The StoneZONE with Roger Stone - Will The US Supreme Court Allow A Trump Trial？ Super Lawyer David Schoen Enters The StoneZONE!

00:00:00.560 The Stone Zone with legendary Republican strategist and political icon and pundit Roger Stone.

00:00:08.120 Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents.

00:00:12.180 He is a New York Times best-selling author and a long-time friend and advisor of President Donald Trump.

00:00:17.780 As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues,

00:00:23.420 and lectured before the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society.

00:00:28.160 Due to his four-plus decades in the political and cultural arena, Stone has become a pop culture icon.

00:00:34.160 And now, here's your host, Roger Stone.

00:00:41.400 Welcome. You are back in the Stone Zone, and yes, I'm Roger Stone.

00:00:47.080 Yesterday was a tumultuous day on the legal front when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear

00:00:55.880 the question of whether Donald Trump had absolute immunity for acts that he took while president.

00:01:03.760 Here to help me break that and other legal news down, first is my co-host, Troy Smith of Slingshot.News.

00:01:13.060 Troy, welcome back in the Stone Zone.

00:01:15.660 Roger, as always, it's an honor to be here today.

00:01:17.900 We have, as our guest, one of the most distinguished attorneys in the country.

00:01:25.040 David Schoen is a criminal defense attorney.

00:01:28.200 He's also a noted civil rights attorney.

00:01:31.280 And interestingly, he's a lawyer with particular expertise in the question of ballot access.

00:01:38.120 We are honored to have David Schoen join us now in the Stone Zone.

00:01:43.820 Thank you very much.

00:01:45.060 David, it is great to see you, as always, and saw you last night with Laura Ingram.

00:01:52.340 We're going to actually play that in a little bit.

00:01:54.620 You were brilliant, as usual.

00:01:56.300 But let's start at the top.

00:01:59.040 So to try to review for our viewers the sequence of events, Donald Trump's attorneys raised the defense

00:02:07.560 of presidential immunity at the trial court level in D.C.

00:02:13.400 In the January 6th related cases against him brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

00:02:20.340 The judge there, Judge Chutkin, rejected those arguments.

00:02:24.300 At that point, as Trump was preparing to go to the appeals court, Mr. Smith tried to leapfrog

00:02:33.740 to the U.S. Supreme Court in the interest of his preferred time frame.

00:02:39.400 But the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that no, it had to go through the regular process.

00:02:46.280 It then went to a three-judge panel of the appeals court, which not surprisingly ruled against

00:02:54.060 President Trump.

00:02:55.340 And then until yesterday, there was some question as to whether the Supreme Court would hear this

00:03:01.860 matter.

00:03:02.260 Then yesterday, they granted cert and agreed to do so.

00:03:07.080 David, give us your analysis of the situation, but most specifically, try to look down the road

00:03:14.480 from a timing point of view in terms of the significance of the high court's decision to hear the case.

00:03:23.560 Well, it's a major turn of events, I think, that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

00:03:29.480 I don't think that was certain by any means, but I think it was the right thing to do without any

00:03:33.780 question.

00:03:34.700 It's a monumental case.

00:03:36.000 We have in the civil arena, a Nixon versus Fitzgerald, a 1982 case in which the court found

00:03:42.660 absolute immunity from civil action, civil liability for a president, for a president or former

00:03:48.260 president, in that case also, for official acts taken in office.

00:03:53.380 And so this is the criminal side of that.

00:03:56.020 That is, should the same kind of standard or approach or framework apply?

00:04:01.160 The court accepted one question, and that is whether and to what extent a former president

00:04:07.680 is immune from criminal liability for acts alleged to have been official acts in office.

00:04:13.720 So it's a very straightforward question with a number of elements to it, frankly.

00:04:18.880 What kinds of things affect that?

00:04:20.880 Whether it's an official act?

00:04:21.940 When is it an official act?

00:04:23.800 And so on, former president versus president, although I don't happen to think that's much

00:04:27.720 of an issue, really.

00:04:29.000 I mean, Nixon versus Fitzgerald dealt with a former president.

00:04:32.620 I think the relevant time frame is when the person is in office.

00:04:35.600 But in terms of your specific focus of timing, first of all, the court set it on an expedited

00:04:41.120 track so that it's going to be argued the week of April 22nd.

00:04:44.880 That's extraordinarily fast for this kind of thing.

00:04:48.040 But I don't think we should be driven by Jack Smith's quest to get things done as quickly

00:04:55.680 as possible to make sure to get a trial before the election.

00:04:58.720 These are important constitutional issues, and they should be fully fleshed out.

00:05:03.900 This case can't go to trial, in my view at least, before the obstruction statute is fleshed

00:05:10.300 out by the Supreme Court.

00:05:11.260 But that's also under review, and also relates to the charges in the case against President

00:05:18.460 Trump.

00:05:19.260 And so I think that it's more important to get it right than to move quickly here.

00:05:24.980 There's no question that there's an agenda to try to get a conviction for President Trump

00:05:30.200 before the election.

00:05:31.300 It's not coincidental that all of these cases were brought at the same time, including a

00:05:36.280 business case that's attacking business practices President Trump and real estate developers

00:05:40.580 have used for decades.

00:05:42.160 It's not a coincidence that they're all brought at the same time, just before an election.

00:05:46.880 For President, especially with President Trump, the clear Republican candidate, and in most

00:05:52.420 polls, I think winning the general election.

00:05:55.920 Let's come back to that.

00:05:57.260 I think you make reference to 1512, the obstructing an official proceeding charge that's been used

00:06:06.380 by prosecutors in D.C. against so many of the January 6th defendants.

00:06:13.820 Explain to our audience why this is a significant issue in the Trump case.

00:06:19.900 Well, in the Trump case, it's charged that he was attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.

00:06:26.200 We don't know from the Supreme Court yet, and we will find out what's an official proceeding,

00:06:31.560 what it means to obstruct, what frame of mind is required.

00:06:35.540 All of these are elements that have to go into the preparation of defense and can only

00:06:40.240 go into the preparation of defense once we know what the legal parameters are.

00:06:44.960 It will guide jury instructions in the case.

00:06:47.180 It will guide the entire formulation of the defense on the obstruction charges.

00:06:52.240 And so, you know, it's little talked about.

00:06:54.220 Everyone talks about just the immunity thing holding things up.

00:06:57.860 And I was asked the question last night, is it fair when the Trump team—I was asked

00:07:02.080 on CNN whether it's fair for the Trump team to raise these issues and then complain about

00:07:07.760 timing and ask for a delay in the trial?

00:07:10.600 I said, well, of course it is.

00:07:12.100 These criminal charges were foisted on them.

00:07:14.060 They never should have been brought in the first place.

00:07:16.420 The lawyers have an obligation to raise all of the legal issues.

00:07:19.200 And the court had an obligation to hear the case as it's doing now.

00:07:23.160 And the same goes with the obstruction charges.

00:07:25.940 That's relevant to, you know, virtually all of the January 6th defendants, but even well

00:07:30.400 beyond this.

00:07:31.480 You know, we're seeing an effort here by Jack Smith and others to make law that's unique

00:07:36.060 to President Trump.

00:07:37.400 And that's very dangerous.

00:07:38.540 So I think the court did the responsible thing.

00:07:41.780 I heard some commentators on CNN last night saying it was arrogant for the Supreme Court

00:07:46.600 of the United States to take review of the immunity case because, after all, the D.C.

00:07:51.520 Circuit wrote a comprehensive opinion.

00:07:53.800 That's an absolutely outrageous position to take.

00:07:56.560 This is the high court of the land.

00:07:58.060 They're acting responsibly in hearing the case, and no one knows yet how it's going to come

00:08:01.460 out.

00:08:01.680 So now would probably be a very good time, since I don't want to be duplicative.

00:08:06.680 Let's run that great interview last night with Laura Ingram.

00:08:11.860 The great defenders of democracy have now kicked Trump off another state ballot.

00:08:19.200 Of course, this happened in Cook County.

00:08:20.760 And Illinois Circuit Judge Tracy Porter has ruled that former President Trump is disqualified

00:08:26.520 from the state's March 19th primary ballot and the general election over the, quote,

00:08:32.040 anti-insurrection clause.

00:08:33.840 How is this democracy, David?

00:08:35.960 It's not democracy.

00:08:36.900 It's as anti-democratic as it gets.

00:08:38.660 They're going to get slammed by the Supreme Court.

00:08:40.700 Illinois has long, and especially Cook County, long been heavy-handed with ballot access.

00:08:44.800 I had to go into the federal district court there to challenge the constitutionality of

00:08:48.980 ballot access law on another heavy-handed move they made.

00:08:51.460 They slammed them. 0.75

00:08:52.460 They were so adamant about it.

00:08:53.720 When I went to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, they sent six lawyers in to argue

00:08:57.240 against me, and they lost again.

00:08:59.120 They're going to lose this time.

00:09:00.600 It's horrible.

00:09:01.320 It sends a terrible message to the American people.

00:09:03.980 Why are they afraid of the ballot?

00:09:05.780 The ballot is what really makes this country work.

00:09:08.500 Here's what the judge, this judge, Tracy Porter, who was responsible for this outrageous

00:09:13.300 decision tonight in Illinois, this is what she said when she was appointed back in 2021.

00:09:17.880 She said, my motto is impacting lives and changing communities.

00:09:22.880 And that is how I will approach this new position.

00:09:27.400 David, last time I checked, that's not the role of a judge.

00:09:30.140 That's the role, perhaps, of an activist or an NGO or maybe a representative.

00:09:36.560 But she's put it right out there for us.

00:09:40.180 Yeah.

00:09:40.340 And actually, her role ought to be the enforcement of the Constitution, the First and 14th Amendment 0.98

00:09:44.120 rights of the voters to vote for a candidate of their choice and of the candidate to be on

00:09:49.120 the ballot.

00:09:49.660 This is absolutely wrong.

00:09:51.060 It's going to get slammed, but they ought to shut it down immediately.

00:09:54.400 And she should probably be sanctioned because she knows what she did is wrong. 0.99

00:09:58.200 She knows the matter is pending at the Supreme Court.

00:10:01.000 And what's amazing about this, reading a great piece by the Illinois Review, is that the Illinois

00:10:07.420 State Elections Board has already ruled that Trump can appear on the ballot.

00:10:11.500 The judge, Tracy Porter, is essentially oversees cases in the traffic division of the Cook County

00:10:19.860 court system.

00:10:22.380 I mean, this is, I guess this was to get her 15 minutes.

00:10:25.960 But I guess my question, David, is this, I believe this is exactly the issue that's already

00:10:31.600 before the high court pertaining to the Colorado ballot access.

00:10:36.440 It is generally believed, despite the fact that the president's lawyers may have missed a few

00:10:43.420 cogent arguments in their presentation to the court, it's still generally believed that the

00:10:49.820 court is going to overturn the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar Trump from the ballot.

00:10:57.500 If that were to happen, would that have the effect of killing all of these efforts in the

00:11:04.440 various states, since they all seem to be based on the same flawed argument that Trump has

00:11:11.700 participated, not been charged with or convicted of, but has participated in insurrection and is

00:11:18.580 therefore ineligible for the ballot?

00:11:21.820 That's at least part of their argument.

00:11:23.580 Would an affirmative decision, or I should say a decision overturning the Colorado Supreme Court,

00:11:31.320 clear this issue away in Illinois and other states?

00:11:35.460 Yes, it would.

00:11:36.400 And especially in the Illinois case, all she basically did was copy the Colorado decision.

00:11:41.500 So a clear decision by the Supreme Court will erase all of these efforts.

00:11:46.080 And I think that's what we're going to see.

00:11:47.780 There are many ways the court can go to resolve the issue,

00:11:50.200 but it will reverse the Colorado case.

00:11:53.700 This clearly cannot apply, in this case, to keep President Trump off the ballot.

00:11:57.860 And it will resolve it once and for all.

00:11:59.600 And this judge knows it up there, but she gave a very narrow window now to take it to the Supreme

00:12:04.640 Court.

00:12:05.120 What I think should be done, I've made the suggestion already, is that they go immediately

00:12:09.820 into federal district court in the district court there in Chicago and request an injunction

00:12:16.080 to the Illinois State Board of Elections.

00:12:18.060 That's the board that determines who's on the ballot.

00:12:21.600 An injunction requiring that President Trump's name be placed on the ballot.

00:12:26.280 I wouldn't even necessarily get into the state court decision.

00:12:29.220 I don't want to hear any abstention arguments and so on.

00:12:32.020 This is a First and Fourteenth Amendment issue.

00:12:34.540 It's very clear.

00:12:36.060 And the district court has to act immediately to enjoin the State Board of Elections to put

00:12:42.800 President Trump's name on the ballot.

00:12:44.660 There's a history of this in Chicago.

00:12:46.840 I mentioned last night that I brought a case against the Illinois Board of Elections in

00:12:53.000 the past for keeping a small party off of the ballot.

00:12:55.760 They had draconian laws there.

00:12:57.660 They fight very hard to keep them in place.

00:13:00.580 And there's a special election that happened up there.

00:13:03.840 They had to redo the ballots before because at the last minute they tried to pull a fast

00:13:08.180 one and a court said it wasn't constitutional.

00:13:10.420 So this is going to cost Illinois a lot of money if this thing sticks, because they're going to have to redo it if they dare to try to run this election and bar President Trump from being on the ballot.

00:13:20.820 But OK, Troy, do you have a question for attorney David Schoen?

00:13:26.660 Absolutely.

00:13:27.300 Mr. Schoen, just as somebody who looks at this stuff constantly and you're constantly I love hearing your explanations on these things and going into the laws and things like that.

00:13:35.860 What's your reaction when you see I mean, it's it appears to me from what you're saying that most of these cases fall apart with a simple review of what they're actually talking about.

00:13:44.100 What's your reaction to these things being launched all over the country just as somebody who practices law?

00:13:50.700 Yeah, I think it's terrible.

00:13:51.900 Listen, there are a couple of people who happen to be behind almost all of these the agenda in this case and almost all of these initiatives.

00:13:59.320 Norm Eisen is one.

00:14:00.860 His group crew CREW brings these cases.

00:14:04.520 They have other organizations under whose auspices they operate.

00:14:08.640 These folks, their goal is simply to find some way around the ballot for keeping President Trump off of the ballot.

00:14:15.980 And I always say, you know, it harkens back to something Jerry Nadler said during the Trump administration.

00:14:20.720 And that is we have we can't trust the voters.

00:14:23.880 We have to find a way outside the ballot to keep President Trump out of office.

00:14:28.820 That's as undemocratic a message I've ever heard from a United States representative.

00:14:33.700 But we see how it's playing out here.

00:14:35.720 And not only that, they have folks in the media who take the exact opposite position and they say, oh, gee, there's no argument really against the Colorado decision.

00:14:45.120 That opinion was so sound and it's clear that President Trump must be kept off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.

00:14:51.700 You're doing a real disservice to American voters and to the world, I think, frankly, when you misstate constitutional principles like that.

00:14:58.880 There are so many reasons the Colorado Supreme Court decision is wrong on constitutional grounds.

00:15:05.720 All right. Let us go back, if we may, to the the immunity question, because there's one that I have to ask you.

00:15:12.980 I followed the proceedings at the appeals court level in one minute and 58 seconds into his presentation.

00:15:20.820 The president's lawyer was asked by Judge Pan, what would happen if President Donald Trump ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate his chief political opponent and then ordered SEAL Team 6 to kill any U.S. senator who dared to impeach him over that?

00:15:41.180 Would he have immunity? Would he have immunity in that case?

00:15:44.520 And surprisingly, the president's lawyer after a moment said, my answer is a qualified yes.

00:15:51.200 Even I found that as a non-lawyer to be kind of a shocking lawyer.

00:15:55.480 David, had you been before the court, how would you have responded to that question?

00:16:00.700 From his perspective and his framework, I understand why he said yes.

00:16:05.260 I think he's simply wrong. And I think it's wrong to take that kind of extreme approach.

00:16:10.460 It's not necessary to win this case.

00:16:12.560 My answer would have been no, we would not be absolutely immune in that circumstance because that would not be within the outer perimeter of the duties of office.

00:16:20.900 It wouldn't have been an official act in any universe.

00:16:24.080 And that's what Justice Powell wrote in Nixon versus Fitzgerald in 1982.

00:16:28.520 The president's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the outer perimeters of his duties of office.

00:16:35.260 Personally, getting a SEAL Team to hit a political opponent would not be within an official duty in any realm.

00:16:43.960 Yeah, it's a ludicrous question.

00:16:46.980 But of course, the left has run with it.

00:16:50.040 The right thing that they've tried to use is to characterize this entire case.

00:16:54.660 Watching the people like Rachel Maddow flipping out yesterday because the Supreme Court agreed to hear this.

00:17:02.600 Now, I was not certain whether they would hear it or not hear it.

00:17:06.180 But you're absolutely right.

00:17:07.520 Their level of anger all has to do with timing.

00:17:11.440 You see, they are desperate to have a criminal trial in D.C. against President Trump prior to the election.

00:17:21.200 That's really the overriding goal here.

00:17:24.320 And lawyers like you, who I respect and several others, are really beginning to wonder whether that can actually happen given this Supreme Court decision.

00:17:34.160 Now, I've already have been surprised by the extent to which the process has been expedited, sometimes confounding how Special Counsel John Durham can take five years to reach his conclusions.

00:17:49.460 So the system can move very quickly when it wants to.

00:17:52.440 It also can move very slowly when it wants to.

00:17:56.240 David, this is kind of an outside the box question, but the Supreme Court ultimately had to decide about the release of President Richard Nixon's White House tapes.

00:18:07.900 They ultimately determined that Nixon had to turn them over.

00:18:12.320 That, in turn, made them public.

00:18:14.720 I'm curious about the audio tapes of Special Counsel Robert Herr's interrogation of Joe Biden during his investigation into Biden's, what he called his willful retention of top secret and classified documents.

00:18:34.460 And because democracy dies in darkness, because I'm a full disclosure guy, I'd like to see that tape be made public.

00:18:42.860 Would anyone have standing to bring such an action in that regard?

00:18:48.500 It's a great question, and there's not enough talk about this.

00:18:52.240 You're 100 percent right about the importance of transparency, and especially now that President Biden has gone on record at his press conference in denying factual assertions that Mr. Herr made.

00:19:03.280 So I think the case has to be brought.

00:19:05.880 But I would hope that Norm Eisen would bring it under the auspices of Crewe, since he is going around the country claiming that he has standing to raise public interest into matters of public interest.

00:19:20.800 But I think in this case, frankly, there could be a number of entities or people who have standing.

00:19:30.680 But I think at a minimum, Congress needs to demand it, because at the end of the day, Special Counsel has to deliver a report to Congress with the approval of the Attorney General.

00:19:42.100 The Attorney General gave that approval in this case.

00:19:44.820 And the Congress is permitted under the Special Counsel's guidelines to ask questions.

00:19:49.920 I think that the way to go about this one is that this should be subpoenaed, and the subpoena should be enforced by Congress in a court proceeding if that's required.

00:19:59.580 Very, very interesting.

00:20:01.140 Excellent analysis.

00:20:02.260 I had not focused on that.

00:20:04.500 All right, let's turn now, if we may, to the so-called valuations case, the Ngaron case.

00:20:12.100 I mean, there's been plenty of discussion about the case itself and the fact that essentially the judge in this case found Donald Trump and his companies and members of his family guilty prior to there ever really being a trial, prior to the president being allowed to put on any defense.

00:20:33.360 And that's outrageous enough in itself.

00:20:36.460 Again, to cite the facts of the case, Donald Trump borrowed money from banks.

00:20:43.080 He put up certain assets as collateral.

00:20:46.680 Regardless of what he declared the value of that collateral to be, the banks conducted their own due diligence, their own appraisals to determine whether they thought this was a good loan, a safe loan.

00:21:00.700 They made the loans, they were paid back in full, in some cases paid back, or in all cases on time, in some cases actually paid back early.

00:21:10.640 They made as much as $40 million in interest.

00:21:15.940 There's no victim here.

00:21:18.040 There's no complaint in here.

00:21:19.640 This complaint wasn't brought by a bank or someone who claimed they were somehow cheated or defrauded.

00:21:25.800 It was brought by the attorney general, Letitia James, under a law under which no one else had ever been prosecuted.

00:21:35.400 But I want to go to the more recent part of this.

00:21:39.180 Just in order to appeal this, the judge is requiring Trump to post a bond, as I understand it, that it costs as much as a half billion dollars.

00:21:50.820 And there's actually some risk to that.

00:21:54.320 In other words, he may, even if he gets to appeal, lose some of that money.

00:21:59.520 How can this be considered fair?

00:22:02.800 I mean, everything you just said is 100 percent correct.

00:22:06.740 It can't be considered fair by any measure, by any standards.

00:22:10.320 Even Trump haters don't think it's fair.

00:22:12.380 Even Trump haters who are in business have basically taken the position there, but for the grace of God, go I.

00:22:18.280 Some are moving out of New York.

00:22:19.920 Some are threatening to move out of New York.

00:22:21.720 All are saying it's unfair.

00:22:23.460 Even people outside of business.

00:22:25.100 Jeb Bush recently wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal saying how this undermines the integrity of the system.

00:22:32.640 You're 100 percent right.

00:22:33.660 The judge, this judge, Engeron, even addresses in the beginning of his opinion why this is not really fraud.

00:22:39.260 He says fraud requires certain things, and that's always materiality, misrepresentation, that it's relied on to one's detriment and all that.

00:22:48.200 But then he says along came Executive General Law 6312 in New York, and that changed the whole ballgame.

00:22:54.940 So just as you pointed out, no loss is required, no victim is required, no materiality is required, no reliance is required.

00:23:02.740 That's not fraud.

00:23:03.960 It's some made-up law that's now used to punitive effect.

00:23:07.340 And so there are so many, in my view, so many constitutional infirmities with what went on here.

00:23:13.100 You start with the amount of damages.

00:23:16.200 That looks like an Eighth Amendment through the 14th Amendment violation, excessive fine, and so on.

00:23:22.580 But I think it's even more basic than that.

00:23:24.700 I think that the law itself is standardless.

00:23:27.300 We don't know what the burden of proof is.

00:23:28.860 The law provides that the judge can order whatever relief he, quote, deems proper.

00:23:35.620 I don't even know how to begin to approach that, what the standard would be or the framework, what the relief could be.

00:23:41.720 But then there's another issue.

00:23:42.980 They didn't get a jury trial in the case.

00:23:45.140 And so there's a 2011 case from that same court, Justice Ramos, former respected Supreme Court justice in New York.

00:23:52.860 Supreme Court is the trial court.

00:23:54.660 And he finds that there is no right to a jury trial under this section of the law.

00:23:58.980 But his reason is because it's not really about damages.

00:24:02.840 This is just supposed to be an equitable measure.

00:24:04.780 If you find that someone committed fraud in business, you can adjust it by limiting their business practice or something like that.

00:24:11.480 But he said damages are just incidental.

00:24:13.420 Well, in this case, damages are the tail wagging the dog.

00:24:17.340 It's an extraordinary amount, $355 million.

00:24:22.940 With interest compiling, it's $450-something million.

00:24:27.000 There's no end to the thing.

00:24:29.360 And so that's clearly punitive.

00:24:31.680 You clearly have to have the right to a jury trial.

00:24:35.240 I wouldn't just argue that the amount of damages is excessive because I don't think the full remedy in this case should be just a reduction in damages.

00:24:42.640 It shouldn't certainly be.

00:24:44.420 There shouldn't be any damages.

00:24:45.900 But I think you need a completely new trial.

00:24:48.020 I think the law is unconstitutional as applied for many reasons, some of which I've said.

00:24:54.460 And I think the whole thing was misguided.

00:24:56.520 And from the start, we know the agenda was a political one.

00:25:00.200 The attorney general ran on a platform of getting President Trump.

00:25:04.720 He wasn't even under investigation at the time.

00:25:07.260 That's clearly unethical, inappropriate.

00:25:10.180 No one should accept that from a public servant because, again, today it's Donald Trump.

00:25:15.860 Tomorrow it's somebody else with some other attorney general.

00:25:18.720 So this case has to be reversed ultimately.

00:25:21.700 But you're right in focusing on this bond issue because it's a killer.

00:25:25.540 It's not appropriate to make someone who wants to appeal a case with these kinds of substantive issues in it put up any kind of bond.

00:25:33.700 It's in the public interest to have the appeal go forward.

00:25:37.720 It's really quite extraordinary.

00:25:40.160 Now, of course, given the delay in the January 6th and what appears to be a delay in the so-called documents trial that Jack Smith has brought in the 11th District of Florida,

00:25:53.640 they're now moving ahead with what should be a regular, if anything, a business records case, a civil litigation, which prosecuting attorney, district attorney of Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, has bumped up to be a criminal trial.

00:26:12.040 Now, this has the same markings in terms of motive as the so-called valuation trial, although I think it has the potential from a public relations point of view to be more damaging to the president because of the subject matter.

00:26:31.600 The court will be relying on Michael Cohen as their chief witness, who I think that's extraordinarily dangerous.

00:26:41.520 But, David, what is your assessment of that upcoming trial?

00:26:47.360 Well, first of all, you know, the judge is a bit of a nightmare.

00:26:49.700 He's a real Trump hater.

00:26:50.900 He's also, I found him to be a sort of very insecure fellow who's very much subject to what he believes public opinion to be, very sensitive to what's going on in the courtroom and that the press is there.

00:27:03.740 That's dangerous.

00:27:04.700 He's a Trump hater, contributor we know, you know, to campaigns from the other party.

00:27:11.420 But beyond all of that, I think the case is fatally flawed in its indictment.

00:27:16.020 The indictment is a cockamamie, jerry-rigged contraption by which they charge a misdemeanor of errors in the business records.

00:27:26.020 But under New York law, it can be a felony if the misdemeanor was intended to commit another crime.

00:27:31.920 The problem here is to bring it, make it to a felony, the grand jury never has identified what that so-called other target crime is.

00:27:39.420 I think that's a fatal defect in the indictment.

00:27:42.480 I don't think it can be cured by a bill of particulars or any other measure.

00:27:45.620 This is what the grand jury found and didn't find.

00:27:48.440 And so, for example, one theory is they falsified business records, allegedly, in order to advance his election by covering up the Stormy Daniels thing to advance his election prospects.

00:28:02.180 That would be one defense then to face that with, to oppose that kind of theory with.

00:28:08.880 Another theory is they allegedly doctored business records for tax purposes, to avoid certain taxes or to get certain tax advantages.

00:28:17.700 That's a completely different defense.

00:28:20.120 Without the grand jury identifying what the so-called target crime was, there's no way to defend it,

00:28:25.140 and there's no way to protect, raise a claim of double jeopardy if the state loses this time around and then says, oh, no, what we really meant was the following, and they charge the other theory the next time around.

00:28:36.620 So I think it's fatally flawed in that regard.

00:28:39.120 They're also going to have to deal with a number of logistical issues.

00:28:42.200 That is, there's a book out there that a special prosecutor they brought in to investigate this matter wrote, and in it he details why the office was fundamentally against this prosecution, including Alvin Bragg,

00:28:55.960 why the higher-ups with the experienced people in the office thought this case never should have been brought.

00:29:00.700 And then as to Michael Cohen, you know, we can't leave out that Bob Costello was Michael Cohen's lawyer at some point.

00:29:07.040 He's on record already as saying that Michael Cohen told him a completely different story about the underlying matter here.

00:29:14.400 And so you can be sure he's going to appear as a witness in the case.

00:29:17.500 It's a case that never should have been brought criminally.

00:29:19.640 But again, we see a prosecutor, this time Alvin Bragg, running on a campaign promising to get Trump.

00:29:26.760 Yeah, the timing is what seems extraordinarily suspicious.

00:29:30.400 As soon as it became clear that because of the federal litigation, that there would be a delay in the January 6th trial,

00:29:39.500 and there also appears to be a delay in the so-called documents trial taking place in the 11th District, 11th Circuit of Florida.

00:29:49.660 Well, then it was Mr. Bragg's turn.

00:29:52.580 I think strictly from a political point of view, I think President Trump actually benefited politically,

00:30:00.440 certainly not financially, but politically from the overreach of the valuation case.

00:30:08.060 Whether this case will have the same effect given some of the lurid accusations, well, that remains to be seen.

00:30:17.180 And you're right, just the idea that the judge gave a contribution to Joe Biden's presidential campaign,

00:30:25.600 even though I think it was a $15 contribution, I think that's immaterial.

00:30:31.320 Any contribution creates an appearance of bias under which I think the judge should have disqualified himself,

00:30:39.140 but very clearly he refuses to do that.

00:30:42.420 All right, Troy, one more question here for David Schoen, who has a busy day.

00:30:48.120 I'm going to let you ask the final question, and then we'll let David go back to practicing law.

00:30:53.320 Mr. Schoen, it's an honor to meet you here.

00:30:55.600 And I just wanted to ask you, really, as you're looking across the country and you see all these cases,

00:31:00.700 is there one in particular that you think would be the biggest problem for President Trump in the way that it's being set up?

00:31:07.260 And also, if you could also kind of go into how we can kind of fix this so we don't see these rogue prosecutors

00:31:13.800 and everybody kind of going after people for things that you're telling us are just not legitimate.

00:31:19.380 Boy, I really don't know how it can be fixed.

00:31:22.160 I mean, we've come to a point now, I think we saw it in the snap impeachment of President Trump,

00:31:27.120 so we're going to see tit for tat in that.

00:31:28.640 But here, you know, I'd like to think that if President Trump wins this election,

00:31:34.480 he's going to just rise above this and say, listen, we have to get this country back to doing the business of the country.

00:31:40.780 And this is what he did so well with the economy and with foreign policy before.

00:31:44.920 And let's just focus on it.

00:31:46.200 And hopefully that stops it.

00:31:47.380 The temptation is going to be for many in the public, at least half the country,

00:31:51.240 to say, you know, there's got to be payback for what these folks have done.

00:31:55.280 I think we need to move beyond that.

00:31:57.300 But right now, we've got to deal with all of these cases.

00:32:00.480 As for, you know, which is the biggest problem?

00:32:02.900 I mean, right now, if he's really going to go to trial, March 25th,

00:32:05.820 and that's the immediate problem on the plate.

00:32:07.920 There are full defenses to all of these cases.

00:32:10.660 There are motions that have been denied, but I think there is tremendous issues for appeal.

00:32:15.080 But it's all a giant distraction from the election campaign.

00:32:18.460 The people want to hear about the issues from the candidates these days.

00:32:22.080 And I think that's one reason we see his poll numbers going through the roof.

00:32:26.740 Every time these things happen, and as Roger said, especially with the Judge Engeron case,

00:32:32.220 people in all walks of life think that it was extraordinarily unfair.

00:32:37.040 You have the banks literally in that case saying they love the loans, they want Trump business,

00:32:41.680 and that makes sense.

00:32:42.880 And they did their own due diligence, and they discounted any outside valuation, and so on.

00:32:47.760 It's absurd.

00:32:48.720 And that's why you see they're not getting the money if it has to be paid.

00:32:51.500 The state gets the money, and that's just a windfall that's undeserved.

00:32:54.620 One final question, which I'll preserve as a privilege as the host.

00:33:03.580 In the Florida documents case, there seems to be a lot of illegal action surrounding the whole question of confidentiality.

00:33:14.220 It seems to me that the prosecutors don't want to reveal, either to the plaintiff or to the public,

00:33:20.760 what these alleged documents that they claim the president improperly held on to regard.

00:33:28.660 How can that possibly be?

00:33:31.400 I think it's wrong.

00:33:32.920 I think the judge has been very careful.

00:33:34.440 You know, she's come under attack by most in the left wing.

00:33:37.520 She's the only judge in all of these cases, in my view at least, who's acted like a judge.

00:33:42.720 But anyway, what she said most recently in her decisions is that some of the sort of secondary defendants

00:33:49.240 don't need access to the documents because their charges don't require the same mens rea,

00:33:55.700 the same state of mind, the same intention with respect to national defense documents.

00:34:01.320 But she is giving President Trump's team, it appears, access to the documents to know what it is the government's talking about.

00:34:09.440 But you're right.

00:34:10.120 I mean, there shouldn't be a veil of secrecy in any of these things.

00:34:13.040 Obviously, if there's classified information, we don't, the public doesn't need to see the classified information,

00:34:17.920 but we can have a sheet that tells us the nature of the matters involved.

00:34:21.880 But they even want to keep, you know, jury questionnaires secret because some jurors, Mr. Smith says,

00:34:28.580 might have strong feelings about Donald Trump.

00:34:30.640 That's what the public needs to see.

00:34:32.040 The public needs to see the political nature of the prosecutions and what they call a fair and impartial, unbiased jury.

00:34:40.020 Again, I heard someone on CNN last night saying, you know,

00:34:42.760 the American public demands the right to have President Trump brought before an impartial, unbiased jury.

00:34:48.060 It's not coincidental, the timing of the cases or where the cases were brought.

00:34:52.900 Jack Smith well knows the demographics of the jury in D.C. and what the voting pattern was in D.C.

00:34:59.480 It's not coincidental that that case was brought there or in New York City.

00:35:04.940 Excellent point.

00:35:07.020 I guess if a juror has an antagonistic view towards President Trump,

00:35:14.120 I'm not really certain how it's possible for them to sit in judgment, put that aside as an impartial juror.

00:35:20.620 Now, I admit it should be hard.

00:35:23.020 It will be hard to find a juror, a prospective juror who has no opinion of President Trump or Joe Biden, for that matter.

00:35:31.760 On the other hand, it would seem to me that that should be that should be the goal in jury selection.

00:35:37.620 On the other hand, I lived through this, and I can tell you the jurors in my case were not well disposed to President Donald Trump.

00:35:46.000 All right, David Chung, criminal defense attorney, thank you so much for joining us yet again in the Stone Zone with your extraordinary analysis.

00:35:54.560 I'm going to go look for your other interview with Laura Ingram because I want to see you talking about immunity.

00:36:00.260 But thank you so much for your time and thanks for joining us today.

00:36:04.360 Always an honor and a pleasure.

00:36:05.520 Thank you very much.

00:36:06.320 All right, folks, a little housekeeping matter here.

00:36:13.500 In order to keep the lights on at the Stone Zone, we have a couple of important sponsors.

00:36:19.960 Now, I am someone who has a long history of interest and personal practice of alternative medicine on a prophylactic basis,

00:36:32.340 meaning I take a lot of natural herbs and supplements.

00:36:37.300 I've used acupuncture prophylactically for many years.

00:36:42.220 It's not that I reject all Western medicine, but I approach it with some skepticism.

00:36:48.360 There is one important product that I want to tell you about because it has literally changed my life.

00:36:56.140 And that product is Cardio Miracle.

00:37:00.660 Now, Cardio Miracle is a proprietary blend of nitric oxide.

00:37:08.100 Nitric oxide exists as one of the body's most potent natural antioxidants.

00:37:14.320 It's a short-lived gas produced in the walls of the arteries and the veins.

00:37:18.380 And as you get older, the natural production naturally drops.

00:37:23.560 It has a number of crucial functions in the body, keeping blood pressure and cholesterol at healthy levels,

00:37:30.900 supporting the anti-inflammatory process, promoting general good health and a sense of well-being,

00:37:37.920 but also supporting natural energy.

00:37:41.180 I find that I get a burst of natural energy and much quicker recovery when I'm taking Cardio Miracle.

00:37:50.580 Now, it's very easy to take.

00:37:53.080 You take a capsule of it twice a day mixed with water or juice.

00:37:58.400 It tastes like raspberry.

00:37:59.760 It's quite pleasant tasting.

00:38:01.300 And I found an almost immediate improvement in my well-being and also in my natural energy.

00:38:13.260 I put in long hours putting together The Stone Zone as well as producing my WABC weekend radio show

00:38:21.100 as well as cranking out print media at StoneZone.com.

00:38:25.560 And this has helped me enormously.

00:38:27.960 So, folks, check out this great product by going to CardioMiracle.com, CardioMiracle.com.

00:38:37.020 It is a powerful combination of nitric oxide, both a proprietary blend and a broader antioxidant blend.

00:38:45.780 You can actually get all of your necessary vitamins on a daily basis from Cardio Miracle.

00:38:52.800 I'm not a doctor.

00:38:54.300 If you have heart problems, I urge you to see a cardiologist.

00:38:58.780 But for general health, for general cardiovascular health, and I think for quick recovery and generally a boost in natural energy,

00:39:10.480 let me recommend Cardio Miracle.

00:39:13.020 Once again, go to CardioMiracle.com and use promo code STONE when you do so.

00:39:21.360 Promo code STONE.

00:39:23.120 I think you'll be very, very pleased with this product.

00:39:26.800 All right, Troy, let's go back to the political scene.

00:39:31.220 David Choen, I think, made a very key point there at the end.

00:39:34.100 Yesterday, first time I've seen this in the Emerson College poll, pardon me, that's incorrect, in the Harvard-Harris poll,

00:39:42.400 for the first time we saw numbers that indicated that even if Donald Trump were to be convicted of some of these alleged crimes with which he is accused,

00:39:53.540 he seems to beat Joe Biden in the polling anyway.

00:39:57.680 This is a sea change.

00:39:59.440 This is a more recent development.

00:40:02.840 Now, the Harvard-Harris poll, this is conducted by Mark Penn, who is a Democrat,

00:40:10.420 but more precisely, I think one of the leading survey research experts in the country.

00:40:17.240 He is not somebody who sugarcoats or tries to color his research.

00:40:22.260 He's very, very straightforward, has a huge amount of integrity.

00:40:26.960 I've actually known him, I don't know, almost 40 years.

00:40:31.480 I find this a very significant development.

00:40:34.820 What do you think?

00:40:35.460 Well, and I'm 100% interested to hear your thoughts on how we kind of examine polls, Roger,

00:40:42.200 because I think for the most part, I think it's important for you to talk about,

00:40:45.640 you specifically, because you've reviewed this stuff so often,

00:40:48.300 how polls mislead people and why it's so important to focus on polls that matter.

00:40:53.480 And I think, you know, the shoes are a perfect example.

00:40:56.660 You know, people in the mainstream media were freaking out about the shoes, Roger, the Trump shoes.

00:41:01.360 And they were making fun of them.

00:41:03.240 They were making fun of the shoes.

00:41:04.340 And it almost reminded me of 2016.

00:41:06.820 And I think what they're failing to realize here is that Trump has become a cultural phenomenon.

00:41:12.400 He was political in 2016.

00:41:14.020 And he had a cultural aspect to his aura, his being, who he is.

00:41:19.200 He had a cultural aspect to that.

00:41:21.280 But it wasn't really the dominating aspect of it.

00:41:24.780 Now, with him being really a figurehead of what it is to be a forgotten American, he's really become the symbol for hardworking Americans, for people that are just trying to get by, for people who have been persecuted.

00:41:41.820 And the mainstream media has been complicit in pushing these cases.

00:41:45.740 So in reality, they've created the cultural phenomenon that is Trump.

00:41:51.160 And I think the reason that Trump is not going to be hurt by anything here, even if he does get convicted in any of the cases, is the same reason that famous rappers or famous artists or musicians like Johnny Cash or Jimi Hendrix or whoever who get arrested, their popularity doesn't go down.

00:42:08.600 And, in fact, their album sales go up because those people are being related to.

00:42:12.820 President Trump is a relatable person, something that you don't see often in politics, Roger.

00:42:17.820 And I'd be interested to hear if you've ever seen somebody who had as much of a cultural impact as Trump in politics, just in general.

00:42:25.820 You know, I agree with you.

00:42:27.500 When I first saw that he was going to be marketing these sneakers, when I saw he was going to SneakerCon, I basically said, what in the world?

00:42:36.740 Well, first of all, he made a lot of money.

00:42:38.600 Money that, unfortunately, he badly needs now to post the bond where they're asking him to put up almost a half billion dollars just in order to have his appeal heard.

00:42:51.060 Outrageously unfair.

00:42:52.660 I think he's going to meet those requirements.

00:42:55.820 I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether he has to sell certain assets or borrow money to do it.

00:43:01.680 I don't know what his caste position is because, remember, his companies are privately held.

00:43:06.960 But I noticed a couple of things.

00:43:09.760 First of all, the sneakers sold out almost immediately.

00:43:13.740 I mean, they're not available.

00:43:16.060 And my understanding is that at least this version was a limited edition.

00:43:21.180 So you snooze, you lose.

00:43:23.040 I didn't buy a pair.

00:43:24.360 Now I wish I had, although I'm not sure I could have gotten in fast enough.

00:43:28.460 But secondarily, there are a lot of working class Americans, minorities and others who like this, who like this culture, who like the sneakers, like the whole thing.

00:43:41.220 And I think it makes Trump more relatable, makes him more of every man, more like the average American.

00:43:49.360 I'm sorry, I can't picture as much as I might, George H.W. marketing a pair of Bush sneakers.

00:43:57.080 I just I can't even begin to imagine that.

00:44:01.000 To go to your question about polls, it's one that there's two misnomers here that need to be constantly, unfortunately, revisited.

00:44:10.220 I have said on the show many, many times that one cannot look just at one poll and reach a conclusion.

00:44:20.540 One needs to look at several polls taken essentially within the same time frame.

00:44:26.820 But even those polls have to have a certain professional and scientific methodology.

00:44:33.740 In other words, the sample size needs to be large enough to be scientifically and statistically significant.

00:44:42.740 The order of the questions has to be in an unbiased manner so that before you introduce positive or negative information regarding the candidate or public figure that you're testing,

00:44:58.720 you are asking the questions prior to introducing that information in order to gauge what the impact of the information may be.

00:45:10.140 You also want to look at the general, the manner in which the sample is drawn.

00:45:17.700 In other words, is it a representative sample of the larger jurisdiction that you're trying to measure in?

00:45:26.720 So, for example, I see this all the time.

00:45:29.340 I will see polls, but then I notice that they're not of registered voters.

00:45:34.020 They're just of citizens, and they were selected through random digit dialing.

00:45:39.660 That's not a politically viable or scientifically valid poll.

00:45:45.940 Now, can you take a poll and make it show whatever you want?

00:45:51.320 Yes, you can cook the sample.

00:45:54.880 You can cook the wording of the questions.

00:45:58.280 You can cook the order of the questions.

00:46:02.480 Now, people go out and say, Roger Stone said all polls are fake.

00:46:06.700 No, that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

00:46:10.060 But what I am saying is that you go to real clear politics, which I really like, and you look at the real clear politics average to look at all of the polling within a given time frame.

00:46:22.160 And if all of the polls or the overwhelming number of polls are showing one thing, but one poll is showing something else, well, then that poll is what they call an outlier.

00:46:35.480 It is unlikely to be correct within the larger context of looking at all of the polls.

00:46:41.760 So if you look at it within that context right now, Donald Trump is leading in every swing state, as well as maintaining a narrow lead nationally.

00:46:54.760 Now, one of the things you always look for is to see whether either candidate is over 50 percent.

00:47:01.840 A candidate who's over 50 percent is in not impregnable, but much stronger position.

00:47:08.320 We still have a race in this country.

00:47:11.940 It's hard for me to look at these polls and figure out how, in some cases, 46 percent of the people are voting for Joe Biden.

00:47:18.120 It's almost hard for me to figure that out.

00:47:20.340 But that's a that's not a scientific observation.

00:47:22.840 That's just a personal observation.

00:47:25.840 When a candidate moves over 50, they are considered to be in excellent position, maybe even impregnable position to win the race.

00:47:35.920 This is one of the reasons why I am rejecting the advice of Richard Nixon, who has often said, told me directly that in choosing a vice presidential running mate, one should not look for an individual who can help you.

00:47:53.540 Just find someone who doesn't hurt you.

00:47:56.200 Well, generally speaking, I think what he means by that is select somebody once you determine that they are fully qualified, that they have the experience, the judgment, the temperament, the commitment to the America First agenda to potentially be president.

00:48:14.420 If, God forbid, that should become necessary, then and only then can you look at the political considerations.

00:48:21.960 But I think a lot can be said for selecting somebody who is surefooted.

00:48:27.760 Running for vice president of the United States is not the same as, say, running for governor of a small state like South Dakota.

00:48:35.180 It's a very, very different situation.

00:48:38.220 It's a high pressure atmosphere in which, candidly, the fake news media, which is hostile to Republican candidates, are seeking to find some controversy, seeking to find some way to damage your ticket through a perceived misstep of some kind.

00:48:59.140 One of the classic tricks they use is to try to get the presidential and vice presidential candidates to contradict each other, or more precisely, to get the vice presidential candidate to contradict the presidential candidate.

00:49:12.080 So you want somebody who has political experience beyond just the experience of being elected in a small state.

00:49:21.900 Yes, I have said, and I will say again, I'm intrigued by the potential for the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, who is now an independent, a former Democrat congresswoman.

00:49:36.820 I recognize that online, this is getting mixed results.

00:49:40.920 Some people love the idea.

00:49:42.540 Some people hate the idea.

00:49:44.500 Let me be very clear.

00:49:45.480 I'm not endorsing anyone.

00:49:47.560 I'm for whoever Donald Trump is for.

00:49:50.460 And so I am merely having a discussion of the potential of her candidacy, which, given her record as a combat veteran in both Iraq and in Kuwait, her current status as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, her evolution on a number of key issues.

00:50:16.260 On the key issue of war and peace, she's clearly very solid.

00:50:21.200 She is very anti-neocon.

00:50:23.540 She's against giving more money to Ukraine.

00:50:26.960 She clearly has had an evolution when it comes to Second Amendment rights. 1.00

00:50:32.540 Troy, when I interviewed her for my WABC radio show on Sunday, she was calling me from a shooting range in Arizona where she was in a shooting contest.

00:50:41.400 You could hear the gunshots in the background.

00:50:45.620 And, of course, she is pro-life, which I think is vitally important within the Trump coalition.

00:50:53.080 So I'm intrigued by that idea.

00:50:56.080 Now, people say, oh, well, she was for Bernie Sanders.

00:50:58.520 Well, you know, had I been a Democrat and I had to choose between Hillary Clinton, the war machine candidate, or Bernie Sanders, who was opposed to war, I guess I'd have been for Sanders as well, although I disagree with probably most of his other positions.

00:51:14.240 So anyway, I'm going to continue talking about this.

00:51:18.360 Some people don't like it, but I'll be honest with you, I really don't care what they like.

00:51:23.920 Anyway, here's a matter that is perhaps the most important we're going to talk about today.

00:51:30.360 If you've followed me here at the Stone Zone or at my WABC radio show, the only thing I probably take more seriously than politics is food.

00:51:41.900 And I'm kind of an amateur chef.

00:51:44.960 I cook Italian, and I always use and insist that others use San Marzano tomatoes.

00:51:53.460 Now, San Marzano tomatoes are not a brand of tomato.

00:51:58.320 It is a style of tomato that is only grown in the San Marzano Valley of Italy, and they're imported into this country by a number of companies.

00:52:10.340 However, a woman in California, whose name is, let's see, Andrea Valiente, has filed a lawsuit against Simpson Imports, a Pennsylvania tomato seller,

00:52:25.400 claiming that they are using misleading labels to give the impression that the tomatoes they are selling are San Marzano tomatoes.

00:52:36.640 This is not the first time I brought this problem to the American people.

00:52:43.940 It is claimed that the tomatoes from this company, Simpson Imports, are priced higher than many other canned tomato brands,

00:52:53.140 which contributes, according to her lawsuit, to the plausibility of the consumer's expectation that the tomatoes are indeed San Marzano tomatoes.

00:53:02.520 That comes actually from the judge in this federal case.

00:53:06.120 Now, the labeling of San Marzano tomatoes in the United States has been loose.

00:53:10.880 In the European Union, only tomatoes that are grown in a specific region of Italy and fulfill a number of other specific requirements

00:53:19.260 receive the designation of protective origin, or DOP.

00:53:25.020 Look for that, always, folks, D-O-P, to show that they are genuine, authentic San Marzano tomatoes.

00:53:33.060 In the United States, many tomato sellers claim to grow strains of San Marzano's and may sell those as San Marzano-style tomatoes,

00:53:44.620 but they do not have the official European certification.

00:53:49.000 Folks, this is a fugazi.

00:53:51.120 This is a fraud.

00:53:52.360 So, to wrap up the Stone Zone today, for all your Italian cooking, for all the recipes you can find in my book, Stone's Rules,

00:54:00.960 which you can buy at Stone Zone in the store, always be sure that you are using genuine San Marzano's authentic plum tomatoes from Italy,

00:54:13.080 and that you're not using San Marzano-style tomatoes.

00:54:17.420 That has to be the last word today.

00:54:19.600 I want to thank my co-host, Troy Smith.

00:54:22.480 Hopefully, I've made him very hungry with this important news item.

00:54:26.880 Until tomorrow, I'm Roger Stone.

00:54:29.080 On behalf of Troy and myself, thank you for joining us today in the Stone Zone, and Godspeed.

00:54:49.600 I'm Roger Stone.

00:54:50.840 They want to frame me like I'm Roger Stone.

00:54:53.420 Yeah, they want me gone.

00:54:54.300 They want to frame me like I'm Roger Stone.

00:54:56.360 in

The StoneZONE with Roger Stone - February 29, 2024

Will The US Supreme Court Allow A Trump Trial？ Super Lawyer David Schoen Enters The StoneZONE!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript