The StoneZONE with Roger Stone - May 02, 2024


Is Jack Smith's Appointment Even Legal？ Trump Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Enters The StoneZONE!


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour

Words per Minute

155.28691

Word Count

9,424

Sentence Count

621

Misogynist Sentences

8

Hate Speech Sentences

1


Summary

On this episode of The Stone Zone, host Roger Stone is joined by criminal defense attorney David Schoen to discuss the ongoing case against President Donald Trump in the New York Manhattan federal court, and whether or not the president has been immune from all of the charges brought against him. Stone and Schoen discuss why the case against Trump should be dismissed, and what the defense should do in order to mount a strong case against the president. They also discuss the lack of evidence in this case, and why the government should not be allowed to charge the president with a crime other than conspiracy to commit an election crime. And, of course, they discuss the best defense the president can use against the charges against him, which is not a crime at all, but rather an attempt to distract from the case and distract the public from the evidence against the President. The result? A President who is not guilty of any crime, and a President who has not been charged with any crime. The answer to the question, "Is Donald Trump a crook or not?" is a simple yes. The answer might surprise you...and it could surprise you even more so than you expected. Roger Stone joins us to discuss all of that! The Stonezone is hosted by Roger Stone, a conservative political icon, strategist and political icon. Roger Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents. He is a New York Times bestselling author, best-selling author, and an outspoken liberty advocate. As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues, and lectured before the prestigious universities, and has lectured at the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society. and Harvard Law Review, and the Harvard Political Union Society, among other prestigious institutions. , and is a pop culture icon. He has been a prolific conservative commentator, and he is a prolific writer, a frequent guest on conservative radio host. - Roger Stone and host on the radio host, and his name is Roger Stone. "The Stone Zone" is a must-listen to be heard on every major news outlet in the world. . Join us on social media, wherever you get your ears are listening to Roger Stone s latest podcast, Roger Stone's newest podcast, The StoneZONE Roger's , Roger s , The , his podcast, and much more! and his podcast is .


Transcript

00:00:00.000 The Stone Zone, with legendary Republican strategist and political icon and pundit, Roger Stone.
00:00:07.380 Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents.
00:00:11.420 He is a New York Times best-selling author and a longtime friend and advisor of President Donald Trump.
00:00:17.040 As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues,
00:00:22.680 and lectured before the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society.
00:00:27.440 Due to his four-plus decades in the political and cultural arena, Stone has become a pop culture icon.
00:00:33.420 And now, here's your host, Roger Stone.
00:00:40.680 Welcome, I'm Roger Stone, and yes, you are back in the Stone Zone.
00:00:46.300 Well, the tsunami of lawfare that is being used against President Donald Trump,
00:00:52.720 essentially election interference, continues to dominate the news.
00:00:59.120 While he should be out campaigning and raising money and meeting voters,
00:01:04.660 he is instead locked in a Manhattan courtroom where he is involved in what, at worst,
00:01:12.160 would be normally a business records case.
00:01:15.720 And that assumes that the president is guilty of what he is accused of, which he vehemently denies.
00:01:22.780 At the same time, you have two federal prosecutions, one pertaining to his handling of documents proceeding in South Florida.
00:01:34.080 At the same time, you have the so-called January 6th prosecutions that are moving forward slowly in Washington, D.C.
00:01:46.240 Both of them seem to have been delayed by the assertion of President Trump of his due process rights.
00:01:54.240 And he has, as I think most people who are following this know, raised the question of whether he, in fact, has immunity in his position as president,
00:02:04.940 or had immunity in his position as president, pertaining to all of his official actions.
00:02:11.860 Joining me here to discuss all of this and give a broader interpretation of what's happening here,
00:02:18.060 is one of the leading criminal defense attorneys in the country,
00:02:23.460 a man who ably represented President Donald Trump in one of the two bogus impeachments against him.
00:02:31.260 I always say in introducing David Schoen that he is that rare lawyer who not only has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law,
00:02:43.020 but he also has a strategic mind, not only in terms of legal strategy,
00:02:49.500 but in terms of a broader understanding of the impact of media coverage of a given trial and public perceptions
00:03:00.260 and the role they play in the overall adjudication of matters in our courts.
00:03:06.780 So we are privileged to have David Schoen join us today in the Stone Zone.
00:03:14.780 Thank you very much for having me.
00:03:17.020 David, the timing could not be better.
00:03:19.940 The entire past week has been dominated by these trials.
00:03:25.200 Let's start in New York.
00:03:27.400 There's a lot of ground to cover here, but I saw an excellent interview you gave to Mark Levin on Fox.
00:03:34.920 I liked it so much, I put it up on my Rumble channel.
00:03:39.080 I really commend it to people.
00:03:41.360 It was excellent, but if you don't mind recapping us,
00:03:45.160 you've essentially said that this New York prosecution in Manhattan by Alvin Bragg,
00:03:52.060 that there's basically no crime.
00:03:54.840 You can't find a crime.
00:03:56.560 Explain what you mean by that.
00:03:58.660 Well, I mean, there's no crime and that they haven't properly charged any crime.
00:04:03.540 At most, what they've alleged here is, and this is problematic because we don't know exactly what they've alleged,
00:04:10.980 but to just take it from the top, they charge under New York criminal law, criminal practice law,
00:04:16.960 175.10, that it's a misdemeanor to falsify, make a false entry in business records,
00:04:24.060 but it can become a felony if that was done with the intent to defraud,
00:04:27.540 defraud, and that's required even for the misdemeanor, but intent to defraud,
00:04:31.620 the business entry was made, and with the intent to commit some other crime.
00:04:35.980 The reason I've said all along that the indictment in this case is absolutely constitutionally defective,
00:04:42.040 and irreparably so, is because they don't ever tell you what that target crime was.
00:04:47.200 What was the crime he allegedly intended to commit by making this allegedly false business record entry
00:04:53.880 with the intent to defraud? And so, the judge's order denying a motion to dismiss in the case
00:04:59.440 tees it up perfectly. He says, well, after all, the government has given four possibilities
00:05:03.940 for what it could be. Those four possibilities require all four different defenses.
00:05:09.480 No defendant can be required to go to trial without knowing specifically what he or she is charged with.
00:05:15.720 You can't mount a defense otherwise. If the target crime, for example,
00:05:18.820 if the business record was allegedly falsified to commit an election fraud crime, that's one defense.
00:05:24.860 A failure to disclose an election contribution, that's another defense.
00:05:29.000 A tax crime, that's another defense. Not only can't you mount a defense,
00:05:33.680 but you don't even know what the elements, what the mens rea, the mindset would be
00:05:37.160 that's required under the law to prove. They have different mental requirements for each of the crimes.
00:05:43.380 So, that's a fundamental problem. But at the end of the day, and by the way,
00:05:46.800 there's a recent news article out that says, oh, the prosecution has introduced another crime
00:05:52.100 that it could have been in this case. You don't have that while a trial is going on.
00:05:57.300 It takes a long time to prepare for a trial and to prepare the defenses at a cross-examine,
00:06:02.020 what witnesses. It violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. But beyond all of that,
00:06:06.320 in a roundabout way now, to get to your direct question, it doesn't charge a crime because if,
00:06:12.000 as it appears, their theory is that Donald Trump allegedly paid money through Michael Cohen to
00:06:17.300 Stormy Daniels to cover up her claim of having an affair that would be embarrassing, and for the
00:06:24.020 purpose of not allowing the voters to know about it, that wouldn't be a crime. And there's a real
00:06:31.160 question whether even if it was mislabeled as a business entry, that would even be the misdemeanor.
00:06:36.460 But putting that aside, the focus here is on this. Every politician takes steps to cover up or
00:06:43.700 not let the public know about something either embarrassing or something that somebody can lie
00:06:48.680 about and make embarrassing. And by the way, if you want to take that theory and believe that
00:06:54.640 spending money to either make you, the candidate, look good, prevent people from thinking you look
00:07:00.420 bad, or make the other candidate look bad, then of course Hillary Clinton had to be prosecuted
00:07:05.460 for the destruction of the emails in the server, for paying Fusion GPS, all of those kinds of
00:07:12.360 opposition research would be illegal under this theory. Anyway, it's not a crime.
00:07:17.660 You raise an excellent point. Bill Clinton settled a lawsuit for $868,000 with Paula Jones to get her
00:07:27.680 silence regarding his sexual assault of hers. And of course that was prior to his running for
00:07:34.080 re-election. So no crime was found there. One of the things I think odd here is the U.S. Attorney's
00:07:42.760 Office in the Southern District of New York, not exactly Trump lovers, they examined all of these
00:07:49.300 transactions. They brought no action. They could find no crime, presumably. The Federal Election
00:07:55.340 Commission, pursuant to a complaint, examined these transactions. They also brought no action.
00:08:02.920 What's odd, though, is that the judge has limited Trump's lawyers from presenting the facts of those
00:08:11.000 investigations. Isn't that odd?
00:08:14.480 Yes. What the judge specifically excluded at the prosecution's request, any evidence that the Federal
00:08:20.620 Election Commission had reviewed the case and decided there was no case, and that the U.S.
00:08:24.940 Attorney's Office had reviewed the case and decided that there is no case. What's going to have to come
00:08:29.320 out, though, or is making reversible error, is for if he denies facts concerning those underlying
00:08:36.240 investigations to come out. In other words, one of the reasons clearly that the feds didn't prosecute
00:08:42.880 was the lack of credibility it found with Michael Cohen. And one of the reasons it found a lack of
00:08:47.640 credibility is because Bob Costello, who had been first a chief deputy of the criminal division
00:08:54.140 in that U.S. attorney's office, but then became Michael Cohen's lawyer, was called in to be
00:08:59.780 interrogated by the Southern District. And Michael Cohen waived his privilege. Well, in that discussion,
00:09:04.980 Bob Costello told the Southern District quite clearly that Michael Cohen was telling a completely
00:09:10.600 different story now and that he, Bob Costello, as Michael Cohen's lawyer, told Michael Cohen that if
00:09:16.440 he had anything whatsoever on Trump, this would be his get out of jail card. Cohen had said he never
00:09:22.340 wanted to spend a day in jail, according to Costello. Costello said, give them Donald Trump if you have
00:09:27.140 something on him. And Costello says, Cohen told him, there's nothing I can do. Donald Trump had
00:09:33.600 nothing to do with the Stormy Daniels thing, and I can't implicate him when he didn't do it. And so
00:09:39.020 those facts, if Michael Cohen testifies, then surely Bob Costello must be permitted to testify to these
00:09:44.740 prior inconsistent statements that are completely material. So we'll see how this plays out from an
00:09:50.460 evidentiary standpoint. But yeah, I mean, look, this Judge Merchant, who should never be on this
00:09:55.380 case, whose disqualification is mandatory under the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, section 100.3
00:10:02.300 E1D3, he must be disqualified because he has a daughter whose interest could substantially be
00:10:10.920 affected, could substantially be affected by these proceedings. We know already how much her firm is
00:10:16.640 raised from opponents of President Trump and so on. Anyway, this Judge, every ruling he is able to
00:10:22.720 make that goes against Donald Trump, it seems that he makes. He should never have been on this case.
00:10:28.800 So let me understand this. Let's assume that Trump is unjustly found guilty for various reasons,
00:10:38.380 bias in the jury, the restrictions the judge puts on his defense, for whatever reason. Obviously,
00:10:47.740 you could appeal that on the basis of the fact that the judge should have recused himself. But
00:10:52.400 since this is a political trial, and this is all really about timing, in other words,
00:10:57.280 seems to me the critics of Donald Trump and those who are bringing these cases,
00:11:02.620 they don't care if ultimately his convictions are reversed on appeal, as long as that happens
00:11:08.920 after the election. I mean, in other words, their desire is to get to a trial, any trial for any crime
00:11:15.820 anywhere before the election, i.e. election interference. This particular case seems, and I'm not an attorney,
00:11:25.600 I make that very clear up front, but this seems to be the weakest of the cases against him
00:11:31.700 On the other hand, they do have the benefit of the Manhattan jury pool. I mean, this is something
00:11:38.180 I myself went through in D.C. I had an all-Democrat jury. Obviously, my case is still sealed. I can only
00:11:48.720 say so much, other than the fact that there were no Trump supporters on my jury. There were no
00:11:53.940 military veterans on my jury. There were no evangelical Christians on my jury.
00:11:59.800 They were politically homogeneous, and they were not Trump lovers, to say the least. I always find it
00:12:07.280 odd when people say vicious things about Trump in their social media postings, but then say in court,
00:12:13.180 oh, but I can be objective in weighing the facts in this case. So I think the president has that same
00:12:20.540 problem. Let's speak for a moment about the gag order. There was a more limited gag order on President
00:12:28.680 Trump in the so-called valuations case. The valuations case, to remind people, is when
00:12:35.200 the president was charged with, I guess, overvaluing his assets and applications to borrow money,
00:12:44.660 where the banks, in fact, did their own appraisals and their own due diligence, decided to make the
00:12:50.100 loans on the basis of their own due diligence, got paid back in full on time, in some cases even
00:12:57.280 early, making $40 million in interest. Yet Trump was tried under a law in New York State in which no
00:13:06.360 one has ever previously been tried. As you, among others, correctly pointed out, there was no victim.
00:13:13.860 But in that case, I think the president was pretty effectively able, even within the constraints
00:13:18.580 of a limited gag order to step out in the hall and tell the American people, what's really going
00:13:24.400 on here? What is this really about? Here, the president is far more restricted. Yesterday,
00:13:34.060 the judge basically said that fined him not only for violating the gag order in defending himself
00:13:40.940 and also returning fire from Michael Cohn, who was actually on TikTok making money
00:13:47.820 by attacking Donald Trump. The judge said that he may be subjected to incarceratory punishments,
00:13:56.380 a term I'd never heard before. But essentially, I think the judge is saying that if Trump does again,
00:14:00.960 he's prepared to throw him in jail. What do you think of that?
00:14:04.140 Yeah, that's what he's saying. This judge is a bully. The judge loves the limelight. He's very insecure.
00:14:09.160 I've been before him before. I find him to be a terrible judge and an incompetent judge and not very
00:14:14.040 bright. But beyond all that, he hates anything to do with Donald Trump. And he I think he thinks that
00:14:20.540 he's a hero for those who are similarly politically aligned. This has no business being a part of our
00:14:26.620 process. I believe that, you know, we talk all the time about the gag order violating the first
00:14:31.260 amendment. I believe very strongly it violates the first and fifth and sixth amendments. I don't believe
00:14:36.840 a defendant can fairly and adequately defend a case with a draconian gag order like this. And I think
00:14:42.900 it violates the public's independent right to a public trial and to no matters of public interest.
00:14:48.600 Surely, if President Trump, as a defendant in the case, believes that the process is unfair and that
00:14:54.160 the judge is biased, he must be entitled to speak about that, whether or not he's a presidential
00:14:59.460 candidate. The fact that he's a presidential candidate and the theory of the a theory of defense
00:15:05.060 is that this is literally election interference, that this is intended to sideline him from the
00:15:10.120 election, makes it even more importantly, a matter of public interest that he must be permitted to
00:15:15.500 speak about. Now, listen, most lawyers tell their clients, don't malign the judge, don't speak badly
00:15:20.400 about him, and so on, because they're worried about the judge ruling against them. This judge has made
00:15:25.020 it clear he's going to rule against them at every opportunity. I haven't seen anything to indicate
00:15:30.040 that he intends to be fair except for empty words, so declaring, but not followed up by action.
00:15:35.120 And therefore, in this case, President Trump is simply telling the truth when he talks about the
00:15:40.680 bias the judge appears to have against him and how unfair the process is, and that he believes no
00:15:46.100 crime is charged, and he ought to be entitled to speak about his own mens rea with respect to the
00:15:51.700 charges against him. This all is beyond the fact that he must be entitled to speak to rebut comments that
00:15:59.340 are made against him, and the indictment in the case is something that everybody has a copy of if
00:16:04.780 they want to. They can download it readily. He ought to be able to publicly declare his opposition to it,
00:16:09.940 to the kinds of charges brought here, and to what he believes is the reason behind this prosecution,
00:16:16.500 a political reason, a reason shared, a feeling shared by tens or more millions of people around
00:16:24.100 this country. This is a matter of public interest. The gag order is against the public interest,
00:16:28.740 and to say he'll be treated like any other defendant, number one, he's not being treated
00:16:32.580 like any other defendant. Number two, he shouldn't be, quite frankly, because there is a national
00:16:37.820 interest in the election and hearing about matters of public interest. You know, you said earlier,
00:16:42.480 Roger, and you're absolutely right, they don't really care if they win this on appeal. You know,
00:16:45.600 they'd rather win it on appeal, but they'd rather get the conviction now. They'd rather put this
00:16:49.240 salacious testimony out now. But what they really love is making him sit in a chair in the courtroom
00:16:54.600 and having to be subjected to a judge like this, the way he speaks to him, and not be able to be
00:17:00.760 out there talking about public issues at a time when this country is in chaos. Yeah, I always found
00:17:06.640 it interesting that in the Georgia case, both the judge and the prosecutor repeatedly referred to him
00:17:13.980 as Mr. Trump, as opposed to President Trump, the title that he's entitled to. Folks, if you're just
00:17:20.100 tuning in, this is The Stone Zone. I'm talking to criminal defense lawyer David Schoen. I've learned
00:17:26.800 from him that there's a huge difference between an experienced criminal defense lawyer and a former
00:17:32.140 federal prosecutor. They are not the same thing. We're going to go to a quick commercial break,
00:17:37.400 and we'll be right back.
00:17:43.980 Glutathione, I'm so excited that we have a fantastic delivery system for it because glutathione is the
00:17:51.720 master detoxifier and master antioxidant. Glutathione is like oxygen, okay? You will die
00:17:58.360 in three to seven minutes if you don't get glutathione. Wow. And at three to seven minutes,
00:18:03.660 and we have a way now to get the whole glutathione in your cells in about 90 seconds without using a
00:18:13.000 glutathione IV. It is the most important molecule in your body. Glutathione helps your brain,
00:18:19.080 your liver. It performs 400 functions in your body. So it will detox every heavy metal,
00:18:28.320 every pesticide, every herbicide. It will detox spike protein from your body. It will detox graphene
00:18:35.180 oxide, and it is the master detoxifier and antioxidant. So glutathione is needed every single day.
00:18:42.600 Noomi.com slash house one. Hi, neighbor. Pat Boone here. Today, I want to help you find some peace of
00:18:50.060 mind concerning your money. Like it or not, we're all living in a financial war zone. That's right.
00:18:57.140 We're watching our hard-earned dollars get crushed by inflation. In fact, recently, inflation reached its
00:19:03.760 highest level in 40 years. And on top of that, cash, which has always represented freedom and privacy,
00:19:10.120 is more and more being replaced by a cashless system. That's right. Powerful forces are definitely
00:19:17.140 waging a war against cash. So I'm encouraging you to prepare before it's too late. Call or text the
00:19:24.460 number on the screen for a free report, The Secret War on Cash from Swiss America. Discover how a few
00:19:31.240 simple steps can protect your money as well as your privacy and your peace of mind. So call or text for
00:19:38.060 your free report, The Secret War on Cash. And make sure to mention, Pat Boone sent you.
00:19:57.340 Welcome back, folks. If you're just tuning in, this is The Stone Zone. And I'm interviewing
00:20:03.140 criminal defense attorney David Schoen, who is, to my mind, one of the most brilliant legal minds
00:20:10.320 in the country. And we're privileged to have you with us today, David. Let's continue talking about
00:20:16.940 the tsunami of lawfare being waged against President Donald Trump. The gag order that he is subjected to
00:20:27.260 is all too familiar to me. In my case, I was gagged by a federal judge, unable to defend myself. Her
00:20:36.140 argument was that my being able to speak freely might taint the jury pool in D.C. Not to say that,
00:20:45.080 say, CNN or Washington Post wasn't tainting the jury pool every single day. But then, strangely enough,
00:20:52.220 she kept the gag order in place after I was convicted and right up until the time that I was
00:20:59.760 to be incarcerated. I don't know how the jury pool could have been tainted at that period since they'd
00:21:06.020 already rendered their decision. I guess, however, that there is no process here to appeal the gag
00:21:16.440 order prior to the trial going forward. I'm not really certain how that works.
00:21:23.620 Yeah, they have asked the Court of Appeals, the appellate division, to address it. They certainly did
00:21:28.780 in the En-Guron case, and the court didn't touch it. It's very difficult to get a reversal based on it,
00:21:35.460 but I think that's because we devalue in our system the right to a public trial and failure to recognize
00:21:42.440 the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights that are implicated, especially in these days of social
00:21:47.780 media. You know, if in this case, President Trump is not allowed to discuss anything about the case,
00:21:53.760 the parties, the judge, etc., and he's not allowed to direct anyone else to do it, have anyone do it
00:21:59.300 on his behalf, nor are the lawyers. I believe that you miss a lot of information that way through social
00:22:05.500 media, for example. You know, people write in, call in when they know something's an issue,
00:22:10.960 and they give information that wasn't previously known. You lose all of that when you have a gag
00:22:16.000 order, and there are nuances about this case that President Trump ought to be able to speak about,
00:22:21.040 things that he knows about Michael Cohen. It is true, you know, you want a jury to hear the case
00:22:26.620 from the evidence, but it's unrealistic to think in a case like this that that's the only source they're
00:22:33.020 going to have, especially when you have key witnesses in the case like Michael Cohen, who now
00:22:37.560 it surfaces, by the way, not only is he apparently trying to raise money from his endeavors, but he
00:22:43.860 also has been going over the testimony in the case, and now he says that he's, you know, going to stop
00:22:49.440 that and delete social media posts about it and so on. I think the taint is already in on that.
00:22:56.420 Yeah, it's, I agree with you regarding this judge. First of all, the judge gave a contribution to
00:23:03.800 Biden's presidential campaign. I believe it was only $15, but I think that's immaterial. It is
00:23:09.320 actually a violation of the judicial canon of ethics. Judges are not supposed to give political
00:23:14.060 contributions. I thought the judge should recuse himself on that basis alone, but then we learned
00:23:20.740 through the absolutely accurate investigative reporting of Laura Loomer that the judge's adult
00:23:26.860 daughter is a, as you mentioned, a Democrat political fundraising consultant who has raised
00:23:33.160 millions of dollars specifically for the Biden-Harris campaign using this trial as her pitch, as her
00:23:43.040 appeal. So the judge has a direct financial interest, or I should say his daughter has a direct financial
00:23:49.480 interest in the case being overseen by her father. Absolutely outrageous. Let's move, if we can, to the
00:23:59.300 documents case in Florida. The special counsel seems to be extraordinarily upset that this case got
00:24:07.740 appointed to an honest judge, got appointed to a judge who believes in the rule of law, and particularly
00:24:13.660 to a judge who believes in the public's right to know. It's amazing to me the way special counsel
00:24:21.020 Smith wants to try this case essentially in secret. These redactions that she ordered removed have shown
00:24:31.140 some extraordinary things, no? Yeah. It's shocking and offensive the way this judge, Eileen Cannon, has been
00:24:37.480 attacked in the media. You know, first of all, her background is one that should be celebrated by every
00:24:44.400 American, daughter of immigrants, came up through fine schools, fine clerkship, worked as a federal
00:24:51.600 prosecutor for years. She's just trying to call it straight. She's not putting up with the stuff from Jack
00:24:58.280 Smith that they're willing to put up with in D.C. Her default is a public right to know, as you mentioned, and that's the
00:25:05.400 way the law provides. Jack Smith's default is he'd like to keep everything secret. As you know, he conducted
00:25:10.620 proceedings before a grand jury in D.C. for this Florida case. I think the case ought to be dismissed
00:25:17.340 from the taint for the misuse of Evan Corcoran's emails. I think the judge misused the crime fraud
00:25:23.400 exception to the attorney-client privilege, Judge Howell in D.C. I think there are a number of reasons, but
00:25:30.160 Judge Cannon is calling it straight. She wants a fair trial if it's going to go to trial, and she
00:25:36.800 certainly has not ruled with President Trump straight across the board by any means in this case, and she
00:25:44.520 has said, with respect to the Presidential Records Act, which is directly relevant to the case, not
00:25:49.200 withstanding what Jack Smith and his team have said, she has said that she's not, isn't inclined to
00:25:55.040 dismiss it based on a president's prerogative under the Presidential Records Act, but that she does,
00:26:02.040 she has indicated at least, that she thinks it's going to be relevant, certainly to the mens rea in
00:26:06.500 the case. In other words, if President Trump believed, as he was told by respected advisors, that he has
00:26:13.040 the right under the Presidential Records Act, consistent with an opinion from Judge Amy Berman Jackson
00:26:19.160 in D.C., that only the chief executive, the president, has the right to designate whether
00:26:25.280 documents are personal or presidential. If he had that right, and he designated these documents,
00:26:31.380 and believed he had the right to take them, then he hasn't committed a crime, because that would not
00:26:36.620 violate the state of mind required to commit the crimes charged in this case. So she's just calling it
00:26:44.480 straight, and she wants it to play out. I thought she made a brilliant move when she asked the parties
00:26:48.760 to produce to her their proposed jury instructions in the case. Many lawyers start their preparation of
00:26:54.860 a case with jury instructions, because they lay out the elements of the crime. I happen to start my
00:26:59.500 preparation with cross-examination, but it's a legitimate basis to start with jury instructions.
00:27:06.120 And the judge asked, I want to see what exactly you're talking about that you have in mind for the
00:27:10.360 role of the Presidential Records Act and the state of mind required in this case.
00:27:16.100 It's interesting that Judge Cannon's critics, their principal criticism is, of course, that she was
00:27:22.360 appointed by Donald Trump. But both myself, Paul Manafort, General Flynn, all went to trial in front of
00:27:31.080 judges appointed by Barack Obama. But it was in Barack Obama's office that the Russian collusion hoax
00:27:38.820 was born and the false narrative under which we were prosecuted was invented. No one objected to the
00:27:47.760 fact that that judge had been appointed by President Obama. Once again, the double standard of justice.
00:27:55.820 David, switching now to the question of presidential immunity, just to review for our viewers,
00:28:05.380 this issue was raised at the trial court level in D.C. in front of Judge Chutkin. She ruled that the
00:28:14.160 president's constitutionally mandated immunity did not apply, that he had no immunity. The president's lawyers
00:28:22.300 then went to appeal that to the D.C. Court of Appeals. At that point, the special counsel wanted to leapfrog
00:28:30.760 the appeals court and take the question directly to the Supreme Court, which I think is where he revealed
00:28:38.020 his hand, his desire for a speedy trial as opposed to a just trial or a fair trial. That was rejected by
00:28:45.580 the Supreme Court, who insisted that they must first duke this out in the Court of Appeals. Trump did
00:28:53.140 appeal the immunity ruling of the trial court judge in the D.C. Court of Appeals. They ruled against him.
00:28:59.600 That was not at all surprising. The matter then went to the Supreme Court. Now, in the two Supreme Court
00:29:08.560 hearings, I have been surprised that two different justices have both asked the president's lawyers
00:29:18.720 if they intended to raise the question of legitimacy and legality of Jack Smith's appointment
00:29:28.420 under the so-called appointments clause, which the president's lawyers have not done in D.C.
00:29:36.960 They did preserve this issue at the very last minute in Florida in the documents case, but they have not
00:29:45.980 raised it. First of all, can you explain to us the appointments clause? What is the argument?
00:29:53.660 And then why, in your opinion, do you think they have not raised this?
00:29:58.740 Right. Okay. So for every office like this, there has to be some statutory authority.
00:30:04.720 There is no statutory authority for a special counsel in the role like Jack Smith's role is,
00:30:09.780 like Robert Mueller's role was. The appointments clause is found in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution,
00:30:15.160 which gives the president of the United States the exclusive right to make the appointment of
00:30:19.820 superior officers with the confirmation process, you know, with the confirmation process that goes
00:30:26.700 before the Senate. In this case, there is no statutory authority for the appointment of Jack Smith to
00:30:34.100 have this kind of authority, the kind of authority that a U.S. attorney has when we know a U.S.
00:30:39.500 attorney has to be appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate. In this case, the
00:30:45.960 president had no role in this. The attorney general picked Jack Smith, and therefore it violates the
00:30:52.340 appointments clause and is unconstitutional. Now, don't take my word for it because two scholars,
00:30:57.840 well-respected scholars, Stephen Calabresi and Gary Lawson, two law professors, written an extensive
00:31:03.640 article in the Notre Dame Law Review about this issue. They wrote it about the Robert Mueller
00:31:07.940 appointment, but it applies with equal or greater force to the Jack Smith appointment. Jack Smith
00:31:13.160 was a private citizen, but then Merrick Garland just elevated into this role. There is no legitimate
00:31:18.620 constitutional basis for that. So what happened is, in this case, originally in the U.S. Court of
00:31:26.680 Appeals, when the immunity appeal was taken up, Ed Meese, former attorney general, wrote an amicus brief
00:31:32.480 along with Calabresi, and Professor Calabresi, and in it they raised this issue squarely, and they made
00:31:38.840 a compelling argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the D.C. Circuit as to why Jack Smith's appointment
00:31:44.860 was unconstitutional. The judges of the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step. I've only happened
00:31:52.060 once in dozens and dozens of cases. I've argued in U.S. Courts of Appeals. I've only had it happen
00:31:57.000 once, maybe twice, that the Court of Appeals has actually sent a letter out asking for a specific
00:32:02.920 issue to be addressed. In this case, the judges of the court sent out a letter before the oral argument
00:32:07.640 that they were interested in the positions of the amicus, and they wanted that to be addressed.
00:32:12.340 When the oral argument transpired and the question came up to President Trump's lawyers about their
00:32:19.260 position on this submission, on this question of the unconstitutionality, Jack Smith's appointment,
00:32:24.380 his lawyer, Mr. Sauer, simply answered that they hadn't raised that issue, and that was it. I found
00:32:31.480 it, for me at least, concerning, because when you have a court clearly interested in the issues,
00:32:39.520 you want to be able to address those issues. That's an issue that, in my view, had to be preserved,
00:32:45.860 and I will tell you that I was given an assurance earlier on because I made sure to check into this
00:32:50.720 from the beginning of this case. It was an issue I stressed. I was assured that it was preserved,
00:32:55.500 but it clearly wasn't. And so what you then allude to is, in the United States Supreme Court,
00:33:00.820 again, Justice Jackson asked the question, what's the Trump team position on the constitutionality of
00:33:07.740 the appointment of Jack Smith? And Mr. Sauer again had to answer that that issue was not raised in this
00:33:12.820 case. Now, this time, having learned from the first argument, apparently, he said,
00:33:16.620 but the issue was raised in the Florida prosecution. And by the way, we firmly agree
00:33:22.220 with Attorney General Mies' submission on this case that the appointment was unconstitutional.
00:33:28.180 The problem is they never raised it in this case. So some might argue, oh, well, you know,
00:33:32.520 they made a strategic decision because there's a case from the D.C. Circuit called the In Re Grand
00:33:37.840 Jury Investigation from 2019, in which the D.C. Circuit gave short shrift to this argument.
00:33:45.420 But that decision was out there. Everyone knew it. Calabrese and Lawson address it in their article,
00:33:50.940 in their law review article. And you might get the same result from the D.C. Circuit.
00:33:54.920 But now how does it look when this is a case that went up to the Supreme Court and to not have that
00:33:59.620 issue preserved? Will they get another chance to have the Supreme Court decide it? It may be they get a
00:34:05.700 different decision from the D.C. Circuit in the 11th Circuit if it comes up. But here's a chance. But they
00:34:10.760 may not. The 11th Circuit might say, well, you know, we're going to follow what the D.C. Circuit
00:34:14.920 case says. And then it doesn't go up to the Supreme Court. You know now that Supreme Court justices are
00:34:20.020 interested in this issue. To me, it's very unfortunate that it wasn't raised in the D.C. case.
00:34:27.080 Yeah, I could understand not wanting to raise it, understanding that the D.C. appeals court has ruled
00:34:32.440 not once but twice on this issue. Incorrectly, in my opinion. Wrongly decided, I think, is the way you
00:34:39.320 guys would say it. But this was not the D.C. appeals court. This was the Supreme Court. This
00:34:44.620 issue, this argument, should the court ever side with Trump that Jack Smith's appointment was illegal
00:34:50.880 because he was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate, that there's no statutory authority for his
00:34:56.660 appointment, would knock out both the documents case and the January 6th case. So I would think
00:35:03.360 that you would want this issue before the Supreme Court. It may not survive. I'd like to raise one
00:35:10.360 other issue very briefly about the immunity argument that I disagree with respectfully. There was a
00:35:17.180 reporte that transpired between one of the justices and Mr. Sauer, in which Mr. Sauer was asked to concede
00:35:23.820 that certain acts charged and alleged in the indictment in D.C. were private acts and not
00:35:29.300 official acts. Now, that's relevant because, in my view, what the court should and will come up with
00:35:34.740 is a rejection of the D.C. circuit's categorical denial of immunity, but something that looks like
00:35:40.880 the framework in the case Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case that decided that a president or former
00:35:46.960 president cannot be made to be civilly liable for any action taken while in office that was within the
00:35:52.740 outer perimeter of the authority of that office, an official act. I think the courts could and should
00:35:59.240 and will come up with something similar to that for the criminal liability. A president must be able
00:36:03.900 to act within his official capacity without having to worry about whether someone down the road is
00:36:09.920 going to consider some military action or other official action, some action directed toward election
00:36:14.920 integrity, as making him face criminal liability. Because I think those are within the quintessential
00:36:21.640 official acts doctrine. What happened then was, though, Mr. Sauer answered that certain of the
00:36:29.060 allegations made, that is, President Trump seeking the advice of a private attorney, for example,
00:36:34.600 on what his options were and about the use of a slate of alternate electors. He conceded that those
00:36:41.220 would be considered private action. And when he was advocating one of his own positions, he said,
00:36:46.560 well, that's the position we're taking. I think we needed to have different kind of advocacy than
00:36:51.500 that. I would not concede that consulting with a private attorney or the idea of alternative electors
00:36:58.020 was private action. Whether it's right or wrong, it's still within the realm of official action.
00:37:03.520 The Office of Legal Counsel itself has said consulting with someone outside the government could be the
00:37:09.560 president of Texaco. Consulting with that kind of person on a decision that's ordinarily a presidential
00:37:14.140 type decision, an official act decision, is within the executive privilege, for example. And therefore,
00:37:21.660 it's considered an official act. I think by conceding that certain things were private actions,
00:37:27.040 you virtually guarantee a trial now. You cannot have a decision that the entire prosecution is barred
00:37:33.420 by immunity if you're conceding as a defendant that some of the allegations were for private actions.
00:37:41.320 And I worry how it plays out in front of a jury, because now they're locked into a position. And so
00:37:47.180 they can't argue that that position, the action taken and alleged was an official action. If this
00:37:53.480 were to be a framework that puts such questions to a jury, that's another possibility the Supreme Court
00:37:58.900 could come up with. They still have open to them that his mens re, his intent was to not violate the law
00:38:05.420 here, that he understood and believed that what he was doing was not wrongful in any way,
00:38:10.240 and not knowingly violation of the law. But anyway, look, these are differences. But to me,
00:38:15.180 that was a major, major mistake. All right. I'm afraid we have to leave it there. Let me thank our
00:38:21.960 guest, David Schoen, criminal defense attorney, for joining us today with this great analysis of this
00:38:27.560 tsunami of lawfare against President Donald Trump. Thank you, David. And we'll be right back after this
00:38:34.260 commercial message. Thank you very much.
00:38:42.200 Sounds rolling. All three cameras. We're good.
00:38:45.980 Is there any regrets that you have in life? I should sit here and say, yeah, I got a lot of,
00:38:53.060 I got a lot of regrets. But when I look back on my life and I understand the lives that were lost,
00:39:01.000 I mean, I'm sitting here with them. And I can tell my story.
00:39:08.680 Former National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, pleading guilty today for lying to the FBI.
00:39:14.040 He was one of the most respected generals in the military.
00:39:16.320 He was, by definition, the most dangerous possible person for Donald Trump to hire.
00:39:21.940 He's a brilliant military career serving 33 years.
00:39:25.000 We've learned through the pandemic, we can never be caught unprepared again. And so many Americans,
00:39:47.960 when COVID hit, they had nothing in the house. Stores were shut down and doctor's offices were shut down.
00:39:54.360 And even if doctors prescribed drugs, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, pharmacists wouldn't fill
00:39:59.560 the prescriptions. That was a nightmare. Now the situation is much worse. We have these horrible
00:40:06.360 supply chain problems. In our emergency medical kit at the wellness company, we have eight prescription
00:40:14.360 drugs that are all potentially life saving. Most people have died with COVID. They died in the hospital
00:40:21.240 because they didn't receive early treatment. Every American family should have one of these.
00:40:26.280 I can tell you the wellness company kit is the answer.
00:40:38.280 Welcome back, folks. I'm Roger Stone. And yes, you are in the Stone Zone. I want to remind you, you can see us every day at 4 p.m. Eastern, pardon me, 4 p.m. Central, 5 p.m. Eastern at Patriot.com.
00:41:08.260 Patriot.tv. You can also, if you happen to miss that, see us later that evening at 8 o'clock Eastern, 8 p.m. Eastern. That's at rumble.com slash Roger Stone. If you want to see us earlier in the day, folks, if you want to get the cutting news, Patriot.tv is the place to be.
00:41:30.880 Joining me now is my regular co-host, the editor-in-chief of Slingshot.news. Troy Smith joins me in the Stone Zone.
00:41:43.200 Roger, as always, it's an honor to be here. And we have a lot of news to get into today, a lot of stuff I'm very interested to hear your opinion on.
00:41:50.620 I want to start off with a video that is making its rounds on Twitter of Nancy Pelosi actually getting really angry and scolding an MSNBC reporter, I believe it's Katie Tur, for asking her to clarify a point and really pointing out something.
00:42:06.960 Now, for all those at home that don't understand the Democrat talking point, the Democrats routinely repeat the false point that President Trump actually lost jobs as a president, that during Trump's presidency there was no jobs created, we actually lost jobs.
00:42:22.260 They make that claim because Trump's presidency ended during the COVID-19 pandemic.
00:42:27.520 So all of the jobs that had left during the pandemic that came back, the Democrats used that to say, well, Trump didn't actually create jobs.
00:42:35.460 We know for a fact that Trump actually contributed to possibly the best time for job creation in the history of the United States when he was president prior to the pandemic.
00:42:43.840 The Democrats know this, and even Katie Tur of MSNBC points this out, Pelosi gets enraged and she actually has a, I'd call it a vodka freakout on air.
00:42:52.900 So let's see that clip.
00:42:54.600 And Joe Biden is doing that, created 9 million jobs in his tournament office.
00:43:00.420 Donald Trump has the worst record of job loss of any president.
00:43:05.680 So we just have to make sure people know.
00:43:08.180 That was a global pandemic.
00:43:09.200 He had the worst record of any president.
00:43:14.280 We've had other concerns in our country.
00:43:16.700 If you want to be an apologist for Donald Trump, that's, that may be your role, but it ain't mine.
00:43:21.920 And he has the worst.
00:43:22.440 I don't think that anybody can excuse me of that.
00:43:26.040 Wow.
00:43:26.880 Following an MSNBC talking head who regularly trashes Donald Trump and distorts the truth about him, an apologist for him is extraordinary.
00:43:37.280 First of all, the 9 million job figure for Joe Biden, as the economist Barry Habib said on this show, as well as on my 77 WABC radio show, the vast majority of those are part-time jobs.
00:43:52.300 And Trump's job creation record set records up until, of course, the pandemic, in which Trump was essentially forced to destroy his signature accomplishment, that being the most robust economy in American history.
00:44:11.100 But, you know, Nancy Pelosi, we have this great video we use a lot on her, where she lays out the wrap-up smear.
00:44:20.180 She's proud of it.
00:44:20.920 You see, here's how it works.
00:44:22.340 You take something that's false.
00:44:24.580 You feed it to one of your friends in the fake news media.
00:44:28.860 They publish it.
00:44:29.960 Then you point to that story as the proof that whatever BS you're pushing is true, and then you merchandise it, her words.
00:44:39.780 In other words, you have many people out there pointing to this publication, and that's how the smear works.
00:44:47.240 So, look, Nancy Pelosi is long past her due date.
00:44:51.140 I'm kind of surprised that when she left as speaker, she didn't choose to leave the House.
00:44:59.920 But I guess those opportunities for inside trading are just too great to pass up.
00:45:06.720 Well, Roger, that is absolutely the case.
00:45:09.520 And as we know, the COVID-19 pandemic, as you said there, it forced Trump to actually get rid of his marquee accomplishment, the top thing that he touted throughout his presidency.
00:45:18.700 And I think his most lasting contribution, really, is what he did with the economy.
00:45:25.180 And they really forced him with the COVID-19 pandemic to take that away.
00:45:29.720 And what they also did was they used a lot of mechanisms put in by health officials and things like that to kind of push mail-in ballots and absentee ballots.
00:45:39.440 And we're well aware of this as we've had people on the show to discuss this.
00:45:42.840 We have a headline, Roger, that's broken the last couple days.
00:45:45.480 I want them to put it up on the screen now, talking about a U.S. bird flu outbreak.
00:45:50.300 Now, they're pushing this.
00:45:51.660 They're pushing this and they're saying, well, you know, there's going to be a new bird flu.
00:45:55.520 They're saying that it's infecting chickens and cattle.
00:45:59.140 The White House was asked about this yesterday during the press briefing.
00:46:02.620 And I wanted to get your thoughts, Roger.
00:46:04.100 Do you think that there's going to be an effort with this bird flu or possibly another pathogen to put in those restrictions again and possibly influence the 2024 election with another pandemic?
00:46:15.580 Look, I think it is entirely possible.
00:46:20.260 The implacable foes of Donald Trump, the permanent government in place, call them the military industrial complex, call them the deep state, call them the political establishment, call them whatever you want.
00:46:32.040 It is essentially a uniparty fake news media cabal of elitists.
00:46:39.960 I think that they're prepared to do virtually anything necessary to stop Donald Trump from returning to the White House.
00:46:46.540 This perversion of our criminal justice system, this contorting of the prosecutorial function to manufacture crimes against Donald Trump, not in the year after his presidency, not in the two years after his presidency, not in the three years after his presidency, but four years after his presidency, is extraordinary.
00:47:10.460 The timing itself reveals the political motivation of it.
00:47:15.640 Special counsel Jack Smith's efforts to expedite the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity so that he could have a trial before the election, as opposed to being more concerned about due process and getting it right, reveals that this is all about timing.
00:47:32.400 So another pandemic, certainly a possibility.
00:47:36.180 The Biden administration will use any of the governmental levels of power for political purposes to stop Donald Trump.
00:47:47.820 I think as they look at these poll numbers, as we do, they have to be apoplectic.
00:47:54.880 I mean, they have to be near hysterical because nothing they have thrown at Trump has worked.
00:48:00.860 He continues to have a marginal lead in both the swing states and nationally.
00:48:08.020 Don't expect that to change.
00:48:10.740 Is he home free?
00:48:11.920 Not by any means.
00:48:13.200 Is this in the bag?
00:48:14.460 Nothing is in the bag.
00:48:16.460 We have a long way to go between now and Election Day.
00:48:20.280 Numerous obstacles have been placed in his way in terms of the legal cases against him, which we've discussed here fully today.
00:48:28.780 And then we still have not yet even gotten to the question of whether we're going to have a free, fair, honest, transparent election.
00:48:38.960 In this current atmosphere, if you even ask that question, if you simply ask that question, not an assertion, but just a question, you will be very, you'll be banned forever on YouTube, for example.
00:48:54.340 You are not allowed to raise these questions on Facebook or on Instagram or any of these other outlets.
00:49:02.920 This is why I salute Elon Musk.
00:49:06.820 I'm proud to be back on Twitter, now known as X.
00:49:10.680 Is it perfect?
00:49:11.520 No, it's not perfect.
00:49:13.240 Is it good?
00:49:14.100 It's very good in terms of being able to say, within reason, what it is you wish to say.
00:49:21.900 I don't think you should be able to threaten violence against people, although people threaten to kill me and my family all the time on Twitter.
00:49:30.100 They don't seem to be ever held accountable for that.
00:49:34.800 That said, yes, I think another pandemic is a very real possibility.
00:49:40.580 I would not rule anything out.
00:49:42.360 People say I'm being an alarmist, but this includes assassination.
00:49:47.440 Yes, I pray for the safety of our president and his family every single day.
00:49:53.480 I've written a book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ.
00:49:58.880 We could throw that up, as a matter of fact.
00:50:00.940 If you want to read about how they killed one president and how various elements of government were involved in an overall plot that included Vice President Lyndon Johnson at the helm, but also the Central Intelligence Agency, Organized Crime, Big Texas Oil, the Secret Service, and others.
00:50:23.220 I use eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, and deep Texas politics to make the compelling case that LBJ and the federal government, elements of the federal government, had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill John Kennedy.
00:50:39.580 You can get that book by going to themanwhokilledkennedy.com, themanwhokilledkennedy.com.
00:50:46.440 If you order today, we will get it out the door with a personal inscription.
00:50:51.460 This, by the way, is the paperback version that has three additional chapters.
00:50:55.320 So, if you're interested in history, and you're also interested in the lengths to which the deep state or those in control will go to control government, this book I think you will find fascinating.
00:51:10.140 Troy, continue.
00:51:11.800 Well, Roger, one of the great myths or lies that the Democrats have pushed is the lie surrounding January 6th.
00:51:18.320 And that lie revolves around the idea that President Donald Trump and his supporters are violent and that they want violence, even though you and many others went to the Capitol, or I'm sorry, went to Washington, D.C. the days before and said, no violence, no violence.
00:51:35.100 We have the speech, we've played it many times on here, and many others have also, you know, been posted videos of themselves saying, no violence on January 6th.
00:51:44.240 Yet the left takes the narrative and repeats it over and over again, even though it's completely false.
00:51:49.240 And I think many times when that's the case, Roger, when the left is pointing out something on the right that isn't there, many times it's a reflection of their own actions.
00:51:57.200 And I think this violent rhetoric, this idea that Trump wants a bloodbath, they're hanging on every word that the president says to try to create a false narrative that he is violent when it is actually them, themselves, Biden, Waters, Pelosi, that have actually called for violence in the past.
00:52:15.460 We have a short clip of Democrats calling for violence over the last several years.
00:52:19.340 I want to get your comment on this because to me, it looks like Alinsky 101 here.
00:52:24.040 The press always asks me, don't I wish I were debating him?
00:52:28.200 No, I wish we were in high school, I could take him behind the gym.
00:52:31.540 That's what I wish.
00:52:33.200 I said, no, I said, if we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.
00:52:37.420 I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, maybe there will be.
00:52:42.300 That you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.
00:52:50.240 If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.
00:53:02.100 And you push back on them.
00:53:04.260 And you tell them they're not welcome.
00:53:07.040 You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives.
00:53:11.000 Enemies of the state.
00:53:12.800 Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
00:53:16.420 Kristen Walker, how do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?
00:53:20.500 When they go low, we kick them.
00:53:22.240 They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.
00:53:24.800 Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
00:53:31.940 Please, get up in the face of some Congress people.
00:53:36.840 What a stupid son of a bitch.
00:53:38.180 Excellent find, Troy.
00:53:56.100 We're going to go to a quick commercial break and then we'll come back for the closing comments here at the Stone Zone.
00:54:01.900 We'll be right back.
00:54:31.900 Metabolate, which are two botanicals that stimulate a switch called AMP kinase.
00:54:37.020 And so you tend to burn fat, reduce belly fat or visceral fat.
00:54:41.440 Who doesn't want that?
00:54:43.380 Metabolate has the ability to stimulate satiety or reduce those cravings.
00:54:48.240 That's really very, very important.
00:54:50.360 And it does that by raising GLP-1 levels.
00:54:54.040 In addition, we've addressed the microbiome by using prebiotics.
00:54:58.140 Healthier microbiome, better weight management.
00:55:01.120 The markets are getting crazy and now is the time to protect yourself from economic turmoil.
00:55:13.400 Silver is in the headlines right now and creating lots of excitement as the price of silver is extremely attractive compared to gold.
00:55:20.680 A call to Swiss America gets you the scoop on whether the silver opportunity is for real.
00:55:25.860 What you'll discover will really blow your mind.
00:55:28.660 Today, silver faces a huge shortage due to the rising demand by military, solar, electric cars and computers, all of which depend on silver.
00:55:37.760 But right now, silver is priced to sell according to worldwide experts.
00:55:42.280 Now, to help you get started, Swiss America is offering beautiful United States Walking Liberty half dollars issued by the U.S. Mint from 1916 to 1947 and minted in 90% pure silver for a special introductory price.
00:55:57.060 Limit of $250 per customer while supplies last.
00:56:00.220 So call the number on your screen or visit SwissAmerica.com because now is the time to rediscover silver.
00:56:07.300 Welcome back, folks.
00:56:21.000 If you're just tuning in, I'm Roger Stone.
00:56:23.480 This is the Stone Zone here at Patriot.TV.
00:56:27.140 And I'm here with my co-host, Troy Smith, the editor and chief, actually, of Slingshot.News.
00:56:35.760 Now, one of the things we ask you to do in every show is please go to StoneZone.com, StoneZone.com, see right there on the screen, and subscribe.
00:56:45.480 It's absolutely free, but that way you'll be able to see not only our daily show, but you'll also be able to see things I have written or important articles that I have curated from other places, including Slingshot.com,
00:57:02.420 that I think the mainstream media is not giving enough coverage to.
00:57:07.200 You can also, of course, go to my 77 WABC radio show there on the site.
00:57:15.640 And, of course, you can go to the store where you can buy all of my books, including The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ, New York Times bestseller,
00:57:24.120 or my book, Stone's Rules, with an introduction by Tucker Carlson, talking to you about the things that I have learned in life in the public arena.
00:57:34.880 Also ask you to subscribe to Slingshot.News, Slingshot.News, because while Troy is doing some really cutting-edge investigative reporting,
00:57:46.500 not just on politics, but on social issues and cultural issues, it is also free.
00:57:53.760 So please go to Slingshot.News.
00:58:00.200 We have just about three minutes to go here.
00:58:04.260 Troy, final comments from you.
00:58:07.060 Well, Roger, you know, this morning I got, I think we all saw the news that legendary American guitarist Dwayne Eddy passed away.
00:58:14.540 And I see a, I was seeing clips of Dwayne Eddy playing on Letterman and Johnny Carson and so many different shows.
00:58:22.460 And, you know, I think when we look back at the way things used to be, and we look at the way that people used to be cutting-edge.
00:58:30.160 I mean, Dwayne Eddy, here's a guy that took the electric guitar and made it into a marquee.
00:58:35.980 He made guitar playing really something in America that was like the center point of a musical act.
00:58:43.100 And at that point, that was really not something that was done that often.
00:58:46.820 So when we're looking at people like Dwayne Eddy, we want to say rest in peace to him.
00:58:51.780 But we also want to say for all of you out there, cut your own path.
00:58:55.240 You know, we can, we can, we don't have to go to a university where there's pro-Hamas protesters to get by in life.
00:59:03.180 We can actually make our own lives.
00:59:05.280 We can actually build our own paths and cut our own path forward.
00:59:10.600 And I think that's the American way.
00:59:12.240 That's the American dream.
00:59:12.960 It's what Make America Great Again is all about.
00:59:15.800 And through that individualism, Roger, I think that's how we rebuild the country.
00:59:19.160 It's not by going to the liberals in the university systems and asking, begging for their approval.
00:59:26.360 It's cutting our own path.
00:59:27.840 And Dwayne Eddy is a prime example of that.
00:59:29.560 So rest in peace to him.
00:59:31.080 And I think we're all going to be listening to Rebel Rouser today at some point.
00:59:35.200 You know, Troy, I remember something John Sears, who was Ronald Reagan's campaign manager,
00:59:41.340 once told me in trying to understand American voters.
00:59:44.620 He said, we are Americans.
00:59:46.420 We believe we can do anything we put our minds to.
00:59:49.960 I think that puts it almost perfectly.
00:59:52.560 All right.
00:59:53.400 We're done for today.
00:59:54.380 Unfortunately, I want to thank my co-host, Troy Smith, at Slingshot.news.
01:00:00.720 I'm Roger Stone.
01:00:02.060 You have been in the Stone Zone.
01:00:04.060 Please, folks, remember to go to rumble.com slash Roger Stone and follow us there.
01:00:10.500 But you can see us every day at 4 o'clock Central, 5 o'clock Eastern at Patriot.tv.
01:00:16.820 And if, unfortunately, you missed that, well, you could catch us later that day at Rumble.
01:00:22.920 In the meantime, until tomorrow, God bless you and Godspeed.
01:00:27.600 A man who's gone through hell, but he's kept going and he's smart and he's strong and people
01:00:35.060 love him.
01:00:36.660 Not everybody, but people love him and respect him.
01:00:39.020 Roger Stone.
01:00:40.160 Where's Roger Stone?