Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Roger Stone  CSPAN  June 18, 2018 10:04am-11:01am EDT

10:04 am
teach the students. there is not one in the modern era. i think whatever way this case came out and even whichever way cppeal, again, should there be one, these are the first fully litigated opinions in a vertical merger challenge in a long time. i do think even though it is one district court judge, one specific opinion, and one industry for one proposed merger does give it some degree of importance. i think other judges, should there be another vertical merger challenge, while looking around to see what the article three judicial colleagues have done and these opinions cannot miss this one because there is nothing else. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. republican strategist and former trump campaign advisor roger stone joined us yesterday
10:05 am
on "washington journal." he discussed donald trump presidency and his recent book on politics. this is just over 50 minutes. host: joining us from fort lauderdale, florida, is republican strategist and author of the new book "stone's rules: how to win at politics, business, and style." thanks for being with us. guest: good morning. great to be here. host: let me begin with news of the last 24 hours. your friend and former partner paul manafort now sitting inside a jail in the washington, d.c. , on allegations that he tried to witness tamper in connection to his case. your reaction to what happened on friday and where does this go next? guest: well, i think the special counsel is trying to pressure paul manafort to plead guilty to avoid a trial. the reason i think they are doing that is they do not want to discuss the surveillance that
10:06 am
was on both paul manafort and according to "the new york times" on january 20, 2016, on myself and also carter page. in fact, in discovery, the government insists to man fort -- manafort that he was never under surveillance at any time. yo times," and many otherhe new media organizations have reported otherwise. i think that surveillance was unconstitutional, was illegal. i don't think the government wants to talk about it at trial. i think that is the reason mr. manafort is being squeezed in this way. host: but he is also accused of trying to influence witnesses in this investigation. guest: obviously, i can't speak to the specifics of that other than what i have read, but i do find it interesting that for example one of the brothers who hacked the house computer system who is accused of burglary,
10:07 am
stealing records, stealing money, has not spent a day in jail while mr. manafort sits in jail. this is very clearly a pressure tactic on him to induce him to plead guilty to avoid trial. host: let me get your reaction to another story. and "the washington post" has the headline at this hour. you revealed another cotion, another meeting in 2016 with another russian operative, and "the washington post" has this exchange between you and mike. how crazy is the russian? your response, wants big money for the info. waste of time. the russian way anything at all interesting. can you explain what this is all about? guest: absolutely. a long time associate of mine asked me to meet with a gentleman by the name of henry greenberg. turns out that's not his real name because he had information that he said he wanted to pass on to the trump campaign. i met with mr. greenberg who has now been revealed to be a
10:08 am
long-time f.b.i. informant and he told me he wanted $2 million for unspecified information. needless to say i declined. i said i didn't have $2 million , and even if i did, i wouldn't use it to buy political information. he laughed and said well it's not your money i want. it's donald trump's. i said you really don't understand. donald trump doesn't pay for political information. i have reported this meeting now that mr. caputo has refreshed my memory to the house intelligence committee. it was a 20-minute exchange. even mr. greenberg in the "washington post" confirms that there was no transaction and that i declined. now, knowing mr. greenberg's extensive background as an f.b.i. informant, it is pretty clear to me that this was a sting operation of some kind, an attempt to penetrate the trump effort and perhaps compromise donald trump himself.
10:09 am
it turned out to be so innocuous that i didn't recall it but i have given my entire recollection now to the house intelligence committee. and also to the inspector general. host: the characterization in the "washington post" story is that you did not disclose it to federal investigators. you just explained that you didn't know about it or forgot about it. is that your excuse? guest: that is correct. i did not recall it at the time. i wouldn't call it an excuse. until the office of special counsel raised this question with mr. caputo in a memory, i had no memory of this. it was an innocuous exchange this guy shows up wearing a maga hat and trump t-shirt. he makes this offer, i decline, nothing inappropriate happened here. and i have now refreshed my memory and informed the committee. host: why do you think f.b.i. operatives would have done this?
10:10 am
guest: well, we have the helper example, the strock page exchanges. very clearly the f.b.i. or at least some subset of it was working against the trump election, was trying to penetrate the trump campaign. i think this was a sting effort. at the time, i thought it was a clumsy effort just to get money , and i declined. but in all honesty, this was a 20-minute exchange which i did not recall because it was so ridiculous. host: should the president consider a pardon for paul man afort? guest: i think that premature. i think mr. manafort needs to go to trial. the president could make that decision at that point. in the case for example of general flynn, who has pled, i think the president should consider a pardon for general flynn. host: you are friends with paul manafort. he is your former partner.
10:11 am
when was the last time you talked to him? guest: it's been a couple weeks now. obviously, i feel very badly for him. it is going to be very difficult for him to prepare for trial from a jail cell. the hard ball tactics of the special prosecutor are obvious. but we have not spoken in several weeks. host: what did he sound like when you talked to him? where is his mind at the moment? guest: anxious to go to trial. unwilling to fold and plead guilty. not willing to testify against the president in any way. i don't think he has any information that's damaging to the president. therefore, in order to do so, he would have to make something up. bare false witness as it were, th batouperjury in itself. so i think he is at least the last time i spoke to him anxious to go to trial on these charges. host: right now, he is looking
10:12 am
at charges based on his personal financial dealings, his lobbying efforts, and his business practices. correct? nothing involved in the campaign. guest: i thought this was about russian collusion in the 2016 election. paul manafort stands charged with numerous infractions but none having to do russian -- to do with the presidential election or his service in the trump campaign. frankly, i think he does not get enough credit for his effort to thwart an effort to steal the nomination from donald trump even though donald trump had run the primaries and caucuses and state conventions. as you know, there is a precedent. in 1952, robert taft came to chicago with more than enough votes to be nominated on the first ballot, and that nomination was stolen from him in the credentials committee and the rules committee of t 1952 convention. the republican national convention is governed by its
10:13 am
own les raer than state or federal law. and the trump campaign despite the fact that they were rolling up large victories when it came to delegates was really not paying attention to who was being appointed to these crucial and controlling committees. mr. manafort is a master at convention politics. he was exactly the person the trump campaign needed at that time. he beat back an effort by the cruz folks to hijack this nomination. i think he deserves credit for that. host: and when rudy giuliani the , president's lawyer, saying the president could clean up the russian probe with a series of pardons, your reaction? guest: well, so far the russia probe doesn't seem to have revealed any russian collusion. that's why i call it the russian collusion delusion. given the partisan nature of all of the investigators, given the
10:14 am
fact that we -- that the special counsel indicted 13 russians and now doesn't want to provide discovery to them clearly looking for a headli, s a bogus partisan investigation. the president's right. it has, and terestingly not slowed the president down in terms of peri and seeking peaceto abroad. it's amazing how much the president has been able to achieve given the daily attacks magnified by the mainstream media from the democrats and his critics, and i think mr. giuliani is absolutely right. host: let me quickly go back to this "washington post" story that broke this morning. trump associate revealing new contact with the russian national with the 2016 campaign. were there any other meetings that took place that you now remember that took place in 2016? guest: none that i can recall.
10:15 am
i did not recall this one. it was so innocuous. and, again, i want to be clear. i declined any effort to purchase information or to pass this information on to donald trump. let's get to your book called "stone's rules: how to win at politics, business and style." let me be clear. guest: this is absolutely true. you can read it constantly and see it on msnbc. let me be clear. i had no advanced knowledge of the source, content, or the exact disclosure timing of the wikileaks disclosures regarding
10:16 am
the dnc. i received nothing including allegedly hacked e-mails from wikileaks or julian assange or the russians or anyone else. i passed nothing of that nure on to donald trump. as some have claimed. se allegation keeps getting repeated. there is no evidence to back it up because it is not true. now, it is also accurate that i do not regard mr. assadge or wikileaks as russian assets. i think julian assange is a journalist. he does what "the washington post" does, what "the new york times" does. gets information sometimes classified and he publishes it. it is interesting to noted that wikileaks during the entire time of its existence has never been questioned in terms of the authenticity or accuracy of what they have published. very few american newspapers or media organizations can say
10:17 am
that. so i reject the idea that he is a russian asset or that wikileaks is a russian front. at this junctu although i once believed that the dnc had been hacked, today i don't think they were hacked at all. as you may know, i'm being sued along with others including the trump campaign by the democratic national committee, which is terrific because we'll get a chance to look and examine those servers and establish once and for all whether the dnc was ever hacked by anyone or whether the information was downloaded to some kind of portable drive and taken out the backdoor, which a number of i.t. counter terrorism experts now believe based on an article i read in the nation. host: you have written how many books? guest: this is my sixth book.
10:18 am
i am a "new york times" best-selling author, but this book is somewhat different than the others. you don't have to be a republican or a conservative or a trump supporter to benefit and enjoy this book. it just would work for bernie sanders supporter, progressive even people who aren't inrested in politics whatsoever. if you're trying to get ahead in business or media or fashion or agriculture. no matter what your chosen avocation, i think these rules could hold you in good stead. joiningt's go to donna us from st. louis, missouri, independent line, with roger stone, who is joining us from fort lauderdale. guest: good morning. i have two things. first of all fox news is the , fake news. they a not exactly edward r. murrow or walter cronkite. he doesn't want to answer questions fromhe people who will really try to question him
10:19 am
on something. trump and giuliani are using it to try to bring down a real american hero, mueller. he got wide bipartisan sport for the job. and now he's getting closer and closer to trump and they're getting more and more hostile. secondly, trump's bankruptcies, the russian bailout, the facebook accounts, 2016 elections, and mey lauering. it's all connected. and mueller's the best person in the country to connect those dots and they're all going to catch up with trump because no one including you, stone, are above the law in thicountry, it's just a matter of time. -- time until the truth comes out. guest: i guess i'll put you down as undecided. wow, real hostility this morning. no russian collusion has yet been proven.
10:20 am
you seem to want to litigate the last election, which donald trump won. i find the coverage of fox far more balanced than say cnn. let's go to the next one. host: i want to look at a picture from "newsweek" magazine. in your office with a number of nixon posters from his campaign from 1968 and 1972. how would richard nixon have handled watergate in today's media environment? guest: well, let's remember that in 1973 and 1974, we had a monolithic media, three major networks, several national newspapers. but there was no internet. there was no alternative media. therefore, there was only one narrative. it was the "washington post" narrative. for example, we didn't know at the time that 3 of the water gate burglars were still on the c.i.a. payroll and reporting to
10:21 am
their case officers. we didn't know that john dean had directed tony and jack, two private detectives and both decorated new york police officers working for the white house, to case out the watergate six weeks before the break-in , according to their oral histories at texas a&m university and their own biographies. there was only one narrative. so i think if there had been an alternative news media, nixon would have had a better chance to make his case. but let me say this, and i think it's important. nixon was both very great and very flawed. he reached a strategic arms limitation with the soviets. he opened the door to china. he desegregated the public schools. he saved israel unilaterally in 1973 yom kippur war. he launched affirmative action
10:22 am
in the office of minority enterprise. at the same time, he launched the racist war on drugs, which has been a total failure. he took us off the gold standard. gave us wage and price controls. so i think he was both very great and very flawed. but i think it's time that his presidency be seen in balance. bill clinton said this most eloquently at president nixon's funeral. it is time to judge richard nixon on his entire record, and his record i think shows he was a peace maker. host: he died in 1994. do you recall your final conversati with him before he suff the soke? guest: actually i was supposed , to dine with him the day before, and i had to cancel. but he was very upbeat. he was never very retrospective or introspective. he was always looking forward.
10:23 am
and as you know, he came to be a key adviser to president clinton during the breakup of the soviet union and developments in china . also wrote numerous best sellers on foreign picin his retirement years. people ask me about my reverence for nixon. it in a sense is almost nonpolitical. it has to do with his resilience, with his persistence. it's an american story. defeated, knocked down, disgraced, he still kept coming back. a man is not finished when he's defeated, nixon wrote. he is only finished when he quits. i subscribe to that exactly. on the democrat's line from on the democrat's line
10:24 am
from michigan, henry, you're next with roger stone joining us in florida. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to kind of piy back off that missouri caller with two points of my own. the first using a metaphor of war. a conventional invading force into america or any other country when they want to take it over, the first thing they want to do is to take control and command of the country's communications structure. this is what donald trump is doing when he denigrates and undermines our media. when he talks so much about the enmity of the media and them being such bad people. vladmir putin knew that had he used conventional forces to invade america, it would have been mutual suicide. so what did he do? he used trump's economic or financial situation, this flailing company needed money, no american banks would loan him money, so putin and the oligarchs loaned him money, got him financially indebted to them , and now trump is their
10:25 am
operative. my second point. the people who are diehard supporters of donald trump. this is where i agree with donald trump about the media being fake. the media says that donald trump and knows theart working class white people. and that's why he won. well, this is the thing. these people are not the forgotten people because black people see them every february during black history month in eyes on the prize. host: henry thanks for call. , i want to go back to the first point. you can respond to both of them, but with regard to russia and donald trump. go ahead. guest: go ahead. i'm sorry. host: the president has not released his tax returns and some seem to indicate that there could be potentially maybe a link between his finances and
10:26 am
the russian government. guest: no one has ever established that donald trump took loans for any russian entity. i have been on the record saying should release his tax returns all the way back to the 2016 campaign. i said it during the campaign. i think it would clear the air. on the other hand, if you are rely looking for russian collusion, it's pretty easy to find. $143 million that the clinton foundation took from executives in the russian-owned energy company that was seeking control of 20% of america's uranium or the half million dollars that bill clinton took in a speaking fee from the same entity. that would seem to me to be a real efft to influence the clintons by the from the same russians. host: glenn from lancaster, california, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.
10:27 am
thank you, mr. stone. you're a true patriot. here's a couple things that the fake news isn't talking about. how about barack obama sending mueller with uranium over to russia? and another thing is mueller was the y that brought it over. so how can he be investigating anybody? and there's another thing. what about the whole middle east, the thing in the middle east? the fleecing of the whole middle east under barack obama after he got, what was it? the noble peace prize? who was barack obama or barry sotomayor? he hid his school records and what about his financial ors s from george soros and working for laraza all those years and this fake daca thing is unconstitutional.
10:28 am
he said it 19 times on the air . we've got to quit chasing his tail. let's get down to the bottom of the corrupt obama administration. host: thank you. roger stone any reaction? ,guest: you raise a number of key points. it's interesting, and the previous caller seemed to miss this also. as far as mr. mueller is concerned, he arrested the 3 wrong people in the anthrax matter. the individual he finally arrested died mysteriously in custody. he failed to investigate the sarasota, florida, based flight school where five of nine hijackers were trained. he let 4 men rot in a boston jail to cover up for f.b.i. informants involved in the whitey bulger matter.
10:29 am
he did mule the uranium samples to russia during the acquisition of uranium one. this is hardly an unblemished record. therefore that he would now sit in judgment of this president in what is clearly an effort to undo whathld not do at the ballot box i think is really questionable. host: based on what you just said, it sounds like those will be some of the talking points when the mueller reports comes out to discredit both him and his work. guest: we don't know what his report will say. we do know so far he has yet to come up with any ence of russian collusion connected to the top campaign. indictment of the 13 russians evidently active online still doesn't show a clear connection or consistency. some points appear to be
10:30 am
pro-hillary, anti-hillary, pearl bernie sanders, promote trump -- pro bernie sanders, pro trump, anti-trump. host: david is next in middletown, new jersey. independent line with roger stone. good morning. caller: good morning c-span. 3 of the best channels on television. host: good morning, david. caller: it's an honor to talk to you and to mr. stone. host: go ahead. we can hear you. caller: all right. mr. stone, i am a world war ii vet. and i lived through the depression. and i remember standing on line with another may he rest in peace to get food with thousands and thousands of other people. and i remember having dinner by candlelight. it was not because it was
10:31 am
romantic, mr. stone. we didn't have electricity. i know what it is to do witht. i would like to make two comments. one has to do with president nixon. i firmly believe that if senator robert kennedy had not been assassinated, he would have defeated richard nixon. he would have gotten us out of vietnam, and it would have been a different country. secondly, we are the greatest country in the world. and we're the greatest country because of three words. the preamble of the constitution, we the people. host: david, thanks for the call. by the way he is a regular viewer and just turned 90
10:32 am
years old. we appreciate hearing from him. your reaction. guest: well, first we salute your service. i was happy to see that president trump took the $400 ,000 salarthat his given by the government and donated it for the upkeep of veterans teries i think the veterans health care system in this country may be the number one scandal and something the president feels very deeply about fixing. as far as robert kennedy is concerned, first of all, i am an admirer of robert kennedy. he was a staunch anti-communist. i don't really believe he was a liberal. i think he a pgmatic and very effective leader. i disagree with the idea that he would have defeated nixon because i don't know what southern state he could have carried. recall that in his narrow defeat against john kennedy, nixon lost every southern state. kennedy carried georgia, alabama, mississippi, and so on.
10:33 am
bobby could never have carried any of those. by 1968, he was fully polarizing in the country. the new 4-part netflix series on robert kennedy is really superb. i admire him for his commient to civil rights and to his staunch anti-communism. host: let me get your reaction to comments that made a lot of news this past week by senator bob corker republican of tennessee. he is not seeking a third term. "it's almost becoming a cultish thing. isn't it? it's not a good place for any party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to the president that happens to be of the same party." that in reference to president trump and the g.o.p. yo comment. guest: first of all i think , senator corker is upset because president trump is more
10:34 am
popular among republicans and all voters in tennessee than he is. this was also true of virtually every republican president who has remade their party in their concombage. lincoln, eisenhower, certainly reagan. so the fact that the president's popularity transcends the republican party not only dominates the republican party but transcends it is not only typical of successful republican presidents but is really profound. i believe that in places like nebraska, for example, where the president's far more popular than senator sass or in tennessee. as i indicated, i don't see this as a cult. i see it as loyalty and popularity based on his successful governance. and the fact that we have 4% economic growth. and this is prior to the president's corporate and personal tax cuts having a chance to get traction.
10:35 am
223,000 jobs created in may, 1 million new jobs creat since trump became president. we were told that structurally this could not happen under barack obama, but the president is demonstrating enormous success with this economy. i think that's what explains his popularity, not some cult-like phenomenon. host: how to win in politics, business, and style. the latest book by roger stone. he writes the following. i want to put on the table something that we talked about
10:36 am
with ste farnsworth earlier. exchange the president had on the north lawn of the white house. where network reporters and -- guest: i think the president is a master of the new cycle. he is a master of public relations. the fact that virtually 100% of americans knew who he was and knew his life story as a successful businessperson was an enormous leg up in his efforts to become president. he, as you know, thought about running for president as early as 2000, although i don't think very seriously. he did consider it very seriously in 2012. ultimately running in 2016. i began urging him to run as
10:37 am
early as 1988 because i believed that he had the size and capacity and independence to be a truly great president. he was unconnected to the last 30 years of policy mistakes that ve us endless foreign war where our inherent national interests are not clear. the erosion of our civil liberties. a stagnant economy. a broken immigration system. huge multi-international trade agreements which seem to be good for our trading partners but not so good for us in that they have sucked the jobs out of america. i think 2016 was the time that nald trump was the right man at the right place with the right message, and the american people were tired of politics as usual. tired of both parties, republicans and democrats, tired of congress, tired of a system they viewed as fixed against the
10:38 am
little man, against the individual, which is why i thought from the beginning trump could be and n is a viable presidential candidate and i think potentially a great president. host: from tampa, florida, tonya is next, independent line with roger stone. good morning. caller: good morning. happy father's day. i wanted to ask about the meeting that you had forgotten with the now known f.b.i. undercover agent. you described it as kind of a setup. but isn't that the exact job counter intelligence of the f.b.i.? to find out if there's any illegal money given to a campaign from a foreign country, in this case russia? and also one small fact that among many but trump's own son has said many times plibble that they got most of their money from russia before he ran as president. so i can't imagine the f.b.i. not investigating. it would be criminal not to.
10:39 am
your comments on that. thank you. host: thank you. guest: well, were they conducting similar investigation into the clinton foundation and the millions of dollars of foreign money including ukrainian and russian money flooding into that entity? i believe this idea that the f.b.i. was infiltrating the trump campaign to look for russian collusion is nonsense. they were planting false evidence of russian collusion as part of the insurance policy that peter strobe spoke of in his e-mails, e-mails the justice department did not want to hand over to the congress and the house intelligence committee only learned about when the inspector general's report was produced. or when judicial watch forced those through a freedom of information act request. so no, i don't think it is the role of the f.b.i. to infiltrate a presidential campaign.
10:40 am
having been involved with nixon, let's point out that nixon went down because individuals connected to his campaign broke into the democratic national committee anplanted bugs, none of which actually really ever worked, and also because his campaign got caught infilling infiltrating the campaigns of his opponents. first senator humphrey then senator george mcgovern. what we see today is far more egregious. it is the use of the authority and power of the state to conduct surveillance and to infiltrate one of the two major party presidential campaigns. the use of a fabricated dosier as the underlying legal rationale for surveillance on trump associates, i believe myself included, is an outrageous abuse of power that makes watergate look like a second-ratrglary.
10:41 am
host: mr. stone, let me go back since the caller brought it up. the headlines in the washington post says that you and mike said in separate interviews they also dizzf did not disclose the . they did not disclose the greenberg meeting. and further there have been 11 different conversations between trump campaign officials and russian operatives. guest: i simply didn't recall this exchange because i viewed it as innocuous and fairly ridiculous. $2 million for unspecified documents. i have informed the committee. i expect to testify before the senate intelligence committee. i would again like that testimonto be public, not behind closed doors. certainly prepared to discuss this then. i have sent through my attorney a lett to both the inspector
10:42 am
general and to the house chairman of the intelligence committee telling them everything i know about this brief meeting. i can't speak to the 11 other contacts. i can only speak based on my own experience. host: are you worried about being indicted by robert mueller? guest: well, i wouldn't say that i am worried about it. i find it interesting that they seem to be poking through every molecule of my personal, political, and business life, seeking to subpoena through former employees who weren't working for me during the 2016 election and other lg-time associates in what appears to be some effort to frame me in an effort to silence me because i remain a critic of the mueller investigation. if the effort is to find some extraneous bogus offense to
10:43 am
pressure me to testify against the president, i am not going to do that, but clearly, they are empty-handed on the question of russian collusion, empty-handed in terms of receiving anything from wikileaks or julian assange or anyone else and passing it on to the trump campaign. yeah, i think this is a witch hunt, and i think it is outrageous. it is orwellian. we clearly live in a police state. i thought this was about russian collusion and the 2016 election. why then would mr. mueller be interested in interviewing former associates of mine who weren't working for me during the 2016 election? it's the possibility that they will attempt to frame me. i will respond accordingly. host: how often do you talk to the president? guest: it has been a while now.
10:44 am
from time to time. i believe his lawyers have probably advised him that it would be best if we did not talk until this entire matter is clarified. but i remainis strongest supporter. there was a "new york times" i report that the president feared me. that makes no sense. he has nothing to fear from me. i am among his strongest supporters. and i have no intention of making something up and testifying against him if that is what the special counsel has in mind. host: we will go to elizabeth in sandusky, ohio, democrats line. good morning. guest: yes. they should impeach him. because he's a womanizer, he's raped all these people, and they haven't done one thing about it. he don't show his taxes. all he thinks about is the big people and the heck with us little people. especially the seniors.
10:45 am
i think it is a dirty shame. host: elizabeth, we'll get a reaction. guest: well, if that were the criteria they would have , impeached jack kennedy and bill clinton. it's interesting that we're still trying to clarify bill clinton's activities as infidelities or indiscretions when it is far more serious sexual assault and rape. , these charges against donald trump are unproven and i don't think they are the basis for any kind of impeachment drive. st: joe from columbia, south carolina, republican line, you're on the air with roger stone. guestcaller: today is father's . as someone who understands american history and how people of color as slaves had their families separated, children taken away from mothers and fathers how can you and how can , the president support a policy that he has created that is
10:46 am
separating youngsters from their parents at our border? guest: well, of course, the real answer is people shouldn't come into the country illegally and then they would not be separated from their families. you know, when the question of pardons came up, i was very clear that almost a year ago i wrote to the president to urge him to issue a posthumous pardon to marcus garvi, an early civil rights leader who was an advocate of black education, black responsibility, black pride, black identity, who i think was a truly great man, who was unfairly targeted and set up by the f.b.i. because he was successfully beginning to organize black peopl so i having worked for richard nixon who gave us affirmative
10:47 am
action, who desegregated the public schools without violence or bloodshed, who created the office of minority enterprises, i identify with that struggle. but i think this question is a different one. if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't attempt to enter the country illegally. the problem with our immigration system seems to me that the people who are waiting in line, the people who are going through the process legally are being cheated by those who are entering the country illegally and cheating the system. host: the president is tweeting this morning. just a short while ago, one of his number one target, the washington post and jeff bezos. he writes the following.
10:48 am
reaction? guest: well, look, i think the president's holding the mainstream media's feet to the fire is a good thing. obviously, i agree with it. i don't think that you can monolithically claim the main stream media is entirely biased. there are biased reporters at "the washington post." there are fine and honest reporters at "the washington post." there are biased reporters at the new york times. there are fine and honest reporters at the new york times. but the president gets more than his share of fake news and things are published about him and his family that are untrue. above all, he is a counter puncher and i think a very effective one. host: jim is joining us from long island, new york, independent line. good morning. caller: hi, mr. stone.
10:49 am
i like the answer that you gave to the last caller about illegal immigration. i wanted to say that when you thank veterans, i am starting to see that the as just lip service because i see the democrats and my own town hall tripping over each other to help illegal immigrants and do nothing for us. i'm steeped in the ms-13 stuff here. this place is turning into a third world country and i can't get the town to do anything about it. they've got these houses just loaded up with people. you wouldn't believe how many people are in these houses. you've got 5 to a room. single-family houses. the town isn't doing anything about it. they're getting all kinds of benefits that i never get. i really arethe co you gathe st person about them coming in here illegally. by the way, on tucker carlson, he just talked about that guy with the two kids that got arrested, and then i think the
10:50 am
government, the governor of new as dving without a license and driving without insurance. if i did that, forget about it. this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about. thank you. host: thank you. we should point out that tucker carlson writing the introduction to your latest book, "stone's rules." roger stone. guest:ell, you raised an excellt in a perfect example. when the president criticized gang violence and m-13 specifically, the mainstream media depicted that when he called them animals as a denunciation of all immigrants. not what he said. a perfect example of the mainstream media bias against this president. host: we will go to sandra joining us from eastpointe, michigan, and across line. good morning. caller: yes. hi. good morning.
10:51 am
i have a few things to say to mr. stone. first of all there's a big , difference in taking millions of dollars for your foundation as long as you don't use up any on yourself. and the clinton foundation, they have aids makes for people all over the world. second thing is donald trump's sons were on fox news a year ago and they both said money was pouring in from russia. another thing i want to say paul manafort, he was arrested for arrested for money laundering. he lived at trump towers and he was also donald trump's campaign manager for almost months. six he also attended a meeting at the trump tower a year ago with the 3 russians. thank you. host: thank you. roger stone. guest: where to start? first of all, the clinton foundation paid $6 million for chelsea's wedding. do we consider that a onal use?
10:52 am
they were supplying aids medicine abroad that had never been medically approved, was probably more dangerous than hiv. it is very clear that there was a pay to play scam going on at the clinton foundation where you would contribute in support of return for public policy decisions, the approval of uranium 1, perhaps the largest treasonous financial crime in american history. i still don't think it is proven that the trump organization has taken enormous russian financing. i've seen no proof of that. and paul manafort is innocent until proven guilty. he has a right to a fair and speedy trial. so let's not denounce him as guilty until he's had his day in court. host: the filing by the new york attorney general suing the trump foundation following a two-year investigation saying the trump family saying the children using it as their own
10:53 am
personal piggy bank. guest: politically motivated. this was cooked up by eric sniderman, who hoped to become governor on the back of a new york state wave of unpopularity in a blue state against the president. how coincidental as they announce this charge on the day the inspector general's report comes out. the foundation actually gave out more than they took in with donald trump himself subsidizing it. i view this as an entirely politically motivated charge. host: press is joining us from alexandria, virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you again for a wonderful program this morning. mr. stone, i recently viewed the documentary about your political life and what you are doing these days.
10:54 am
i thoroughly enjoyed it. i have one question. it's something that frustrates me to no end as a republican and conservative lea who gon network television, the cable shows, and the hosts will ask a question which is really more than pushing a certain narrative or certain false premise to a question. and i listen to republican leaders, conservatives, and they just don't push back on it strongly enough. i find it very frustrating how much falsehood is advanced by the so-called mainstream media. host: i'm going to stop you there. only because we're short on time. thank you for the question. guest: well, those republican conservative leaders need to
10:55 am
read my book stone's rules and it will tell them how to handle those kind of media inquiries. i view shows like this as an opportunity to answer questions and to say what i want to say. that's why i like c-span. it's entirely fair and balanced and you get your opportunity to , lay out your points of view. thank you for the call. host: we have time for one more question. this program is rried on the bbc parliament channel. briana is joining us from england. caller: yes thank you very much. , just a quick question to go back to the beginning of the segment when mr. stone discussed his interaction with mr. greenberg and the $200 million request and his recollection was he had a maga hat and trump t-shirts. i think that's memorable to kind of forget $200 million is not an easy amount to forget. if the f.b.i. was so hell-bent on negatively affecting the trumcampaign, why didn't they
10:56 am
expose/leak that trump was under investigation when they made the announcement about hillary clinton? host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: actually i think it was , ludicrous that mr. greenberg, that's not his real name. he has several names. he has worked for the f.b.i. for over 17 years. i simply didn't recall. it wasn't $200 million. it was $2 million by the way. i'm not sure i understood the second part of the question. so i'm not going to try to answer it. host: but do you understand why this now coming out again leads those who have more questions about what role trump campaign eratives may have had in 2016? guest: grasping for russian collusion when there is none. i would be happy to answer these questions, again, for the senate intelligence committee, again. nothing changed hands here. i rejected what i now believe was some effort at entrapment by
10:57 am
the f.b.i. it was a simple denial on my part of any interest and i didn't pass the information on to the trump campaign. i'm certain i will have the opportunity to discuss this under oath again soon. host: in our final minute, members of the trump administration very critical of comingnside trump white house. why so many? guest: well, i'm kind of disappointed in the fact that in many cases the president has hired people who don't support agendand who are not loyal to him or that agenda. therefore, the back-biting and leaking is very disappntg. working in the white house is probably the highest political honor you can have in our business. no one elected you. donald trump was elected and you
10:58 am
serve at his pleasure and due to his appointment you his owe him both your discretion and your loyalty. the book is titled "stone's rules: how to win at politics, business, and style." author and republican strategist roger stone joining us from fort lauderdale, florida. thank you for being with us. we hope you'll be back again. guest: thank you for the opportunity. >> still to come today, the inspector general michael horowitz and the fbi director christopher wray will testify before the senate judiciary committee on the inspector general's report of the fbi's handling of the clinton email investigation and the 2016 election. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow, the justice department's inspector general returns to capitol hill to testify before the house oversight and government reform committee. you can see live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3.
10:59 am
also available online at i did listen on the free c-span radio app. looking at the agenda for congress this week, the senate returns today at 3:00 p.m. eastern and will continue to debate on legislation $716 billion for 2019. senators will vote on final passage at 5:30 p.m. and whether to move forward on the energy and water projects. the legislative branch, v.a. operations in 2019. the house is back tomorrow. members will consider several bills combating the opioid epidemic.later in the week , it is possible numbers will take up immigration policy and border security legislation. also the farm bill that they'll to pass last month by a 15 vote margin. you can see the senate on >> tonight on the communicators. last week's decision by a
11:00 am
federal judge approving the $85 billion merger of at&t and time warner. joining us to talk about the deal, diana moss, president of the american antitrust institute and joshua wright george mason university's global antitrust institute. >> no mention of the word market power in the decision and that is the issue here. in a vertical merger and horizontal merger, how does the merger change theompan's incentives and their ability to exercise greater market power? >> i haven't antitrust law casebook. we've looked a long time to find a vertical merger opinion after a friend -- after a fully litigated case. i think whatever way this case came out, even whichever way it comes out on appeal should there be one, the first fully
11:01 am
litigated opinion in a murder challenging along period time i do think even though it is one district court judge, one fact specific opinion and one industry for one proposed merger does give it some degree of importance. i think other judges, should there be another vertical merger challenge, who are looking around to see what their article three judicial colleagues have done in these opinions can't miss this one because there's nothing else. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on