fbpx

Ep.265: Roger Stone

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.265: Roger Stone

Ep.265: Roger Stone

Roger Stone joins us and discusses the United States Cannabis Coalition. He takes us through his interpretation of what’s been said by this administration in regards to cannabis law reform. He feels that the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary are not following what was prescribed during the campaign. With news of a potential crackdown on cannabis from the Justice Department, Roger feels that would be inconsistent with what was promised to voters and breaks faith with voters. The goal of the US Cannabis Coalition is to work with a coalition of republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians to reschedule cannabis.

Transcript:

Speaker 2: Roger Stone joins us and discusses the United States Cannabis Coalition. He takes us through his interpretation of what's been said by this administration in regards to cannabis law reform. He feels that the attorney general and Homeland Security Secretary or not following what was prescribed during the campaign with news of a potential crackdown on cannabis from the Justice Department, Roger feels that would be inconsistent with what was promised to voters and breaks faith with owners. The goal of the US cannabis coalition is to work with a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and conservatives, progressives and Libertarians to reschedule cannabis. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends in the word economy. Roger Stone, the United States cannabis coalition. First things first. That's why you and I are in the same room together.

Speaker 1: What is that? What are you doing? Well, as you may know, I am a lifetime Republican, but I'm a libertarian Republican. I'd here to the old fashion Republican Party of Barry Goldwater, which is a party, a small government at a party of privacy, a party of individual rights, party of freedom of the individual without getting into foreign policy and defense issues, you know, that's the Republican party that attracted me originally to politics and I have been active in the movement to reform New York state's draconian, racist, expensive, ineffective drug laws for well over 20 years. And I was marching with Al Sharpton and Russell Simmons and Andrew Cuomo and Tom Golisano and others here in New York City before the first round of drug law reform. Right. So I'm not new to this issue. Um, and there's no inconsistency for me.

Speaker 1: During the campaign for president, my friend Donald Trump. Now the president took a very forthright position where he said he supported the, the right of local states, states rights in the 29 states that have legalized some form of cannabis. And when asked specifically about cannabis for medicinal purposes, he said yes. If that's what the voters decide, right? Well the voters have decided absolutely. But now you have a situation in which jeff sessions, the attorney general and John Kelly, the homeland security secretary, and Chris Christie, who I guess is our new opioid Tsar, are, uh, talking about, uh, a crackdown on cannabis, presumably rolling back the, um, one of the few good decisions by the Obama administration, my opinion put the federal laws in abeyance in those 29 states where federal laws pertaining to possession and distribution contradicts state law. Now it seems that attorney general sessions is going to reverse the justice department's position and begin cracking down on the medicinal marijuana industry in the 29 states.

Speaker 1: That's inconsistent with what the president said. I don't think that reflects his views. I don't know if the president even knows these guys are out doing this because it breaks faith with millions of voters, particularly younger voters, African American voters, where trump did better than John Mccain were. Jumped, did better than Mitt Romney, right? Sure. It's marginally better, but we had a very close election. Sure. So that difference brings you. Wisconsin, brings you, Michigan, brings you Pennsylvania, and therefore brings you the pencil, the presidency. I just want to remind the president of his pledge, I want him to keep his word to the millions of people who use cannabis for medicinal purposes and for those who voted for him based on his assurances, so that's the United States cannabis scope. That's our. That's our number one goal. I'm going to work with a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and conservatives, progressives and Libertarians just to remind the president of his pledge and to urge him to keep it and at the same time, to urge him to reschedule marijuana from schedule one a so that doctors could prescribe it legally

Speaker 3: if I may. While you're here is what I would prefer as dea scheduling cannabis. If we reschedule cannabis, that puts it into a limbo that we're not certain of. And so to go back to what jeff sessions is trying to do, what I find interesting is that that letter that he wrote to Congress, he asked for them to rescind the Rohrabacher Farr amendment. The thing that is law, but he didn't touch the coal memos, which are the things that he can just do away with. Yes. Why? Why, why, if you could, because you did spend some time in Washington, I know that you don't love it. Why did he not do what he could do and then and throw this molotov cocktail instead.

Speaker 1: Well, why is he doing? Why is he doing all of this? Fair enough. And in all honesty, we now know that the, uh, that the NSA under Barack Obama was illegally spying on reading the emails of listening to the phone calls of millions of Americans, jeff sessions, if you want to prosecute somebody, wants you to forget about weed and focus on our civil liberties and the fact that the, our civil liberties were trashed under the Obama administration. So I think the entire thing in my view is misguided. I could go either way. Meaning it doesn't matter to me whether you declassify it or you give it a different classification. A good start would be to get it out of the schedule one list where it just doesn't belong. Fair enough. So we're given the fact that it's already grouped with drugs that are dangerous. I just don't think cannabis is dangerous, right? There are millions of years of history to prove it

Speaker 2: Roger Stone joins us and discusses the United States Cannabis Coalition. He takes us through his interpretation of what's been said by this administration in regards to cannabis law reform. He feels that the attorney general and Homeland Security Secretary or not following what was prescribed during the campaign with news of a potential crackdown on cannabis from the Justice Department, Roger feels that would be inconsistent with what was promised to voters and breaks faith with owners. The goal of the US cannabis coalition is to work with a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and conservatives, progressives and Libertarians to reschedule cannabis. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends in the word economy. Roger Stone, the United States cannabis coalition. First things first. That's why you and I are in the same room together.

Speaker 1: What is that? What are you doing? Well, as you may know, I am a lifetime Republican, but I'm a libertarian Republican. I'd here to the old fashion Republican Party of Barry Goldwater, which is a party, a small government at a party of privacy, a party of individual rights, party of freedom of the individual without getting into foreign policy and defense issues, you know, that's the Republican party that attracted me originally to politics and I have been active in the movement to reform New York state's draconian, racist, expensive, ineffective drug laws for well over 20 years. And I was marching with Al Sharpton and Russell Simmons and Andrew Cuomo and Tom Golisano and others here in New York City before the first round of drug law reform. Right. So I'm not new to this issue. Um, and there's no inconsistency for me.

Speaker 1: During the campaign for president, my friend Donald Trump. Now the president took a very forthright position where he said he supported the, the right of local states, states rights in the 29 states that have legalized some form of cannabis. And when asked specifically about cannabis for medicinal purposes, he said yes. If that's what the voters decide, right? Well the voters have decided absolutely. But now you have a situation in which jeff sessions, the attorney general and John Kelly, the homeland security secretary, and Chris Christie, who I guess is our new opioid Tsar, are, uh, talking about, uh, a crackdown on cannabis, presumably rolling back the, um, one of the few good decisions by the Obama administration, my opinion put the federal laws in abeyance in those 29 states where federal laws pertaining to possession and distribution contradicts state law. Now it seems that attorney general sessions is going to reverse the justice department's position and begin cracking down on the medicinal marijuana industry in the 29 states.

Speaker 1: That's inconsistent with what the president said. I don't think that reflects his views. I don't know if the president even knows these guys are out doing this because it breaks faith with millions of voters, particularly younger voters, African American voters, where trump did better than John Mccain were. Jumped, did better than Mitt Romney, right? Sure. It's marginally better, but we had a very close election. Sure. So that difference brings you. Wisconsin, brings you, Michigan, brings you Pennsylvania, and therefore brings you the pencil, the presidency. I just want to remind the president of his pledge, I want him to keep his word to the millions of people who use cannabis for medicinal purposes and for those who voted for him based on his assurances, so that's the United States cannabis scope. That's our. That's our number one goal. I'm going to work with a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and conservatives, progressives and Libertarians just to remind the president of his pledge and to urge him to keep it and at the same time, to urge him to reschedule marijuana from schedule one a so that doctors could prescribe it legally

Speaker 3: if I may. While you're here is what I would prefer as dea scheduling cannabis. If we reschedule cannabis, that puts it into a limbo that we're not certain of. And so to go back to what jeff sessions is trying to do, what I find interesting is that that letter that he wrote to Congress, he asked for them to rescind the Rohrabacher Farr amendment. The thing that is law, but he didn't touch the coal memos, which are the things that he can just do away with. Yes. Why? Why, why, if you could, because you did spend some time in Washington, I know that you don't love it. Why did he not do what he could do and then and throw this molotov cocktail instead.

Speaker 1: Well, why is he doing? Why is he doing all of this? Fair enough. And in all honesty, we now know that the, uh, that the NSA under Barack Obama was illegally spying on reading the emails of listening to the phone calls of millions of Americans, jeff sessions, if you want to prosecute somebody, wants you to forget about weed and focus on our civil liberties and the fact that the, our civil liberties were trashed under the Obama administration. So I think the entire thing in my view is misguided. I could go either way. Meaning it doesn't matter to me whether you declassify it or you give it a different classification. A good start would be to get it out of the schedule one list where it just doesn't belong. Fair enough. So we're given the fact that it's already grouped with drugs that are dangerous. I just don't think cannabis is dangerous, right? There are millions of years of history to prove it

Speaker 3: that it's not. It doesn't do the same thing to you that heroin does. Heroin is schedule one, right? Perfect example. There you go. But also

Speaker 1: for those who say, oh, this has no medicinal value based on inadequate, poorly funded in rig studies by the NIH along time ago, they was the wrong conclusion. Sure. On the other hand, anecdotally, we have the firsthand testimony of millions of people who rely on cannabis for medical relief for some malady and and not to mention the way it helps those who are dying. So to me this is kind of common sense and I think that's the way the president saw it during the campaign. He met people who are benefiting from legal cannabis and I think he began to see it from their point of view, something he hadn't done previously, despite the fact that going back to a playboy magazine interview, I think he gave 20 years in the. He expressed extreme skepticism about the war on drugs and he suggested the only way to solve the problem was legalization.

Speaker 3: Okay, so that gets into your history a little bit. If you would, uh, I know that you've been working with the president quite some time

Speaker 1: and you, you, you know, uh, it's been reported, Roger, that, uh, you were the one that pushed them in to politics in the, in the, uh, in the first place. Is that, is that true? I think that's a fair characterization. I mean, the truth is Donald Trump was always interested in politics, but he was interested in politics in the same sense that he was interested in sports. He was following it closely, but that didn't mean he was going to pitch for the Yankees. Yeah, right, right. Uh, I urged him to run for president as early as 1988. I took a look at George W dot Bush and Al Gore and. Well, I think you can see why I urged him to run in 2000. I wanted him to consider running. He did look seriously briefly at the reform party nomination, but that was largely because Ross Perot had run so well that the reform party was entitled to a $58,000,000 check from the federal government once they had a nominee and we're on all 50 balance 50, but on most certainly.

Speaker 1: Fair enough. Um, I think, I think Donald suggest a correctly determined at the end of the day that you probably can't get elected president as anything other than a democrat or a Republican. So he passed on that race 2012. I took one look at Mitt Romney and again urged Donald Trump to run this time. I think he was more interested than ever before. In the end he decided, I think two things, one, that Romney probably had too long a headstart for the Republican nomination and that Barack Obama, although he had problems, was still an incumbent. And beating incumbent is always difficult because they have the massive power of the federal government and therefore the ability to change the narrative at anytime. Right? So he took a pass several days after Obama beat Romney mean within a week. Donald trump directed his lawyers to go to the US trademark office and trademarked the words, make America great again, which I remember from Ronald Reagan.

Speaker 1: Reagan had used that as a slogan. Unfortunately in the 80 campaign we, we kept changing our slogan so it wasn't used consistently, but it was used for a period I was working for Reagan as the northeastern states, political director at the time, right. Um, whether it was subliminal, subliminal in trump's memory or not, I don't know, but he was smart enough to trademark it, which means that if you go out and buy a hat that says that today while you're going to be, you're going to have to have the licensing rights from Donald Trump. But, um, he told me on New Year's Day of 2013, so shortly after Ronnie's been defeated, bright that he was going to run in 2016. In this time, there was no turning back. He was, he was definitely going to run. And then we began immediately, you know, plotting out a timeline for a campaign.

Speaker 1: You also became not an advisor after that. What is, why is there that? Well, I resigned from the campaign right in August. That's why I chose the words I chose, right? Yeah. And I showed my resignation letter to a New York Times reporter and a political reporter in advance because I knew there would be some question about whether I had resigned. Okay. Um, but I'd reached the conclusion that I could be of greater value, uh, and I could be more effective on behalf of trump's candidacy from the outside and that I could be from the inside at 64 years old and having been through at that point nine presidential campaign, starting with Nixon through Reagan, uh, through a Bush, the one I regret the most. Okay. That's a h, w or w a, h, w you regret that the most? Yeah, pretty much. Can I take that tangent?

Speaker 1: How come? Well, no new taxes read my lips. Yeah. In other words, Ronald Reagan gave us a period of prosperity that George Hw Bush was unwilling to defend. Uh, and then when he broke his tax pledge, um, you know, I think that was the functional end of Reaganism as we know it. I did work on the recount for George W dot Bush, right. Thanks to the Iraq war. I regretted that also. Got It. So maybe in my work for legalized cannabis, I can get some slight atonement for some of the mistakes that I have made, but the point of it, I guess is that 64 years old, I was not interested in being a campaign hierarchy where I had to prove everything I did and said. Got It. And I, I think I have a pretty keen sense of the business. Uh, so I was involved in a number of independent projects that I think were very helpful.

Speaker 1: Uh, and if you go back and look from the moment I resigned, I hit the road as a surrogate speaking about why I thought trump would be president. Sure. Yeah. I don't think he had a more vocal or effective supporter. So, uh, I, I have no qualms about the campaign at all. So that's the kind of the outside being more effective than the inside. You mentioned Nixon, you really have a foothold in what lobbying has become. You add a foothold in what a political action committees have become. Um, you know, it sounds like you were just following your own narrative of I'm more effective on the outside than I am working for directly for a candidate most of the time. Is that fair? Uh, it's not always fair. Depends on the individual situation, but I think you recognize that now under the Federal Election Committee, under the federal election law, political action committees are legally allowed to do things that candidates can not do. Right? Uh, the limitations forgiving are different. Uh, and therefore the law I think sometimes makes independent action more effective and easier to finance and we still work on a paid media basis. Sure. So, um, I don't think you could have a blanket rule, but generally speaking, you can be very effective on behalf of a candidate or a cause without working directly for that candidate or cause

Speaker 3: you mentioned, read my lips. No new taxes. That was one thing that was said. Hammered and essentially could be construed as the reason he lost. We lost reelection. We now Ross revered election. Of course, we now have a candidate that basically says things that would be that multiple times a day. So what are voters? How have voters changed in your mind? Is it the voter that's changed? Is that the media that's changed because obviously the politician has changed.

Speaker 1: Two things have changed. One, having been in politics now for 40 years, approximately. I've never seen the voters this angry, the skeptical, this distrustful and this unaligned meaning. Now finally, they blame both parties. They blame all congressmen, they blame Washington, they blame all political institutions, and therefore the time was right in my view, for an outsider. Yeah, the time was right for somebody who had no obstensively connections to the mistakes of the last 30 years. We could go through the list. They're not hard to find. Sure. Endless war erosion of our civil liberties, massive debt and spending and borrowing immigration policies that leave the country wide open trade policies that have hurt us economically and have, as Ross Perot said, suck the jobs out of America. So, um, I think that has changed. But the other thing has changed is that the media is no longer monolithic.

Speaker 1: How do you mean? Well, through the 19 eighties, if it didn't happen on ABC, NBC or CBS didn't happen. Right? And then later you add the two cable networks. But that's the media now with the rise of a robust, vibrant alternative media, which is based on a technological advanced I a people are no longer getting their news from the television set in the living room and the kitchen. They're getting their news through a handheld device or an ipad or a PC, which means they have to go through the Internet to get to CNN and once they get to the internet doesn't take them long to figure out that there's better stuff than CNN. I don't need to watch CNN anymore. I can watch infowars.com or Breitbart or the daily caller or Huffington post, or it doesn't matter whether it's left or right. It's just there's, there's an alternative. And therefore a small handful of corporately owned media outlets no longer control. The the only narrative that exists in politics.

Speaker 3: So we're speaking of narratives and these are things that you're good at. You mentioned kind of some of that alternative media on the right. You mentioned some of the alternative media on the left. What about the shouting and the tearing apart of the dialogue? In other words, some of what you can get from alternative media on the right or left is good. Some of it is just finger pointing and some of it you know, but

Speaker 1: the alternative is even worse, which is to say censorship. See, I've just. I'm opposed. I'm opposed to censorship of any car. Totally with you. I don't care if you are the most loony left winger in the world. You should have a right to express your views on the net and you shouldn't have google or facebook or twitter or Amazon screwing with your algorithms to limit your reach or deciding who should decide what's fake news. You know, one man's dirty trickster is another man's freedom fighter. I've heard that before and you said it and I think I did too. And what the point that I'm afraid we're reaching is some on the left when they cannot refute your arguments with facts or r or d or, or merits, they, they fall back to censorship as an answer. I think that's a slippery slope. Censorship was the providence of the Stalin's and Hitler's.

Speaker 1: It's the first step to killing all free expression. And I think there are some on that, what I call the tech left, who realized that the trump's victory in the last election is only possible because of the growth of alternative media. Uh, and therefore they'd like to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Impossible. Uh, well, difficult but not if you control the keys. Sure. So Google can block anybody they want and they do. It violates US antitrust law. Um, but I'm kind of wondering when the trump administration, assistant attorney general for antitrust, is going to bring that action of censorship to me, maybe the greatest single fight out there. And then when I read that, we're going to indict Julian assange and wikileaks. Why? He's a journalist, he published information. Let me remind you about the Pentagon papers. There you go, Daryl, Daniel Ellsberg, which by the way, the court heard this argument already.

Speaker 1: Yeah. There was an attempt by the Nixon administration to Stop The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon papers on the basis they were stolen. The court ruled against them and said journalists couldn't print whatever they want regardless of what what the source of the information. So here we are right at the beginning. Again. Basically is your point, right? People see I, I guess I have a very. I have a high regard for my fellow human beings, meaning let everybody decide what they believe. They let people read and consume and decide. I liked what I read here. I don't like what I read there. I think this is true. I don't think this is true. This all boils back down to the individual. Let people decide what they want to eat. Mom, I'm with you 100 percent, but when I grew up, right, I'm from the seventies, we, the United States of America.

Speaker 1: We were kind of all in this together. It feels like to me that we are against ourselves. Well, there I would have to agree that a, is that a good thing, hyper partisanship and um, and a more stark difference between the political viewpoints in the country is one of the manifestations, I think, of a vibrant alternative media, but it's a small price to pay. Yes, people feel more strongly, but that's because they're getting multiple points of view. Let me give you a couple of examples that hopefully won't bore you in the coverage of Watergate. No one told us, four of the Watergate burglars were on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency and we're reporting to their case officers, although the New York Times has now established that nobody told us that the Pentagon had an extensive spiring inside the Nixon White House and because the, the Pentagon was so suspicious of Nixon's ideas about peace, peace with the Russians, piece of the Chinese patient, Vietnam they had, they had a yeoman named Radford, who was leafing through desks and briefcases and files photocopying a classified foreign policy information and sending it to, for the consumption of Admiral Thomas Moore or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Speaker 1: Washington Post's knew that at the time, but they just didn't report it. We didn't know the judge. John Sirica in the Watergate burglars case was meeting with the special prosecutors alone, Jaworski and Cox. They would both, all of three of them would have been disbarred in the case, would have been thrown out. We know that now, so the mainstream media at the time failed to report facts that they didn't fit the narrative. Go, go back to the Kennedy assassination. We have one guy with a camera and has a film, and there's evidence to prove or separate that film is seized. That film is sent back to Kodak in Rochester, New York. There are frames missing from it. I even got Arlen Specter to admit that who was the Chief Council to the Warren Commission, old senators as well. And uh, you can see how it was much easier for there to be one mainstream narrative about who killed Kennedy and why now think for a moment, if that happened today, would have a thousand cell phone camera pictures of it.

Speaker 1: You have hundreds of videos and people could look at it and see what they saw with their own eyes. So I think it has been this, this technological advance and the rise of alternative media has been a very positive thing overall. Fair enough. And um, I'll meet you there. Let me ask you this though. As somebody that knows how to turn people's minds around, right? As somebody that is an effective communicator, what are your thoughts on us coming together as a country? Wouldn't it be better for us all? Is it better for us to be divided or is it better for us to be united? Honestly, it's better for us to make progress. See, I think if you had a stronger, more dynamic growth economy, Yup. It would be much easier to bring people together. If everybody's making money, everybody's happy. People who have jobs who are making money are much happier than people who can't find work and aren't making money.

Speaker 1: Which is why I was a little disappointed that the president decided to start his administration with the travel ban. Yeah. He should have, in my opinion, started with his economic program, which is very pro growth infrastructure and such. Uh, you cut the corporate income tax rate below that of China and Mexico and Russia. Pardon me, China and Mexico and Japan. Yeah. Overnight United States based companies that are doing business abroad because it's cheaper. We'll do business here because it's much cheaper, which means they expand here. They hire here. Uh, so, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats was the way John Kennedy put it. Uh, I think the answer to the United America is a better economy. And then you also get a big bump in federal revenues with which to deal with all the other problems that a president regardless of party has to deal with. Right.

Speaker 1: You said the word Russia. So I have you sitting here. I might as well go ahead and let you say whatever you want to say. Well, I mean the 17 intelligence agencies repeat like a mantra that there's evidence that the Russians sought to interfere and affect the 2016 election, but they can produce no proof proof when they are pressed. Let me remind you the same. 17 intelligence agencies said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which he didn't. Um, this is a scandal with no evidence. It's a narrative that John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, came up with first perhaps to distract from the fact that it was he and his brother Tony, who were doing a lucrative business in Russia among the oligarchs connected to Putin, the uranium deal, the gas deal, the banking deal. Then there's the giant payments to bill and Hillary personally for their speeches from the Kremlin clique around Putin.

Speaker 1: So, I mean, some of the mainstream media is right. There was a presidential candidate who was cozy with potent. The problem is it wasn't Donald Trump. Interesting. Um, and about Michael Flynn and manafort. These are guys, you know, show me, show me a crime by Michael Flynn or Manafort. Still don't. I still don't see a crime. Okay. Now there's some distinction. I know obviously a lot more about manafort because you're a partner. We were partners 30 years ago. He was an usher in my wedding. I've known him since College Republicans. I don't know of any collusion with the Russians by Paul Manafort. Did he work in Ukraine? Yes. Did he work for a democratic political party that is recognized by the u? S government? Yes. Did he work in an election the results of which were recognized by our State Department? Yes. Was He paid as a political consultant? Yes. Was his candidate actually at odds with Putin over the European Union?

Speaker 1: Putin's candidate was act was never Viktor Yanukovych. His candidate was. You'll attempt Shanko, but we have a revisionist of history now. I don't think there's any evidence yet that manafort has done anything wrong. General Flynn is clearly guilty of stupidity. Okay. I wouldn't take a payment from Russian television. Right. I would appear on Russian television cause I'll talk to any media where you might reach somebody with ideas and thanks for being here, but every time I've been on Russian television I could show you the emails I have said to them when they invite me, I'm happy to be on, but I just want to warn you, I could say something critical of the Russian state or Vladimir Putin and if a condition of my being on is that I'd be censored on any topic. I'll just take a pass if you don't mind. And in every case they said no, come on and say whatever you want.

Speaker 1: So, um, but he actually took a gratuity from them to attend some dinner. Uh, in the case of his lobbying for the Turks, he registered with the clerk of the house, but he evidently did not register through the foreign agents registration act with the state, which is a technical mistake. But if you were trying to hide it, he wouldn't have filed with the clerk of the house. Right. So I think a lot has been made of what is a technical mistake. There clearly was disclosure. There's nothing illegal with his representing them. Not sure I would've done it right, but he has a filing error. All of said, show me collusion with the Russians for the purposes of tipping the election to trump. We still have no evidence of it. It's interesting to me the way the heads of the intelligence agencies repeated over and over again, like a mantra.

Speaker 1: Oh, we have. We have proof. We have proved the New York Times of January, Twentieth Page, one headline in the print and the print edition wire wiretap data utilized and probe of trump associates. That would be me. One of the five trump associates named. Fair enough. That story says that the intelligence services are in possession of emails, records of financial transactions, and then on the 31st day add transcripts of intercepted phone calls. Fair enough. Where are they produced them? Let's see them. We still haven't seen them. They don't exist. That's why I think former FBI director comey was right in the hearings when he pointed it out that the time story of the 14th February 14th, which is really a recycle of their story of the 20th right, is false, which it is fine. Where are you with all of that? The commies and the muellers and the this and that.

Speaker 1: I think it's a sad distraction, which is, you know, hurting the country because I think I'd like to see the president and be able to deduct to dedicate his full efforts to reviving the economy. Uh, and getting the country back on track. I have told the House and Senate intelligence committees that I would like to testify. They don't require a subpoena or show up voluntarily. I'm not asking for immunity, but I want my testimony to be in public. If you testify behind closed doors, all sorts of questions and there's no real immediate release of the transcripts, which is what they proposed. Well then it's easy to mischaracterize what was said behind closed doors. I was maligned in public. They said things about me on the committee that were not true or were misleading to give them some, you know, some credit and therefore I had to be able to respond in public.

Speaker 1: You gave them credit for being misleading. So let me make sure I understood it. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe their mistakes were inadvertent. Maybe these were just misstatements as opposed to willful smears. In other words, maybe congressman Adam Schiff is so dumb that he actually thinks that I predicted the hacking of John Podesta's email in advance. But if you examine everything I've ever said and row, I never said anything of the kind. So what we have is conjecture, supposition, hunch, coincidence. Those things don't hold up in court. Only. Only proof holds up in court. I got. Gotcha. Anybody that, uh, is, uh, has been elected a Democrat in any, uh, kind of a federal, state, local election, someone that's doing something that you appreciate.

Speaker 1: There certainly have been in the past, such as my very first vote. The first vote I ever cast was for a democrat. I've voted for Tom Dod for reelection in Connecticut. He was running as independent after he lost the Democratic nomination, but he was a democrat who I admired. Dodd Frank. Different. Well, that's his son, and I said that would be Christopher dog on it who I would not have voted for. Right. Okay. I have three final questions for you. I'll tell you what they are. I'll ask them in order, what has most surprised you in cannabis? What has most surprised you in life and on the soundtrack of your life? One track, one song that's got to be on there. First things first though, United States cannabis coalition. What has most surprised you in cannabis? The way that. Very much like the question of gay marriage, the momentum is with us now that people are waking up and they're learning that the false narrative pushed on them by big Pharma and a cooperative federal government. It's just not true. It's not a gateway drug. It does have vast medicinal properties, perhaps some we don't even know about yet because we've never done adequate research in this country, so I think it's a. it's an issue whose time has come and it, and I'm surprised at the positive momentum we have today. Surprised and pleased, I would say. Fantastic. What has most surprised you in life?

Speaker 1: Uh, I guess it is that you, if you never give up, if you just keep charging ahead, if you, if you, um, if you're a resilient, um, that all things are possible. You know, I have a tattoo of Richard Nixon on my back. Yes, I really do. So about the size of a pineapple and it's right between my shoulder blades. So I could conceivably be the only person you know with a Dick on the front end, the back. But more importantly, the different podcasts people, people ask me if, if it's a political statement and it's really not. What it is for me is a daily reminder that in life when things don't go your way, when you get knocked down, when you get defeated, when you're counting on something and you lose it, when you think that you know that things are bleak, well you have an obligation to get up, dust yourself off and get back in the fight.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So the story of Nixon on a personal level is a story of resilience. It's a story of perseverance. It's the story of never giving up. This guy was dead and buried. He loses the presidency by an eyelash probably stolen from him. If you read my book Nixon Secrets, I make a pretty good case. Then he moves to California to stay alive. Politically runs for governor, loses, loses that too. Right now he is done, washed up. He's a national joke, but by, but by never giving up, I continue to work at it just turns out to be the right guy at the right place, at the right time. And in the wake of the Vietnam War, the murders of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, um, he makes the greatest comeback in American political history. So I guess the short answer is perseverance, persistence. Resilience is the most important thing.

Speaker 1: Absolutely. I take that point explicitly and implicitly on the soundtrack of your life. Roger Stone, one track, one song that's got to be on their dirty deeds, done dirt cheap. That's ACDC. One possibility, although that would not be, that would not be my favorite, but that's the one that comes first to mind, so we'll go with it. Roger Stone. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. I would love to continue the conversation as it relates to the United States cannabis coalition. How about that? Yeah. I'm. I'm really going to be working very hard to put together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians like, like John Morgan from my home, state of Florida. Like Judd. I've had John on like, like a judge Andrew in Nepal. Bhutan. No. So you've got opposite poles, but commonality on this issue. I really think that's the key. It absolutely as Roger. I appreciate your time. Great to be here. All right,

Speaker 2: and there you have Roger Stone. Very interesting approach to a cannabis law reform with the US cannabis coalition. Certainly look forward to hearing about their progress as far as what you heard here. Please go ahead and investigate it for yourself. Think for yourself. Thank you for listening.

Read the full transcript:

Become a member to access to webinars, quarterly reports, contributor columns, shows, excerpts, and complete podcast transcripts

Become a Member

Already a member? Login here.

Subscribe now to get every episode.

Cannabis Economy is a real-time history of legal cannabis. We chronicle how personal and industry histories have combined to provide our current reality.