On today's show, host Roger Stone and co-host Troy Smith discuss the latest in the ongoing saga surrounding the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's replacement, and whether or not that appointment was ever actually legal. They are joined by counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center, Paul Kaminar, who challenges the authority under which Mueller was appointed and who has the authority to make such a decision. They also discuss other political developments, including the ongoing case of Andrew Miller, who has been subpoenaed by Robert Mueller and is being asked to be a witness in a grand jury investigation into the Trump administration s dealings with the Russian government, and the response from the DOJ to that subpoena. The Stone Zone is a production of the Center for American Progress and Slingshot News, and is produced by Troy Smith and Roger Stone. The opinions stated here are our own, not those of our companies, unless otherwise specified. Roger Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents. He is a New York Times bestselling author and a longtime friend and advisor of President Donald Trump. As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues, and lectured before the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society. Roger Stone is a pop culture icon and has been described as a "pop culture icon." Roger Stone's work is widely respected throughout the political and cultural press, including by conservative publications. The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, The Hill, and The Daily Caller, and Rolling Stone. This episode is a must-listenactment of the Stone's new book, "The Stone: Stone's Guide to the Trump Lawyer: How to Win It All, Not Get It All Out of It. by Roger Stone, a book written by the Stone Zone and much more! Join us in The Stonezone: The StoneZ Zone: The Most Powerful Man in the White House. Subscribe, Subscribe, Share, Retweet, and Retweet Stone: Subscribe to The Stonezine: Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Share and Share the StoneZine, Subscribe on Insta, Share on iTunes, and Subscribe on Podchaser, and Share it on Social Media, and Shout Out to a Friend of The Stonezonzine and Subscribe to his Insta-Friendship? . Thank you for listening and Share The StoneZone: The &
00:02:41.840Good to see you and be with you again.
00:02:44.540So, I wanted to come to you to talk about this issue because, as far as I know, you may be one of the first lawyers in the country to raise it on behalf of one of your clients.
00:02:55.720In the interest of full disclosure, during my trial, Paul Kaminar represented a man named Andrew Miller.
00:03:05.060Andrew Miller had been an employee of mine.
00:03:09.600Andrew Miller possessed no information that would be detrimental to me.
00:03:15.620But for reasons that were always somewhat confounding, special counsel Robert Mueller wanted Mr. Miller to be a witness.
00:03:24.360Mr. Miller did not want to be a witness, and Paul Kaminar questioned the authority under which Robert Mueller's appointment had been made.
00:03:35.460Paul, why don't you take it from there?
00:03:37.920Tell us what happened in that case, and then we'll talk about the current developments.
00:03:44.360So, when we heard that Andrew Miller was being subpoenaed by Robert Mueller, the question came up is, well, you know, who appointed Robert Mueller?
00:03:55.940And there actually was a short op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks before that by a friend of mine, Professor Stephen Calabrese from Northwestern Law School, who wrote an op-ed laying out the very broad argument about the constitutionality of Mueller's appointment.
00:04:16.920And he ended his op-ed saying, you know, somebody should challenge Mueller.
00:05:04.060Usually you have just the prosecutor, the U.S. attorney, because they knew this was serious.
00:05:08.020So, she heard the argument, and then a few weeks later, she issued a lengthy, I think it's like 103-page opinion, basically saying, ah, nice try, but I'm going to rule against you.
00:05:25.340And we then took it up to the Court of Appeals.
00:05:29.820Now, the argument, in a nutshell, was simply this, as you previewed a little bit with Congressman Massey's colloquy with Mayor Garland.
00:05:40.980And that is, under Article II of the Constitution, all officers have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
00:05:51.440And those are generally what we call principal officers, namely, you know, cabinet officials, high government officials, deputy secretaries of state, and so forth, as well as all U.S. attorneys.
00:06:10.640All U.S. attorneys are principal officers because of the enormous power they wield, probably more power than any person in government, since they can throw you in jail.
00:06:21.440And so, we said, Robert Mueller is a principal officer, needs to be appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate.
00:06:30.720They kind of dodged that argument and said, no, he's really only what's called an inferior officer.
00:06:39.680He's not this big, powerful, super U.S. attorney as you claim he is, because he can indict people in Virginia, D.C., everywhere.
00:06:51.580And under the Constitution, it says inferior officers can be appointed by the head of the department if that office is, quote, established by law, end quote.
00:07:04.700So, we said, okay, you want to argue he's an inferior officer?
00:07:08.720Where is it established by law that this office has been created?
00:07:16.340And as you saw in that colloquy with Mayor Garland, the last statute on this was the independent counsel statute that Ken Starr had, and that statute expired by its own terms.
00:07:32.780And both sides of the aisle in Congress said, look, we don't like this kind of special counsel stuff.
00:07:39.420We're not going to renew this legislation.
00:07:45.540They can go on their own after anybody.
00:07:47.800So, we're not going to renew the statute.
00:07:52.400At that time, Janet Reno was the attorney general, and she says, well, I don't care if you're not going to renew it.
00:07:59.240The very next day, she picked up a pen and wrote regulations that said, I hereby establish special counsel office, yada, yada, yada, where I can pick anybody I want.
00:08:14.360So, we challenged that, and that she didn't have the authority to do it.
00:08:19.740It wasn't established by law, and that, therefore, she, you know, both Mueller and Mayor Garland, under this regulation, could appoint Taylor Swift to be a special counsel because they don't have to be, you know, accounted by the president and by the Senate and confirmation areas.
00:08:39.340Anyway, long story short, we went to the D.C. Court of Appeals after we lost.
00:08:47.600The court took at least four months to rule on the case.
00:08:53.280There were political, legal observers thinking, gee, maybe there's going to be a dissent, or maybe they may win.
00:08:59.320The court eventually affirmed the trial court, but in a really thin opinion, about 10 pages, and didn't even reach some of the arguments we made.
00:09:09.340We could not go to the Supreme Court at that time.
00:09:12.080They would allow us, and, of course, Andrew Miller would not, would have to be imprisoned while we do that on appeal.
00:09:19.720So, we just went back, and he eventually did go before the grand jury.
00:09:26.280And there's another story about how that was very suspicious, the way they handled that, because they switched grand juries on us.
00:09:32.340So, in any event, I then, last summer, about this time, I wrote a piece in the Heritage Foundation's town hall saying, hey, here was my argument in the Mueller case, and it's kind of advantageous that Jack Smith indicted Donald Trump in Florida,
00:09:50.900because the Florida federal courts are not bound by whatever the D.C. courts ruled.
00:09:57.440So, here we are, they filed that motion, and there have been some amicus briefs filed in support of that.
00:10:06.980The most notable one is by Ed Meese and my friend, Professor Stephen Calabrese, sort of the architect of this theory.
00:10:16.940And it's going to be argued on their behalf by another good friend, Gene Scher, who was a former Supreme Court law clerk, argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
00:10:31.480And he's basically raising the same arguments that I did.
00:10:35.400Now, that argument, mark your calendars, is going to be 9.30 in the morning, June 21st, two weeks from last Friday.
00:10:45.260And there's going to be another argument by another professor friend of mine, Josh Blackman, who's representing the Landmark Legal Foundation, which, as you know, is the chair of that group, is Mark Levin.
00:11:01.840And so, they're both going to argue this case, as well as the Trump attorneys.
00:11:08.080And I think this judge, Eileen Cannon, she's a conservative jurist, she's a constitutionalist, and I think she'll take this case very seriously, despite the government saying, well, no, it's already been heard, Your Honor, by the D.C. circuit, nothing to see here.
00:11:31.440Now, what's not as widely known is that following Monday, June 24th, there'll be a related argument as to whether Jack Smith is constitutionally authorized to spend taxpayers' money under the Appropriations Clause.
00:11:54.000We didn't make that argument in our case.
00:11:57.480We focused only on the Appropriations Clause, but there is a serious argument that Jack Smith is basically dipping into the pot of money that was authorized for the independent counsel program and getting millions of dollars paid to run his shop.
00:12:14.100And there's a question of whether that also violates the Constitution.
00:12:18.460So, both those arguments should be closely watched.
00:12:22.220And I hope that the court will rule in Trump's favor on one or the other or both.
00:12:28.280I think it's important that people understand the ramifications.
00:12:34.660In the event that the court determined that Jack Smith's appointment was illegitimate and illegal, it would void his indictments in Florida and in D.C.
00:12:49.760This is why the question is important.
00:12:53.180Judge Beryl Howell, I'd like to come back to that again.
00:12:56.120Judge Beryl Howell, she's the judge who ruled that Trump's own attorneys had to testify against him in the documents case, and then she quickly retired.
00:13:05.920The argument in Florida, Your Honor, this has been decided in D.C., is a meaningless argument.
00:13:11.500There are no unbiased or legitimate decisions in D.C., in my opinion.
00:13:17.860They might be binding, but it is the most part of the side.
00:14:30.060Other than that, the other question I guess I would ask you, Paul, is on the question of immunity.
00:14:39.160Trump's lawyers, as you know, have argued at the trial court level, at the appeals court level, now before the Supreme Court, that he has immunity for acts during his presidency.
00:14:52.780I know the Supreme Court is very hard to predict.
00:14:56.140But how do you think they're going to rule?
00:14:59.200The arguments on this, I believe, have already taken place.
00:15:03.800I just want to go back real quick to the Constitutional Army.
00:15:08.200When you mentioned Neil Catchell's name, as we all know, Neil Catchell is the anti-Trump lawyer, political pundit, et cetera.
00:15:16.900He was the guy who was Janet Reno's aide who wrote these special counsel regulations, and he takes great pride in doing so.
00:15:26.140So it's just kind of ironic that those are the regulations that are being challenged.
00:15:30.540And if they rule in favor of Trump in Florida, there will be a—and it goes to the 11th Circuit and they uphold the ruling in favor of Trump.
00:15:40.480That will be what we call a split in the circuits from the D.C. and the 11th Circuit.
00:15:44.940And the Supreme Court must then take the case.
00:15:49.640I'm going to the immunity argument, which is now before the Supreme Court, which will be decided in the next two weeks.
00:15:56.780So be on the lookout for the court coming down with that decision.
00:16:03.360The arguments were really good on Trump's side.
00:16:07.760And I think that there's three ways that case could come out.
00:16:13.300One, they could say, yes, Trump has immunity.
00:16:17.280Therefore, there goes the D.C. case, not the Florida case, because the argument there basically that his actions took place after he left office,
00:16:28.320although there's some argument whether some of it was while he was president.
00:16:33.040But the next ruling they could say is that he doesn't have immunity and Judge Chutkin, who's the trial judge here in D.C., will then proceed with the case.
00:16:45.700The third option, and I think this is what may be the one that's sort of in the middle of ruling, they'll say, well, yes, he does have immunity,
00:16:54.720but only for those particular actions that he took that's alleged in the indictment in D.C.
00:17:02.500that can be said to be acting within what's called the, quote, outer perimeter, end quote, of his presidential duties,
00:17:11.000as opposed to his acting in his private capacity as a candidate for office.
00:17:17.240So I think if that was the case, it'll be sent back to Judge Chutkin.
00:17:22.160There'll be then weeks in motions of hearings to try to parse out the indictment, which ones are presidential activities that is enjoyed under this immunity, which ones are not.
00:17:35.800The bottom line is that case is not going to be tried before the election, even if the Supreme Court rules against him, you know, all the way.
00:17:47.980And it goes back to Judge Chutkin, because there's still pre-trial proceedings taking place in that court as well.
00:18:37.520Let's go back to the question at hand.
00:18:40.740Troy Smith, editor-in-chief of Slingshot.news.
00:18:44.300What is your question for Paul Kamenar?
00:18:47.760Well, sir, you know, when I heard the topic today and I was listening to what we were going to be talking about, I thought it was pretty interesting.
00:18:53.940And the idea that we have this guy, you know, waging lawfare on behalf of the DOJ, and he may not even be constitutionally appointed.
00:19:01.220Just your opinion, do you think that we'll see justice on this?
00:19:05.160Do you think that there's any way we can hold the system accountable?
00:19:08.700And do you see there being provisions taken to protect Jack Smith and his kind of war against President Trump?
00:19:15.720Well, I think ultimately Trump will prevail in this issue because even if Judge Eileen Cannon rules against Trump and the case goes forward,
00:19:30.800and even if the Supreme Court rules against him on immunity and he is then tried after the election and assuming he's found guilty of any of the charges in either of these cases, he can appeal.
00:19:49.080And I believe that if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, as it would if he is found guilty, the Supreme Court will reverse his case on the grounds that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed.
00:20:06.560Because I think we have at least five votes on the Supreme Court panel, but that'll be a long time coming and justice delayed is justice denied.
00:20:16.400So, you know, the main thing is, of course, if Donald Trump wins the election on November 5th, he can, once he takes office, have these federal prosecutions basically dismissed by the Justice Department as being basically politically motivated and political persecution.
00:20:38.460So, you know, it's going to take some time for justice to prevail either in the political arena or in the legal arena.
00:20:49.340Presumably, in the event that Judge Cannon determined that the appointment of Jack Smith was improper, was illegal, presumably the government would appeal that to the Supreme Court.
00:21:02.900I guess we go first to the circuit, no?
00:21:07.500And that's a conservative circuit, by the way.
00:21:10.140Now, they have wrapped her on the knuckles a couple of times for these intermediate appeals dealing with appointing a special master to look at the classified documents.
00:21:21.020So, unfortunately, her track record with the 11th circuit is not that good.
00:21:25.280But something like this, where you're talking about a constitutional issue, it's something that she has the authority to rule on.
00:22:03.480President Donald Trump is scheduled for sentencing on July 12th in the so-called hush money trial, which, of course, he has already announced his intention to appeal.
00:22:17.920I, yesterday, and continue to believe that Judge Juan Murchian, wishing to be a liberal icon, probably angling for a federal judicial appointment, is perfectly capable of incarcerating President Trump.
00:22:35.180I know you and others believe that either a sentence involving imprisonment would be stayed or there may be some other delay.
00:22:45.980With all due respect, having looked in the eyes of a vindictive federal judge in my lifetime, I'm sorry, I don't believe that.
00:22:58.300This is about providing maximum humiliation to Donald Trump and trying to blacken his name as best as possible.
00:23:08.040I know you disagree with that because we talked about it.
00:23:10.960Tell us your view of what will happen here.
00:23:13.340Well, yeah, I mean, obviously, his sentencing, it's going to be held on July 11th.
00:23:20.240And I would think that the prosecutor, well, right now, as you know, today, he had the interview with the probation department, which is preparing a pre-sentence report that will advise the court what it thinks the sentence should be.
00:23:33.820But the big wait that will come in is what Alvin Bragg does.
00:23:39.100And I predict that he'll ask for jail time because this whole thing, but this is a serious crime, this bookkeeping error.
00:23:46.720And we've got to throw Donald Trump in prison because he's not showing any remorse.
00:23:52.720And he's violated your gag orders, your honor.
00:24:02.020Mershon's going to probably impose some jail time here.
00:24:06.480Some say, well, maybe it'll be home detention or maybe some community service, whatever.
00:24:12.820But in any event, even if he does impose jail time, Trump's attorney will immediately ask him to stay that sentence, put a hold on it while they then file their appeals, because they can't file their appeals on the verdict until after the sentencing.
00:24:32.480So they want that stay while they go up to the court of appeals on that.
00:24:35.360Now, Judge Mershon could either say, OK, I'll put a timeout on it, go have your fund in the court of appeals, or he may say, no, I want him to report next week to Rikers Island or what have you.
00:24:49.700Now, at that point, his attorneys will go to the New York court of appeals and say, hey, look, you know, this is ridiculous.
00:24:56.700Put a stay on Mershon's judgment until we finish the appeals, because there's a half dozen, if not a dozen legal arguments why this conviction should be reversed.
00:25:08.400If they say no, then you go to the Supreme Court.
00:25:11.660And I have no doubt that if it gets that far, the Supreme Court is going to put a timeout saying, look, stay the sentence until the appeals run out.
00:25:20.700So that's the way the various scenarios that the sensing will play out.
00:25:27.380We had Will Scharf, the president's appeals lawyer, one of the lawyers working on his appeal on the show last Friday.
00:25:39.520And I think he said essentially the same thing that you just said.
00:25:44.460Troy, a final question for our guest, Paul Kaminar, who is the counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center.
00:25:53.400Well, I wanted to ask you specifically about the documents case of question, just your opinion.
00:25:59.360We've heard news that the documents in question that are the subject, basically, of scrutiny from the government were actually sent by the National Archives in a setup attempt, really.
00:26:12.540They wanted to put documents into Trump's possession and then kind of have the – then that gives them the permission to come in and do a raid like they did on Mar-a-Lago.
00:26:24.540Do you think that the documents case has any legitimacy to the legal argument being made by Jack Smith and others?
00:26:31.400Yeah, I'm not sure of the exact particulars of the way that the archives may have set up Donald Trump on this.
00:26:40.840I do know that when they were doing discovery that the documents were put out of order and the Trump attorney saying, look, somebody's been tampering with these documents.
00:26:53.400Because when they seized the documents, by the way, that search was totally illegal because not only did they search for documents, they searched for, you know, Melania's bedroom and Barron's bedroom.
00:27:07.560And they got boxes of articles of clothing of Trump's.
00:27:18.220But anyway, so there's an argument that these documents have been tampered with, and that's one of the things that the judge has been looking at in the last couple of days with some of these pretrial motions.
00:27:30.420So there certainly is a lot to look at there.
00:27:34.180But I think, you know, there's a larger issue here in terms of, you know, we talked about, of course, Jack Smith being unconstitutionally appointed.
00:27:43.320It's amazing to me as I look at the Trump New York trial that I see that my own trial was the template, the prototype, the dry run.
00:27:57.200First of all, you have, of course, the unconstitutional gag order preventing me from defending myself, also meant to hamper my ability to raise legal defense funds.
00:28:08.040You have the denial of our motion for a change of venue.
00:28:13.340You have our denial that the judge recused herself after she made prejudicial statements detrimental to me from the bench, praising a juror who was caught in misconduct at a minimum.
00:28:30.560A juror who claimed during jury selection and during the trial that she wasn't familiar with me, wasn't familiar with my case, only to learn that she'd been attacking me by name regarding that very case in attacking President Donald Trump on both Twitter and Facebook,
00:28:49.260but had kept those settings on a private setting so they were not found when we did our due diligence on prospective jurors.
00:29:01.320She called our motion a publicity stunt.
00:29:04.560She also said the first time my lawyers got slightly aggressive, she said that they were too New York, which I took as an ethnic slur in all honesty.
00:29:14.520The two-tiered justice system reigns in D.C.
00:29:21.440I would actually favor a federal law that says that if you're charged with a federal crime, that you go to trial in the place where you live.
00:29:33.680Well, that's a good point, but I would go further.
00:29:36.340If you're charged with a federal crime, go to federal court.
00:29:39.420What the heck is Alvin Bragg charging Donald Trump bootstrapping these nickel and dime bookkeeping heirs into a federal crime, arguing in the jury instructions that here's the federal election law, and actually they said you could pick two other crimes, take your pick.
00:29:57.280Did he violate another New York bookkeeping law?
00:29:59.260I mean, that is so ridiculous, and the language in the sentencing, I mean, in the jury instructions for the federal election law, which is what everybody's saying Donald Trump violated here by repaying Michael Cohen for the hush money, he said in there, under the federal election law, it's illegal for a person to give more than $2,700 in a campaign contribution to a campaign or a candidate.
00:30:23.640And so a juror reading that would go, let's see, okay, $130,000 hush money, yeah, that's more than $2,700.
00:30:33.760Except under campaign law, Buckley v. Vallejo, Donald Trump can give as much of his own money he wants to his campaign.
00:30:40.720There's no limit whether he's buying computers for his campaign or he's buying new suits or he looks good on the campaign trail or he's paying off this ridiculous hush money extortion payment to keep bad news away from him.
00:30:54.680And they wouldn't allow Bradley Smith, another friend of mine who used to be chairman of the FEC, testify at the trial about how the election law, federal election law doesn't apply here.
00:31:06.740And number two, both the Justice Department and the FEC passed on an election law violation against Trump on this very issue.
00:31:17.180We could go another hour on how stupid this New York trial is.
00:31:20.840Plus, by the way, one more point, you had, talk about your judge in your case, Judge Bershon gave campaign contributions to Joe Biden and a group that's called Stop the Republicans or something like that.
00:31:45.200That, by the way, is specifically a violation of the New York State Judicial Canon of Ethics.
00:31:50.340Judges are not giving political contributions.
00:31:55.360It is really quite extraordinary that they have this inability to define what the underlying crime is.
00:32:07.520Now, just as the judge would not let Bill Binney, the former cybersecurity chief at the CIA, testify at my trial as an expert witness,
00:32:18.800it seemed that she would not allow the production and admission of forensic evidence that would have proved that there was no online hack of the DNC,
00:32:29.460not by Russian intelligence or anyone else.
00:32:32.020In this case, Judge Bershon would not allow Bradley Smith, the former chairman, vice chairman, and general counsel of the Federal Election Commission,
00:32:42.080perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the country on the federal election law.
00:32:46.920However, I have read that because Trump's attorneys did not attempt to call him, that they can now not argue that his not being allowed to be a witness is grounds for appeal.
00:33:07.140The judge limited the scope of what Bradley Smith could testify.
00:33:12.080Basically, he would just be able to get up there and say, the FEC law is, here it is, here's a copy of it, read it yourself.
00:33:20.320Well, so he was hamstrung, but you're right that maybe they may have waived that point by not putting him on the stand and start asking him the relevant questions and having the judge say, no, you can't, and thereby preserve it in the record.
00:33:35.740But I think they've preserved enough on that issue that they can raise that on appeal.
00:33:40.860And also, by the way, I heard that Bradley Smith is coming before Congress in a week or two to testify about this issue as well.
00:33:49.580So stay tuned for that congressional proceeding to flesh us out a bit more.
00:34:19.680Let me do a quick commercial pause here.
00:34:23.860Folks, do you recall several months ago when the AT&T cell phone system went down entirely?
00:34:32.540I remember it very specifically because it made it impossible to reach any of the members of my family, to reach Troy to try to change the scheduling of the Stone Zone.
00:35:07.360We had Colonel John Mills on the show only yesterday, who has told us repeatedly it is entirely possible that the entire country could be plunged into darkness.
00:35:18.900That would mean no lights, it would mean no refrigeration for our food, no air conditioning, no heating, no internet, but most importantly, perhaps, no cell phones.
00:35:32.300That's why I went out and got the satellite 9555 phone and the satellite cell service through Iridium.
00:36:31.740They cannot be collected and the information resold by big tech.
00:36:37.920So, I find the system to be very, very effective.
00:36:43.320And the truth is, when you sign up for a 24-month service package using our proprietary satellite, you get the Iridium 9555 phone absolutely free.
00:37:43.380You know, I watched the services in Normandy where President Biden spoke.
00:37:51.780And I noticed the memo must have gone out because every single media outlet said, unlike Donald Trump, who refused to visit Normandy, which, of course, we now know is a lie.
00:38:07.580The Secret Service are the ones who said because of thick fog, they doubted the safety of his flying from Paris to Normandy by helicopter.
00:38:18.200It was a five hour drive, meaning he would have missed the ceremony.
00:38:23.420It wasn't Donald Trump who decided not to go.
00:38:26.000It was the Secret Service that decided he couldn't go.
00:38:29.500But then there's the even more egregious lie.
00:38:32.560Donald Trump had, for a brief time, General John Kelly, who is a small, bitter little man who thought his job was to be the de facto president of the United States.
00:38:45.260Kelly thought his job was to dilute, slow down and derail the most important policy initiatives of the Trump administration.
00:38:54.760His appointment was a massive, massive mistake.
00:38:58.460But he's the only witness who claims that Donald Trump referred to those who gave their lives in their service to our country as suckers and losers.
00:39:59.820And I said, this was a made up deal from a magazine that's failing, Financial Disaster, by a guy that is a horrible radical left lunatic named Goldberg.
00:40:12.700They made up a story that I said this and they put it out.
00:40:17.180And it's been going around for three years.
00:40:19.860And it's just like Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, 51 intelligence agents.
00:42:32.220But for me to say suckers and losers about people that died in World War I in front of military people, it's not a possibility you could say a thing like that.
00:43:26.780It's a lie when Andrew Weitzman says it.
00:43:28.960It's a lie when Robert Mueller says it.
00:43:31.540Konstantin Kalimnik, as Matt Taibbi, the independent journalist, has clearly documented, was a U.S. intelligence asset.
00:43:40.460And secondarily, the Trump campaign had no proprietary polling at that time to share.
00:43:49.340And if Manafort shared public polling information with Kalimnik, so what?
00:43:55.280So $30 million, and that's the Russian collusion they point to, or my all-time favorite.
00:44:01.900Roger Stone was communicating with Guccifer 2.0, a Russian intelligence asset who hacked the DNC.
00:44:09.380Yes, our 28-word exchange on Twitter direct messages took place three months after WikiLeaks had already posted all of the material from the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
00:44:25.360And I myself released the entire exchange.
00:45:25.160Well, Roger, it's a very interesting situation because I think the precedent has been set in federal court for several years now that, and these cases involve individuals who are mainly using marijuana, that there is no constitutional provision which allows the government to infringe upon any American's right to own a firearm because they use marijuana.
00:45:51.140And I was very interested to see the precedent, and I think the precedent has been set across the country that you cannot have a government that punishes people and punishes their right to own a firearm based on their ability or their use of drugs.
00:46:16.140Now, the question I would raise is, is Hunter Biden different?
00:46:20.720Does the government differentiate between a user of, say, marijuana and crack cocaine, which Hunter Biden was using at the time, provably, that they used the laptop to kind of prove in this case?
00:46:32.720And that's another key point, Roger, as you stated, the 51 intelligence agents who said that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation, Joe Biden, who repeated that lie, Jen Psaki, who repeated that lie, Rachel Maddow, and all these talking heads that repeated that lie.
00:46:46.800That laptop was used in this case to get a guilty verdict on Hunter Biden on all three counts, for which he will serve up to 25 years in prison and be fined up to three quarters of a million dollars.
00:47:00.360So for those individuals, Roger, my question to you is, where is the accountability for them for pushing a known lie, for pushing this out there and claiming that the laptop, which was used to get this guilty verdict, was Russian disinformation?
00:47:16.660I think a more serious question, Troy, is, where are the charges for lobbying without registering a Foreign Agents Registration Act?
00:47:26.520We have now documented, and I was looking for it just now, we'll come up with it, millions of dollars transferred to members of Joe Biden's family, from China, from Russia, from Ukraine, from Romania, and from others.
00:48:14.160But the prosecutor in Delaware, who's now the special counsel, but then was just the U.S. attorney, charged with this case, specifically and purposely let the tax toll charges run so that Hunter Biden could not be charged with the more serious crime of tax evasion.
00:48:33.400So, Joe Biden has said publicly that he won't pardon his son should he lose the election.
00:48:42.320Let's see what happens in the period between Election Day and the inauguration of a new president.
00:48:49.260But last night, I had had unfounded reports.
00:48:55.180There were rumors, just that, rumors, that Hunter Biden would be acquitted today.
00:49:03.560And, indeed, he has now been convicted of the least charge they could possibly come up with when there's a lot of evidence that he's guilty of far more.
00:49:18.000For folks who have not gotten it, I urge you to go to marcopolousa.org, marcopolousa.org, to get your own copy online or in print of all of Hunter Biden's laptop material, very carefully annotated.
00:49:42.940And you can see the scope of the crimes here far, far greater than what Hunter Biden ultimately is charged with.
00:49:51.480Well, I would agree with you there, Roger.
00:49:53.620But I would also point out that the idea that we have a government that could come in and look, I think what eventually is going to happen here, I think you'll have a sweetheart sentencing.
00:50:03.840I think you'll get the minimum, even though the maximum on this charge is pretty high up there.
00:50:08.200You don't really see first-time offenders in this charge, from what I hear, getting maximum penalties.
00:50:14.460It'll be a slap on the wrist, essentially, it seems like.
00:50:18.580But I would point out, Roger, we have a very dangerous situation in this country with Ron DeSantis and Larry Hogan and others pushing red flag gun laws.
00:50:29.700And I see a push by the left to continually erode the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
00:50:35.220And they want, for increasing reasons, you know, pretty soon, Roger, it will be, oh, that you received medical care and you can't go to get a gun.
00:50:44.520And I would say, you know, we have situations in this country, Roger, where, like, if the state we're in, Florida, marijuana is on the ballot in November here, but it's not recreationally legal.
00:50:55.460Yet in my home state of Maryland, it is recreationally legal.
00:50:59.520So we have varying laws in which substances are legal in some states and they're not in others.
00:51:06.040And then we had a federal government that's determining who can have their Second Amendment right based on these substances, some of which are legal in other states.
00:51:27.600I don't think that felons should be prevented from owning guns.
00:51:30.740I don't think that drug users should be prevented from owning guns.
00:51:34.280These people have a Second Amendment right.
00:51:36.760They have a right through the Constitution that shall not be infringed.
00:51:41.200It's very clear. And like I said, I hate that Hunter Biden's the poster boy.
00:51:44.900He will get a slap on the wrist for this.
00:51:46.420But I would hope to see this case overturned in some way, because I don't think that the government has any any legitimate way of saying that people in this country who use drugs are not capable or not allowed to buy a firearm.
00:52:01.140I think that's a very dangerous precedent, dangerous waters to get into.
00:52:29.140Well, Roger, they had the Juneteenth celebration yesterday at the White House, as you said there.
00:52:33.500And it was pretty I mean, I was watching it live.
00:52:36.060Me and my brother, actually, we heard about it and we were like anticipating this event because we're like, oh, this is going to be a this is going to be a virtue signaling, unbelievable event.
00:52:47.780Biden was frozen in time there watching people.
00:52:51.200And if you I want people to pay attention to this video, Biden frozen, because about two or three seats down from him, you will see a member of the LGBTQ community.
00:53:01.480And this dude was front and center yelling pride all night.
00:53:05.360And the idea that he's three or four people away from the president of the United States, I think it speaks to why people don't take this administration seriously.
00:53:11.980Roger, let's roll that clip of Biden frozen in time at the Juneteenth ceremony yesterday.
00:55:06.620Whether it is the legendary Giza Dream Sheets or the extraordinarily absorbent bath towels, all of the products at MyPillow.com are first rate.
00:55:20.420And you help us enormously when you go to MyPillow.com and you use promo code Stone to do it.
00:55:32.880All right, Troy, we have about five minutes.
00:55:36.180Before we wrap it up, your final thoughts.
00:55:39.440Well, Roger, there was a big development in tech yesterday that I think millions of people across this country need to be aware of because there is actively a Trojan horse being crafted to not only steal your data, to not only steal my data, but the data of millions of Americans and to create a system that will be used against us.
00:55:58.880Apple announced yesterday, we have the headline, we can put this up, that Apple has integrated artificial intelligence through OpenAI.
00:56:06.600At least they will be doing this in the coming months.
00:56:09.440They're announcing a formal partnership with OpenAI, who Elon Musk has criticized for gathering information, for providing this information.
00:56:18.600We have a statement from Mr. Musk there saying, it's patently absurd that Apple isn't smart enough to make their own AI.
00:56:25.320It is somehow capable of ensuring that OpenAI will protect your security and privacy.
00:56:29.860Apple has no clue what's actually going on.
00:56:32.400Once they hand your data over to OpenAI, they're selling you down the river.
00:56:36.440And this is important, Roger, because for all of our users out there who have Apple products, it's important for you to understand that if OpenAI is implemented, which Apple has announced that they will do,
00:56:45.880OpenAI, which works openly with China and others, will have 100% access to everything that you do, every message, everything that you type, every picture, every application, every correspondence, email, everything on your devices that are Apple will be accessed by OpenAI.
00:57:05.360And it will be used, I think, to target political enemies.
00:57:08.760It'll be used to infringe on people's privacy rights.
00:57:13.640Now, Elon Musk issued a separate statement on this, Roger, and claimed that Apple products would be banned at Tesla if they do integrate OpenAI at the OS level.
00:57:25.740He also said that he actually would go as far as to not allow people to have their phones in a Tesla facility if OpenAI is able to access the entire Apple OS.
00:57:37.840And it's important to point out, this doesn't just stop at your data, folks.
00:57:40.980If OpenAI is implemented into Apple, everything you connect to through Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, any device that's connected to your network will be open season for OpenAI, and they'll be able to do whatever they want with your data.
00:57:53.440So a massive privacy battle being waged, Roger, I have to think that this will have massive political implications heading into 2024.
00:58:00.440All right. Excellent analysis for those who are more internet, or I should say technically inclined, than me.
00:58:11.440I want to thank you all for our growing numbers here at the Stone Zone.
00:58:16.660I do want to ask you to follow us at rumble.com slash Roger Stone.