A (10:20)

Well, Roger, one of the reasons why I was thrilled to see the President commit your sentence, and I tweeted multiple times in favor of that. I tweeted for a pardon, just so we're clear, but I'll take a commutation is because I understood exactly what they were trying to do to you. It was a show trial. It's a Soviet style show trial where they wanted to try to make an example out of anyone that dares support this President, goes against the ruling class and the elites. And they said, well, here's one guy that we really have a disdain for. And they Decided to try to punish you and make a public example of that. What is it? 23 FBI agents that looked like they could have staged a coup in a Central American country showed up at your doorstep at 6am and CNN happened to be there. And then it went to the trial. And this is something that bothered me at such a fundamental level where I started to speak out more forcefully and more publicly when I saw. Roger, the jury forewoman for your trial was an individual that I believe shared social media posts against you and against the President and lied on her jury form. That is Banana Republic stuff. I don't care if some individual says, I don't like Roger Stone. Completely irrelevant. Every person deserves a fair trial in this country. And where was the aclu? Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? They are out there arguing for fair trial for Boston Bomber. Yet they were silent. Roger, when it came to your trial, that was rigged with a judge that wanted to muffle you in silence. You know, I got a kick out of it. We had you on our podcast previously and you were so careful with what you could say and couldn't say because of what the judge disallowed you from making your own case publicly. Roger, can you. Can you walk us through that experience?

B (12:09)

Yeah. I mean, the trial has a number of flaws with it. To begin with, the judge rules for the government in a number of pretrial motions where she limits my avenues of defense. So, for example, the judge ruled that I could not raise the issue of the misconduct of the special counsel, the Department of Justice, the FBI, or any member of Congress. Had this ruling been in place in Judge Flynn's case, we still wouldn't know how those entities sabotaged in him, set him up for a political and baseless prosecution. That's unconstitutional, by the way, under Kyles v. Whitley. But that didn't stop the judge. She also ruled that I could not challenge the underlying premise of my indictment, that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the information to WikiLeaks. Now, that's an assertion by the Department of Justice. It's an assertion by the intelligence agencies. Hasn't been tried in any court. There's more forensic evidence to the contrary. And I was prepared to put up expert testimony and forensic evidence to prove that that that didn't happen. But that was really not allowed because at that juncture, the three legs of Robert Mueller's stool, two of them, had already been removed. The Steele dossier had been exposed as a fraud, and the Russian troll case had turned out to be a dud. So now we're down to one final falsehood. The Russians hacked the DNC, gave the information to WikiLeaks, and the information, theoretically, was passed from WikiLeaks to the Trump campaign. The problem is, there was no evidence of presented at my trial. No evidence exists that I ever had either possession of or knowledge of the WikiLeaks disclosures in terms of either their source or their content prior to them being published. And I never claimed I did. I mean, the sad truth here is that all I did was to take a tip, which was very general in scope, that the WikiLeaks material was significant, that it would cause an uproar because it really did not hold Hillary and her campaign in the best light, and that it would come in October. I'm sorry. Regardless of what the outcome of my trial was. Randy Credico was the source who told me that. Jerry Corsi was not the source who told me that. They found that that was not the case. But Credico perjured himself on the stand, as did every witness in this case. It was outrageous to kind of sit there and see each one of them lie. The most stunning one, I must tell you, was Steve Bannon, because months after the trial, the House Intelligence Committee released his sworn testimony. And then when you put it side by side with his testimony in my trial, it's inescapable. He either perjured himself at my trial or he perjured himself in the House Intelligence Committee. Now, he told the House Intelligence Committee that he never discussed WikiLeaks or Julian Assange with me at all. That's the truth. Then at my trial, he said we discussed it in virtually every conversation we had in 2016, and that he considered me the campaign's access point to WikiLeaks. Well, if that's true, I don't know it. So I don't know whether he was threatened. I don't know the circumstances. But I was stunned when he said that. It's like a nightmare where you realize the makeup of the jury. Not a single Republican, not a single military veteran, not a single registered independent, not a single conservative, not a single evangelical Christian. But it could have been the Clinton Obama administration alumni reunion. It was overwhelmingly people from previous Democratic administrations, not civil servants, but political appointees. You had people with ties to the Justice Department, people with ties to the FBI. You had Democratic activists like the jury forewoman. The other juror who was questioned by the judge was active in the campaigns of Jill Stein and then Beto o'. Rourke. He doesn't sound terribly objective. To me, he had donated to Beto o' Rourke's presidential campaign, so he's already against the president. Now. The judge held that opposition to Donald Trump was not a reason to be struck from the jury. As if my trial was not about politics. But that's exactly what it was. In fact, the chief prosecutor in my case, Jeanne Rhee, represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation in the illegal email server. A missing email case. Yet the judge said in her tongue lashing about me in sentencing that that's what this case was about. Well, if that's true, then she should have been eliminated on the basis of a conflict of interest. In fact, she was working for Robert Mueller's law firm at the time, and by law, therefore, they had a joint conflict. But that was, of course, never raised. I did move for a change of venue. That was rejected by the judge. I did ask her to recuse herself after she praised the juror and the jury for doing a terrific job. Then we learned that there was juror corruption, but she wouldn't recuse herself from making the decision. And you'll like this one, particularly when we had a hearing and we learned that she had, through 2019, posted attacks on me personally as well as the president. And on one occasion, she had actually linked to a story that. That outlined my indictment. Yet she said in jury questioning, her questionnaire is not public, and I'm not going to comment on that. But during the public portion of jury selection for Dear, she said she didn't know what I'd been charged with and she wasn't familiar with me or she couldn't recollect who I was. Yet she linked to an article that featured my indictment. And when my lawyer sought to ask her about that, the judge stopped him and said, just because she linked to an article on Twitter doesn't mean she read it. I mean, that's how Kafkaesque this gets. When we tried to ask her about her comment that all supporters of the president were racists, the judge said there's no reason to believe that Ms. Hart knew that Roger Stone was an associate or supporter of the president prior to her being selected for this trial. Well, then she had to be living on. Under a rock.

A (18:38)

Well, yeah, and I want to zero in on this. This is a juror that you're talking about. This was someone who was the forewoman. And we only.

B (18:47)

Attorney.

A (18:47)

Yeah. And we only were able to talk about her, which otherwise would have been a crime because she outed herself. Is that correct, Roger? She wrote an op ed.

B (18:55)

Yeah, exactly. She did an op ed for CNN that made her name known. And then some people started using the Wayback Machine. Were able to find these various tweets, which during the jury selection and during the trial, it's not that we didn't look at every juror, which we're entitled to do, but these had to be on a private setting at that time because they did not readily come up. And therefore, when the judge ruled that my lawyers have an obligation to know this, first of all, under the law, they don't. They're entitled to believe that the juror is being honest, but they weren't available at that time and that after the trial she deleted them. So she had a Facebook page. Her MO was to post something on Facebook and then take the Facebook link and post it on Twitter. She did that repeatedly. But at the end of the trial, she deleted both her Twitter feed and her Facebook page, which she had had since 2008. And when asked by my lawyer why she did that, she said, well, I just wanted to take a break from social media. Well, people who take a break don't close their page. They just suspend it or they just stopped posting and looking at it. But in this case, she deleted everything. When we asked Judge Jackson for permission to subpoena that information from Twitter or Facebook, it was denied. I think that's called a cover up. I believe that's what it's called. So no person in their right mind can believe that I had a fair trial. Tired of reading on social media, Stone was convicted by a jury of his peers. I wasn't. And there was substantial misconduct by everybody. In this trial. The prosecutors defrauded the court on several points, specifically insisting that they had evidence beyond the CrowdStrikes report that the DNC was hacked by the Russians. That is not actually possible. And I was prepared to produce the expert witnesses like Bill Binney and Ray McGovern and others with an NSA background or a CIA background who, who know the facts and could have presented forensic evidence to dispute that. That was, as I said earlier, denied. So, no, it was a Soviet style show trial. It wasn't a trial. It was a lynching. And, you know, it never ends. So at the end, as you may or may not know, the judge sentenced me and the Bureau of Prisons was preparing to send me to a prison in Georgia. And they were prepared to do this in violation of their own DOJ Bureau of Prisons policy that under which inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes are moved to home confinement. They were doing this despite the precedent because in Every circuit people in the same situation as I was had gotten the courts to order them either to home confinement or to a delay in their incarceration because of the uncertainties of COVID virus. The prison in question now has over, I think, 80 confirmed COVID virus cases and more outstanding tests. The judge insisted there were none. And then lastly, you know, although I know don't look it, I'm 67 years old and I have a history of respiratory problems, including asthma, which I almost died of as an infant. So I would have been a sitting duck in jail. I don't think I would have lived to my appeal. That was the exact point. And I think this is one of the major reasons why the President felt compelled, as in a humanitarian act of mercy, to commute my sentence. I think he knew it was a death sentence. He very much wants me to pursue my appeal and win exoneration. I would like to do that. But I learned only yesterday that if the appeals court does award me a new trial, it would be before Judge Jackson. Once again, I don't believe that she can be objective. She made that pretty clear in her speech at the end of my trial. So it's a legal conundrum I have to study and make a decision on. The President didn't pardon me specifically so I could fight on, which I'm prepared to do. But it's draining. It's financially draining. As you know, I've lost everything. You know, I had to borrow a computer to do this, to do this broadcast because my computer finally gave up. This is the computer, by the way, that the FBI smashed and took and returned to me. So God knows what's in. Is a draining experience to be politically targeted like this. I could have made it go away by agreeing to lie, not by agreeing to, to uncover information I had against the President that would have led to his impeachment. But I was hiding because no such information exists. Let me say it for the 1000th time. I could have lied, but then I couldn't live with myself and I would not be in a position to change the course of history. Donald Trump, in my opinion, saved this country from hurtling over the cliff to globalism. He is the last thing standing between us and total, complete anarchy. What we see in the streets today is not peaceful democratic demonstration. It is a violent, well organized, well funded socialist revolution. These people want to overthrow our democratic institutions, our form of government, our US Constitution, and all of our basic values and freedoms. What is the sense of tearing down statues of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln because they're racists. Please, this makes no sense. Their whole thing doesn't make any sense. And now, on top of it all, we're tearing down statues of Jesus Christ. We're tearing down statues of the Virgin Mary. You know, this has gone way, way too far. And those who are urging restraint, I respectfully disagree with them. At some point, you have to demonstrate to the anarchists that you will not put up with lawlessness. It is just not acceptable. So, Charlie, you made a good point before we went on the air, and that is how few conservatives were willing to stand up. And therefore, I've got to go through a short list, because there's a number of Americans who really need credit. First of all, there is you. And you did a great job. You never wavered, you never flagged. You were one of my most articulate advocates. You followed the case carefully. I know you spoke to the President on my behalf. I know you were hitting Twitter, you know, every week to remind everybody that this was going on. And I'm deeply grateful. Ryan Fournier with Students for Trump. Strong supporter, a great guy, really helpful. Tucker Carlson. I mean, what else can you say? He had a deep sense of injustice about this entire thing. He was outraged, he was infuriated, and he would never let go. He followed the case, and in every twist and turn, he would go on his show and use it as a platform to keep Americans aware of what was being done behind the scenes. To destroy me. We've been friends for 30 years. You can have no more loyal friend than Tucker Carlson. He is a man among men. He's an extraordinary individual, and I will never forget what he's done for me and my family. Sean Hannity, who was great and really pounded away using his platform so that people understood how outrageous this case was. Congressman Matt Gaetz from my home state of Florida, a great advocate who I know was out there when Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik. We're arguing against any clemency for Roger Stone because it might cost the Republican seats. I know that Matt Gaetz was standing tall both privately and in public on my behalf. Mark Levin. Mark Levin and I have never been friends. We have had tussles in the past. Looking at them in retrospect, in my new perspective as a Christian, I was wrong, he was right, and I've apologized for that. But nobody broke the case down against me better than Mark Levin on his radio show. And I really owe him a great debt of gratitude. Conservatives like Reverend Darrell Scott, Reverend Mark Burns, Reverend Franklin Graham, all, many, many people in the evangelical Christian community, both African American and not African American, saw this injustice and called it out. Bernie Kerik, the former New York police commissioner, a great guy, gave me a huge amount of strategic advice because he's lived this nightmare and he understood it. My friend Kristen Davis, who went on cnn, went on msnbc, went right into the lion's den and defended me fearlessly and effectively. Members of my family, of course, my wife Nydia, my daughter Adria, my son Scott, who through thick and thin, through my temper tantrums, and through my ups and downs, you know, stuck with me and kept insisting this would all turn out all right. Now, I've told you that back in January, I had the opportunity to meet privately with Franklin Graham, Reverend Randy Coggins, a very dynamic young evangelist preacher, really a terrific guy, somebody I could call late at night who would really help me through the rough spots here and point me to places in the Bible where there were specific things that would give me solace. And I had an opportunity to meet with Reverend Graham. I'd seen his father, Franklin Graham, preach when I was 12 years old in a tent revival in Bridgeport, Connecticut. It's one of the most memorable things in my life. It was a dramatic, extraordinary experience. And I had met Reverend Graham's daughter Sissy, on the Republican circuit when I was speaking, and she's a terrific person. And Reverend Graham was the one who told me that. That when I asked him if he would speak to the President on my behalf, he said, well, you know, I'll do what I can there, but there's a bigger solution here. And he said, it's time for you to reaffirm your belief in Jesus Christ. It's time for you to be reborn. He asked me about my religious background, and I told him that I was a Roman Catholic, that I had received the sacraments in that church. I'd had a Catholic education. But I admitted I had fallen away. I had fallen from. From God's path. And he said, well, you need to get back on the path. You need to confess your sins. You need to pledge not to sin anymore to the best of your ability. You need to rededicate your life to Christ. You need to ask him to come into your heart. And I absolutely guarantee you, if you will do that, God will see you through this. He will protect you. He will never abandon you. And he was absolutely right. That was on a Saturday when I stood up with 500 other Christians and I took the pledge. I confessed, I witnessed to Christ. I cleansed my soul and the very Following Monday, the story about the corrupt juror hit the fan big time across the United States. It was like, overnight. Now, you can say that's a coincidence, but I don't believe it is a coincidence. I believe it is the defying hand of God. And that's why even up to Friday night, Charlie, I wasn't worried. I wasn't nervous, I wasn't panicked. I knew that there were plans to ship me to a prison today, but I knew that God would provide, that he would protect me from those who would persecute me. And he did. Because I believe that the President was guided by the Lord to do the right thing, just as he's guided in all his acts as president. I know Donald Trump. I've known him for 40 years. He is a deep believer in the Lord. And you couldn't do that job unless you believed in God, unless you believed in divine guidance. It's why we have. We must reelect him. And I think it's going to be much more difficult than many of our supporters think. Why? Because the other side cheats. That's why. Because they will engage in ballot fraud. We know that from history. They are already trying to censor us across every social media platform. Just before they were to execute me, they wanted to silence me while I was being lynched. So they banned me for life on Facebook and Instagram based on the entirely false allegation that I owned and manipulated 100 fake Facebook pages. It's just not true. Again, an allegation that falls out of the Mueller investigation. Some witness told them that the problem with it is it isn't accurate. I don't know that I have ever had a Facebook page in the name of any other person, or even any person who doesn't really exist. I've never set up a Facebook page for a political organization that didn't actually exist. I do have pages for myself and my two blogs, the Stone Cold Truth and stonezone.com where I was prohibited from posting anything by Judge Jackson for the last 16 months. And I have pages for each one of my books. But, you know, they argue that it's about spreading falsehoods. So if they don't agree with the premise of your book, you're pushing false information. Who's to say what the truth is? Not them, that's for sure.

A (32:17)

And Roger, it seems that the tech companies are a huge issue here. And the fact you're not even allowed to have a Facebook or Instagram page is remarkable to me. When Instagram had a sticker yesterday that Said mute white people. I tweeted this out, by the way, where I said, you're not allowed to have an Instagram page, but Instagram provides to young people a sticker that they can provide that literally says mute white people. I mean, it's just whoever's making the decisions there, let's just say they're, they're incredible. You know, let's just. They're trying to divide our country in a variety of different ways. And so it was.

B (32:52)

But the better question, Charlie, is who at the Justice Department is watching this violation of the law and doing nothing? Because it's not a First Amendment issue. Unfortunately, the First Amendment litigations against the tech giants have not gone very far. The issue here is antitrust and monopolistic activities. If they want to be the public square, then they have to be open to everyone. You can't have it both ways. Now, the telephone companies are privately owned, but they're regulated. And these companies are privately owned. And I'm not a big fan of regulation, but I'm a bigger fan of free speech. Yeah. And free expression. I must tell you, we've gotten to a dangerous area. I've signed up on Parler, and I must say I really like it because you have a sense of freedom. You know, you're not going to be decapitated just because you're a Christian or a conservative or a libertarian or a Trump supporter or a non liberal. And every once in a while, you know, some liberal will post something in opposition to what I write. That's fine. In other words, that was why Twitter was fun. There was a repartee. But now Twitter has just descended into be a cesspool of hate. You know, my granddaughter gave birth to my first great grandchild several months ago, a great grandson. And the torrent of hateful email and text messages that she got via social media, wishing that her child be stillborn or accusing, saying your child is the prodigy of incest between you and your own grandfather, wishing, saying that they would murder her and the baby. This is sick. This is the tolerance of the left in this country.

A (34:27)

And yet they still have their account.

B (34:29)

Just get off of social media if these things upset you, because there are hateful people in America who will do things like this. The judge went on and on about the safety of the jurors, and she left the gag order after my being convicted. She left the gag order in place because of the safety of the jurors. What about the safety of my, myself and my family? They all. We've gotten death threats We've gotten threats of violence. I can't go out in any public setting. While I have to admit the overwhelming majority of the people are friendly and supportive, there's always two or three who want to threaten you with physical violence or start screaming that you're a Russian spy or a traitor. My family members got mowed down in Budapest in 1956 by communist Red Russian tanks. I have no truck for the Russians. Let's get that straight right now. It is a very frustrating time to be an American.

A (35:30)

Well, and Roger, you're now a free man. And I want to close the point, though, Roger, because it's a theme that we talk about a lot on this program. Why do so few conservatives fight? I appreciate you mentioning me. Thank you. And Ryan Fournier and Matt Gaetz. Matt did a lot. Congressman Gates was a huge advocate of yours. Tucker, any thanks that you give to me and Ryan Fournier give to Tucker. Roger, why did so few Republicans fight?

B (35:57)

Well, we don't. That's the problem with Republicans. They don't fight about anything. I mean, establishment Republicans are as bad as establishment Democrats. When we look at Washington and the problems in our country, it's a mistake to view things through the prism of Republican, Democrat. I mean, we're Republicans because it's our birthright. We're the party of emancipation. We're the party of civil rights. But the real truth is it's the insiders versus an outsider. The insiders, meaning the ruling elite of both parties, are interested in power and money and wealth, mostly power. And from power they get wealth. Donald Trump is interested in the welfare of all Americans. He's interested in having a rising tide lift all, all boats. And he proved that in the way he revived our economy, rebuilt our military, and negotiated better trade deals so that we would have a job boom in this country and everybody would have the opportunity and the promise of America. So it can't really be seen on a Republican, Democrat divide other than to say that there are no Democrats in the outsider camp. Or to the extent that they are, there are Bernie Sanders, who is a Communist, posing as a socialist and an outsider because he got slam dunked twice by his own party. They will cheat this guy as many times as they need to. Not because they don't agree with his underlying philosophy, but they recognize that he is too blunt. They don't need a candidate who comes right out and says, oh, by the way, I'm a communist. They need one who hides their communism and claims to be a moderate Democrat. The other problem here, I think the other opportunity is. Joe Biden cannot pass for a civil rights advocate. That is not his record. His entire political career is based on the opposition to the integration of the Wilmington, Delaware school system. He said, if we integrate our schools, there will be jungles. I don't want my child going to school in a jungle. That is clearly a racist comment. He is the father of the failed war on drugs, which has been an ignominious failure. It has been a social, economic, and racist failure. We are incarcerating people who are not violent criminals for the first time. Nonviolent crime of possession of small amounts of drugs, using these mandatory penalties where a judge has no discretion. So if you have a single mother with three children, struggling to provide for them, working two jobs, but she's caught with a small amount of marijuana in her purse, putting her away for 25 years does not make sense. She's not a violent criminal. If you're a conservative, you as a taxpayer, you've paid billions to incarcerate and feed people who are not violent criminals. It destroys families, it destroys people. It rehabilitates no one. It's costing the taxpayers billions of. Who is the father of this policy? Who dreamed up this turbocharging of the war on drugs? Why, it's Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1994. He used to call it the Biden Bill. He stopped doing that. Bill Clinton signed it into law. You remember Hillary saying, you know, we have to do something about these, about this problem. She was over the top in her rhetoric, as I recall. So we have to unmask who the real Joe Biden is. He's not a moderate Democrat. He's a sleazy dealmaker who has enriched himself and his family in every shady operation in Ukraine, in China. When you look, you'll find a lot more. Also back in Delaware. I'm going to disclose more about this, probably make some videos. Former Vice President Biden and his wife have this extraordinary habit of not paying their bills, of stiffing small business people, merchants, hairdressers, dentists, landscaping people, fencers, all these individual purveyors of small goods and services run up by the Bidens. Then the Bidens stiff them on payment and dare these people, you know, who are small businessmen and women struggling to get by, dare them to sue, saying, you'll never get anywhere suing a U.S. senator. You'll never get anywhere suing a sitting vice president. Good luck. I mean, what kind of person does that? What kind of person, you know, orders goods and services and then accepts them, uses them, and refuses to pay for them. I mean, it really shows his contempt for average working class Americans. In some cases, the bills he refused to pay bankrupted some small landscaping companies. They just, they did a huge work job for him and they didn't get paid and they went under. People need to know about that. Joe Biden, he is a pompous, arrogant blowhard. And we need to know how he was in public life, in public office, since he was 29 years old, but he became a multimillionaire, needs to explain that they want Donald Trump's tax returns. I want Joe Biden's tax returns. I want Nancy Pelosi's tax returns. While we're at it, I like to see Maxine Waters as well. So, you know, everybody can play this game. What outrages me is they want the President's tax returns not because they have some probable cause or some evidence of wrongdoing. They want them because they want them. They want them because they're fishing for something. They have no evidence of wrongdoing. I'm absolutely certain that the President took some very large tax deductions to which he was entitled. Would you want a president who was too stupid to take huge tax deductions that are legal under the law? Would you want a president who purposely goes out and overpays his taxes? Of course not. That's not the guy you want running the finances of the country. You want somebody who plays by the rules as they're written. Now, if Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff and the rest of their ilk doesn't like the tax code as it's written, sponsor legislation to change it, but don't come back after the fact. Say, oh, Trump took a giant tax deduction. Well, was he entitled to it? If he was, there's nothing wrong with that. That's what he should have done. Yes, it outrages me that they keep making insinuations about the President's tax returns when they know nothing about it and they have no evidence of wrongdoing, it's outrageous.

A (42:15)

I agree. And so in closing here, Roger, I want to talk about this article in the Atlantic. You probably saw it.

B (42:21)

I did.

A (42:21)

It's outrageous. That's all I have to say is outrageous.

B (42:26)

Joshua, similar one in cnn, a guy named Gerald Lefcourt pops up and says New York State can now indict Roger Stone. Now, Gerald Lefcourt is a very interesting guy. He's the attorney who got the state of Florida. Give Jeffrey Epstein a break on his first round of child exploitation and child sex trafficking, where Jeffrey Epstein was simply charged with one count of solicitation so that he could immediately get out of jail and go right back to exploiting and sex trafficking and raping children. So Mr. Lefcourt's quite a sponsor for that notion. Now we have two other fuzzy headed liberal law professors who don't know my case. And I asked them, do you think that had the ruthless Andrew Weissman and the rest of Mueller's incredibly ruthless hench men and women, including this bumbling, arrogant bully, Aaron Zelensky, who went before the House Judiciary Committee in an extraordinary blend of hearsay, perjury and obfuscation. Klept insisting that he'd been pressured to give me a special treatment. When I didn't get special treatment, the sentencing guidelines for the crimes I was wrongly convicted of were 18 months. They gave me 40. He wanted to give me nine years and was complaining that he couldn't slide it by his bosses upstairs because it wasn't right. They based this on making me pay a penalty for crimes I was neither charged with nor committed. It was really outrageous. But the point is that they had, believe me, done a deep dive into every corner of my life. They looked at all my electronic devices, all my paper records, everything they could find. No other crime. They had to manufacture the ones that they have. So this idea that we can now look for this, we can look for that, we can look for this, which is the theme of the Atlantic piece, Believe me, had they been able to charge me for any of those crimes, I would have been charged. Now, are they so vengeful that they may do this if a Democrat is elected president? These people are so hateful, they are so hysterical, they are so vicious and they are so dishonest and, and they're so hypocritical, Anything whatsoever is possible. Yet another reason why our President has to be reelected. I have no doubt, by the way, that these very same people will seek to prosecute our president on some trumped up, pardon the expression, but some phony charge. There's no doubt that the attorneys at the Southern District of New York have been digging deeply into the President's business past, looking for something, anything, to try to bring him down. So it is even more important that this reign of terror be ended with the reelection of the president. And this time, perhaps he will clean out the Justice Department. Because I believe once you get beyond the top level, and even at the top level, there are too many Obama holdovers right here in our home state of Florida. There is A prosecutor, a U.S. attorney for Central Florida that covers the area of Seminole and Orange counties, which is the Orlando area, who's going out of way to indict Trump supporters on essentially fabricated charges. Why is this guy even still in office? The tradition in America is that when a new president is elected, all US Attorneys tender their resignation. They're replaced. That's what happened under George H.W. bush. It's what happened under Ronald Reagan. It's what happened under Richard Nixon. It's what happened under Dwight Eisenhower. It has always been thus. Same thing with ambassadors, by the way, which is why this whole. Trump wanted to replace the Ukrainian ambassador. It's a crime. No, it's his absolute right. Should have done it immediately. The woman was a Trump hater. She was preaching hatred of our president. She should have been removed immediately. The crime was leaving her there as long as we did so. Should the president be reelected, I hope that he will clean house and start fresh with an entirely new team of people who are not swamp creatures.

A (46:32)

Yeah. And just so just the audience knows what was being argued. Joshua A. Geltzer argued in the Atlantic that you could be retried is basically what he was saying, just so that the audience is clear on it and that the commutation may be null and void if Trump carried it out to protect himself. I've never seen such mental and legal gymnastics, Roger, as this. I mean, they are pathological.

B (46:54)

It's an extraordinary piece. I saw it just before I came on, and I'm actually here with one of my lawyers, and I said, this is really extraordinary. I mean, they just, they come nine different ways to get at Roger Stone. First of all, believe me, if they could have indicted me for a number of these other crimes, they would have. But there is no evidence. And again, just to make sure we've covered this, there is no evidence or truth to the fact that I had and withheld any negative information or information of misconduct or illegal conduct by Donald Trump, the President of the United States, or Donald Trump the candidate. It simply didn't exist. When I said I refused to roll over on the President, I didn't mean that I was lying about something that happened to protect him in return for a commutation. I meant I refused to betray him. I refused to lie. I refused to cite false testimony that would be used in his impeachment and then be used in my prosecution. I wouldn't do that. So hopefully we've cleared that up. But liberals don't hear anything. They just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. It's the big lie technique. You know, if you say something enough times, maybe people will begin to believe it's true. Well, this is not true. I know of no misconduct by the president or Candidate Trump, and I was hiding nothing. They were the ones who were fabricating testimony on the stand, and they did it repeatedly.

A (48:12)

Well, and I'll tell you, Roger, the reason they did this was because they were trying to cover up for the failed Mueller investigation. That's why they will not let go of this, because if they were to walk away from this, it would continue to invalidate the illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral special prosecutor. That was the reason that you were looked into so aggressively. And Republicans never should have authorized that, yet they did. And look, because of it, we probably lost the House because of this appointment of Bob Mueller back in 2018. So, Roger, in closing, how can people assist you? I know you had a lot of legal bills and still do because they're still going after you. And any other thoughts that you have for our audience?

B (48:56)

Well, I have to finance an appeal and that I actually have two motions filed for appeal. One of the of my conviction based on constitutional grounds and other issues. The other one based solely on the misconduct of the juror. You know, an appeal could cost as much as a million dollars. It's a long process. But people who want to help can go to stonedefensefund.com stonedefensefund.com I don't know if there are other state prosecutions. Some speculate about New York. We haven't seen that yet. My lawyers think it's a bit of a stretch. But the left is capable of anything. And you have a psychopath who hates Donald Trump as the Attorney General in New York. So perhaps they will bring some, some phony action. That's possible. I must either sue Facebook or the company that created the report that said I had 100 fake Facebook pages. By the way, this is the same company that was retained by the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to produce a report about Russian troll farms and the use of bots. That report was just as phony as the report that they did on me. These two reports make the Steele dossier look like the Bible when it comes to truth. I mean, it's completely fabricated. So I have another legal expense there. People who want to help can go to stonedefensefund.com stonedefensefund.com if you want to get one of these great Roger Stone still did nothing wrong T shirts, and many people do. You can go to fightback Store, that's Fightback Store, where they are available and they're flying off the shelves. That helps me as well. And then lastly, as I indicated, this has been financially completely debilitating. My wife and I are struggling, and we need help. So those who want to help us on that side, and really, it's just basic expenses of rent and groceries, utilities, gasoline, some medical expenses. We have some insurance left. It's not as much as it was previously. And prescription drugs. Well, you can go to stonefamilyfund.com that's stonefamilyfund.com contribution there will make Mrs. Stone very happy because she keeps the books for the Stone family. Charlie, I will never quit fighting. I will always keep insisting that the President is a great man who's done a great thing. It takes an enormous amount of courage. The President told me when he called, you know, a lot of people, he said, told me not to do this. A lot of people told me not to do this. But on the other hand, he said, you have a lot of really good friends, because some very good people told me that I should do this, that it was the right thing to do. And I've decided that it is the right thing to do. He said the first lady was among those who agreed it was the right thing to do. So I'm indebted to the President. He's one of the greatest men I have ever known. I hate the way he is constantly subjected to the vicious vituperation and slander of the mainstream media. But we will win in the end because this is a battle of ideas, and our ideas are superior to theirs. In fact, they can't win a battle of ideas. That's why they need to censor us. They know that in a real vigorous debate, their ideas are bankrupt, their ideas are authoritarian, their ideas are redistribution, and they know the American people will never knowingly buy that. Charlie, thank you so much again for your support. God bless you. You know, anything I can do for you or for your organization, you know I'm there in a heartbeat.

A (52:37)

Well, you keep fighting, Roger, and fight against the bad guys that are trying to still make an example out of you. And so I was pleased to see the President do the right thing. I was disappointed more Republicans didn't come to your defense. But we're starting to see who the good guys are and who the weak guys are and the people that just pretend to be good. So, Roger, God bless you and thanks so much again for joining our program.

B (52:58)

Thank you.

A (53:00)

See you later. Thanks, Roger.

B (53:01)

Judge said I can't do this anymore. That's why I have to do it.

A (53:04)

That's so funny. Did they really do a gag on that? That's ridiculous.

B (53:07)

Oh, yeah. The judge said from the bench. And Mr. Stone, no more of this.

A (53:12)

Oh, my gosh.

B (53:13)

There it is.

A (53:13)

All right, see you later, Roger. Thanks, man.

B (53:15)

Thank you.

A (53:16)

See you soon. Bye. What a great conversation that was with Roger Stone. If you guys want to get involved with Turning Point usa, go to T conversation. It was more me listening. Go to tpusa.com that is tpusa.com the nation's largest conservative student organization. Over 2,000 high school and college campuses across the country. Tpusa.com, tpusa.com thank you. For those of you that support our program by going to charliekirk.comSupport charliekirk.comSupport email me any questions you have or comments or feedback. Freedomarliekirk.com Freedomarliekirk.com thanks so much for listening, everybody. If you want a signed copy of the New York Times bestseller Maga Doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk show hit, subscribe. Give us a five star review. We'll send out 10 free copies. If you type in Charlie Kirk show hit, subscribe five star review, screenshot it and email us freedomarlicirk.com thanks so much. God bless.