kennedy.
	Kilduff is, of course, bereft.
	His boss has just been shot and killed.
	And he says, Mr. President, who would do something like this?
	I mean, who would do something like this?
	And Johnson said, it was a communist, son.
	Mr. President, what kind of communist?
	It was a Russian communist, son.
	Really?
	How does LBJ know that?
	Oswald has not yet even been arrested or identified.
	How would he know that?
	Perfect example.
	Johnson leaves all kinds of hints.
	The famous picture in which you see him being sworn in on Air Force One.
	There is no need to be sworn in.
	He is automatically president.
	There is no ceremony.
	He did that to twist the knife into Robert Kennedy, who he hated.
	And also, by having Jackie with her blood splattered dress stand next to him, it gives him the imprimatur of authority because he's petrified that Bobby Kennedy is going to say, no, Lyndon, you killed my brother and I can prove it.
	And that is what he's worried about.
	So he also needs to get Jackie away from the body because John Kennedy's body is moved to Air Force Two and flown back to Washington, Bethesda Medical Center.
	The casket that's contained on Air Force One, which is closed, is empty.
	It's a terrific book by Gerald Lifson on this, who documents all of that.
	On the way down here, I had a bit of a drive.
	I was listening to Eric Hundley and Mark Robert talk about this and going over all of it so that I could be a little more informed when we had the discussion.
	Official confirmed modifying the coroner's report to change the location of one of the bullets.
	Yeah, so Gerald Ford had been appointed to the Warren Commission.
	And they were having problems with Caleb Boggs, who was the minority leader of the House.
	He's from Alaska.
	He didn't want to go along with the official.
	He wouldn't sign off on the final conclusions.
	So they asked Gerald Ford, who's a congressman, the minority leader, who takes a pencil and changes the official diagram.
	Moving the location of a wound in Kennedy's upper back to his neck.
	To indicate an exit wound from the bullet that had come from the front.
	Right.
	So that's what it actually was, but to make it appear like there are three bullets all from the back.
	The problem is there's four bullets, and the fourth bullet is the one that goes through.
	Actually, I think the first of four is the one that goes through Kennedy's throat.
	By the time Kennedy's body...
	He leaves Parkland.
	They've done a tracheotomy.
	That way you can't tell if the wound in his neck is an exit wound or an entry wound.
	In fact, he was shot.
	There are more than three shots.
	There may be as many as seven.
	He shot from both the front and the back.
	There was a bullet hole in the windshield that was subsequently...
	It is a turkey shoot.
	The car is immediately swabbed out and cleaned before it can be inspected.
	The windshield is replaced before it can be inspected.
	There's a man named James Tague.
	Tague is a car salesman in his 20s.
	He goes down to see the presidential motorcade.
	He's standing there.
	A bullet grazes the curb where he is standing, and a fleck of cement grazes his cheek, and he's bleeding.
	And there's a Dallas County Sheriff's officer standing nearby who sees this and says, we've got to go in.
	You've got to report this.
	So they report it.
	Tag expects that he'll hear from somebody, the FBI, the police, somebody.
	He never hears from anybody.
	He keeps hearing on television, three bullets all accounted for, but he knows that a bullet hit right where his foot was.
	He goes to the spot where the bullet was, and it's already been repaired with cement.
	Is this the moment at which...
	I say the America or the American spirit, the American idea of a free and democratic society dies.
	Like, you have people at the time asking questions.
	I presume they're demonized as much as people today questioning the COVID narrative.
	The whole claim conspiracy theories.
	Comes from the FBI trying to discredit.
	I actually think 1963 is the turning point.
	That is the tipping point.
	Eisenhower tries to warn about this on his way out the door.
	He says, beware the military-industrial complex.
	Who's he talking about?
	He's talking about today's deep state.
	It's the same people.
	So I think 1963, the election of an outsider president who didn't own the political system and wasn't owned, a lot of similarities between Kennedy and Trump.
	Kennedy cut taxes.
	Kennedy...
	It was an ardent anti-communist.
	Kennedy, as I said, wanted a silver-backed dollar.
	Kennedy distrusted the intelligence agencies.
	Kennedy did not want us to go deeper into Vietnam.
	They wanted to go much deeper into Vietnam.
	So I really think 1963 is the tipping point in America, and that the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the media...
	Originally through Operation Mockingbird.
	Today, they don't even have to be paid.
	Back in those days...
	Oh, well, they're paid.
	I mean, Twitter got $3.5 million for its work subsequent to FBI requests.
	My idea in this is that...
	Mockingbird either never ended or we're in Operation Mockingbird 2.0 and people just don't mind.
	They're presented with it.
	They don't care.
	Well, first of all, the people who are hired as reporters at The Washington Post, I should say, the vermin who are hired as reporters at The Washington Post, with a few exceptions, they're ideologically motivated.
	They don't need to be paid.
	They believe the horse shit that they print, in most cases.
	Or they're just virulent partisans.
	I think the...
	The thing people have to understand is that literally nothing reported by the Washington Post or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or sadly now the Associated Press can be believed.
	Most of it is inaccurate and factually incorrect.
	They have these great historic landmark names as the legacy media.
	What was the New York Times?
	The Grey Lady?
	Well, the Grey Lady, but their slogan, all the news is fit to print, embellished with a left-wing tint.
	And the Washington Post, where truth, democracy dies in darkness.
	Which is why we need to restrict releasing of all the COVID-19 records for 70 years.
	We need to restrict all the January 6th committee records for 50 years.
	14,000 hours of footage that they have that they have not released.
	But democracy dies in darkness.
	The Washington Post is the worst newspaper in America, and I have 40 years' experience of fighting with them.
	They wrote one good story, and it was about my clothing at trial.
	Well, I was warned to wear a suit because you take attire seriously.
	By the way, I don't know how long we've been going for, but we're going to end it on Rumble and then move over to Locals because I have two questions I've always wanted to ask you.
	Next time, now that I'm doing this in real time, I'll run a Locals live chat so I can get questions from the chat.
	That'd be great.
	I have two specific questions, and I might think of a third one.

▲