on c-span's q and age, --rots in fact dacian heritage foundation's lee edwards chronicles his time in the conservative movement. health fellow well met, he liked to party. he liked a drink or two and as --g as you didn't talk about he was a very fun guy to be with. he also did not take advice very well. he often said things and did things that hurt the cause of -- communism for some time. >> q and a on c-span. , newsmakers isan stone.th roger

that is followed by radio talkshow host bill press discussing the nature of the past year in politics and stone. what to expect in 2018. and later, a discussion on the future of conservative is him -- conservativism. >> joining us from new york is roger stone, a longtime republican strategist and the author of the making of the president 2016, how donald trump orchestrated a resolution. to be here. my thanks to c-span for the opportunity. joining us is chief investigative reporter and tom beyond. let me begin with the issue of robert mueller. you suspect he is preparing charges against the president? i believe his inquiry is politically motivated.

i think we have seen extraordinary evidence in the last couple of weeks, the tweets, email records, contributions to democrats that partisan hitis a squad. i think this is a clinical proceeding rather than a legal proceeding. and i have said that i believe the president's lawyers are naive about mr. mueller's intentions. i think they misunderstand the deep enmity that the political establishment in both parties has for the president and they're -- their absolute resolved to remove him on any pretext whatsoever. to me, strategy of turning over hundreds of houses of documents, waiving executive privilege, and relying on the fairness of robert mueller is a foolish strategy. i think we have to wait to see

what comes out of general flynn's plea deal. he says a senior executive directed him to set up the meeting, a perfectly legal action on general flynn's part. so, perhaps mr. mueller is preparing an indictment of others. it is interesting to me that if mr. mueller should proceed against the president or any -- to me it seems like it would be a process related indictment of perjury, obstruction, nothing relating specifically to tolusion with the russians affect the outcome of the election. host: do you think there is anything in the president's tax returns that can lead to charges?

to affect the outcome of the guest: i absolutely do not. i have long thought that the president isn't putting his tax returns out because his total income, while extraordinary for the rest of us, would not be as large as some mightguest: expec. if you go back to the campaign i have long thought that he should put the tax returns out to lay this to rest. we know that he took legitimate deductions for losses on a large scale, but that is the tax code. if you don't like it you can change the tax code. as a savvy businessman the president has taken advantage of laws in thatx area, but i don't think there is any business relationship with russian entities or anything of that type. host: let me turn to michael. guest: just to follow up on the you wrote that my advice to the president, he must

completely disempower and dismantle robert mueller's prosecution gang. to be clear, have you spoken to the president about this? and have you specifically told him he should i or dealer -- sh ould fire meuller? guest: i don't believe he should fire mueller. so i have not told him that. i do not think -- i do think the president should ignore the incorrect advice of his authorities who appear to have told him he doesn't have the tohority to offer direction the attorney general. the president should order attorney general to appoint a special counselor. mr. comey, mr. rosenstein under immediate

federal investigation and i cannot see how they could proceed under their current jobs in those circumstances. >> i'm confused. you wrote he should completely disempower and dismantle -- but now you are saying you shouldn't him, so how does he disempower and dismantle? guest: five the appointment of a special prosecutor in uranium one. i think it would be impossible for mueller to proceed and therefore i think he would be checkmated. >> have you given this advice directly to the president? guest: i have not. gentleman from the associated press. steveant to follow up on

rocky opening question. it sounds like he is saying yes to the question whether there will be -- against the president, but whatever the .eason it does seem like your answer is yes. is that correct? headed?where we are >> that is my concern. that is my fear. i believe it would be a trumped given the erosion in public confidence and exposures about the partisan nature of this inquiry in the coming weeks, whether mr. mueller could sustain that in the court of public opinion remains to be seen. the president has been told by his lawyers that he will get a letter exonerating him on russian collusion. first it was by thanksgiving, christmas, first of the year, and now by february. i think it underestimates the

resolve and partisan nature of this inquiry. let me be clear, i don't think the president has committed any crime whatsoever. i think this is a political proceeding, the first step of a upeential coup to top -- co detat. i think he is pushing an agenda that upsets many. >> let me talk about the coup part. you are writing a book about this right? is that correct? >> i may be. it was reported that i was working on a book called "the downfall of donald trump," i never said that. to their credit, they made a correction. if the president is taken down either by mr. mueller in what i

would consider to be a rogue effort, or in some kind of trumped up 25th amendment move, you see joe scarborough, senator corker, and don lemon, and others increasingly saying he is crazy, he is insane, he is mentally unbalanced. that is all non-sense. he is sharp as a tack. unique style. but you see that as plan b for the establishment. this is a book i hope i don't have to write. my next book, which i have to the into my publisher on first of the year is stone's rules. it is more a book of maxims that i have delineated for a long career in public life and in politics.

so, it is a book i hope i don't have to write, but if i did write it it would be titled "the unmaking of the president." there was confusion about that merely -- thatm this could happen. again, and hope it is a book i don't have to write. >> have you been question or contacted by mueller's team? guest: i have not. >> they have not reached out at all? guest: they have not. i have not had any contact with any russians or those renting for the russians. as i understand it, their charge is looking into collusion by the russians in the election. any other questions they may wiki leaks org to any other matter, they can read

why extensive under oath statement before the house intelligence committee, which i think i addressed those questions extensively. >> the one issue you didn't that wasas who it was your intermediary with julian assange when you began tweeting over the summer that wiki leaks was going to be leasing damaging emails about john podesta and hillary clinton. since beendual has redico, ad as randy c new york comic and radio talkshow host. was he in fact the person giving you a heads up on what julian assange was going to be releasing? guest: that is a mischaracterization of his role. -- supply hisly

name to the committee, but i did decide against it, because i him.d reprisal against indeed, he was terminated. his role is very narrow and you will be familiar with it here at he is a confirming source. julian assange said he had extensive materials and would publish it. i included that in my own column and i wanted a confirmation. he simply confirmed it. to be clear, he didn't tell me the source of the information, the content or topic of the information. he merely confirmed that wiki leaks had explosive information on hillary clinton, which they would publish and they did. o is a journalist

-- and as you know mr. julian assange it is a journalist. i ultimately decided to supply that name. >> how any conversations do you have about julian assange's intentions about releasing emails regarding hillary clinton? had multiple conversations, but essentially the same conversation multiple times here at he told me it would happen through december, to the beginning of october, is when the material was published. witht me wallow up on that robert mueller, is there a concerted effort by fox stone: well, if asked artifacts. thanks to the good work of judicial watch, thanks to info journalistssading

like sean hannity and tucker carlson and judge jeanine. oh and the judgment, taleo and aners, we have learned extraordinary amount of things. it seems that the justice department was so arrogant that it betrayed its deep animus and hatred for donald trump in official emails and tweets and other records, i guess assuming hillary clinton would be elected. all bandannas have done is report the news, and it has supplied something of a battle because other outlets have ignored these significant findings. i want to follow up on that. when we were covering the , i feel like we never heard about that. " book came outsh

and made a big splash, but then it just disappeared. it, is behind the timing on and why did we not have congressional hearings? why did we not see trey gowdy outfront when it would've mattered, when it would have had a bigger impact? anybody do not think has yet connected the dots. think they knew that the clinton foundation had taken $145 million from a company that was acquiring these mining rights. we understood the connection between the $500,000 fee that president clinton took from russian interests connected to this transaction. i am not sure we in understood the entire scope of it. we certainly did not understand the role of mr. mueller, mr. , and mr.. mccabe rosenstein at the time. now we do, which is why i laid

this out in the long piece for infowars, and why i have reported on it for the last week. real evidence,e unlike the collusion investigation, of what could be the largest financial crime in history. following up on the uranium one story, it is complicated. but as i understand it, part of what is new here is the focus on the investigation of bribery and by an employee in the united states. the theory of your case is that should news that and have alerted senior people in the justice department and the obama administration about it so that they could have pulled the

plug on the uranium one deal, because it was being done by corrupt people in the russian government. the guy in charge of that case was ron rosenstein. the man who donald trump selected as the deputy attorney general, the number two man in his justice department. do you have evidence that ron rosenstein was deliberately concealing information in order to promote a cover-up of a russian takeover of uranium in the united states? stone: i think this was bumped to him by mr. mueller. i view the payments to the clinton foundation as bribes, as well. they should certainly be seen in that context. so i think it is somewhat ironic that this ended up on mr.

rosenstein's desk. i to scratch my head about the appointment of rosenstein. my understanding that he was recommended for this job by elijah cummings, the democrat congressman from baltimore, and pushed for the job by then-white house chief of staff ryan's previous. -- reince priebus. example of the president appointing establishment republicans who did not vote for him, and do not have his back. i fear the extent to which he himself withd people who did not support him and are not loyal to him. loyal supporter of the president, and i am concerned about some of the people he has, perhaps inadvertently, put around him. do not believe he should fire mueller. should he fire rosenstein? stone: the reason i believe he

should not fire mueller is because i think the democrats realize that they have lost the upper hand in this particular thinkle, and therefore i they are trying to go him into this. congressman spier saying that there are rumors that the president will firing mueller. the ones yours are are starting, congresswoman. they believed if the president fired mr. mueller on, say, new year's eve or christmas day, that they would have the obvious analogies to the saturday night massacre and therefore the momentum and public relations argument would flow back to them. the argument would be that trump ored mueller to cover up stop his investigation into the misdeeds by the president, rather than mueller being fired for his obvious bias and lack of objectivity. achievedthing can be

without giving the left that opening. the question was whether or not you thought he should fire rosenstein? punt on am going to that, not presuppose, but normally speaking, special counsel's are appointed when there is an identified crime for some reason why there is a conflict of interest. wasll that mr. mueller appointed by mr. rosenstein rather than the attorney general. tandoor --s lack of lack of candor was extraordinary. the asked if he could see obvious bias of partisanship in mr. mueller, he said he did not see it. the guy has all of the visual acuity of stevie wonder. let me go back to the 25th amendment here. do you have any evidence that

anyone is actively plotting, attempting or laying the groundwork right now inside of the cabinet -- inside of the administration -- to make that removal? that would obviously be the mechanism for that to happen. not the senate, not political pundits, inside of his own white house. you, i have sources and i work those sources. yes, i believe there are some who have had this discussion. this is both outside of the cabinet and in. i think it is the fallback plan for the establishment, and that is why i am sounding the call. you will see an enormous uptick in these irresponsible stories, --earing the president, non- not up to the job, and so on. i am being realistic about what i believe is the resolve of many

in the political establishment to get rid of the president under any means necessary. are we talking about? the defense secretary? the vice president? stone: like you, tom, i cannot reveal those sources. i am not prepared to do so. >> i'm sorry. i'm not asking you to reveal your sources. who are your sources? -- rather, what are they telling you? members of thee cabinet who have had this discussion. >> michael isikoff. can you tell us what cabinet members you are talking about? time. not at this i will probably reported fully, but i do think that there is a plan of foot that is broader

than just the cabinet. now, the 25th amendment requires a majority of the cabinet and the vice president. i do not think that is achievable today, not on the heels of this historic tax cut. disintegration of the credibility of the mueller investigation. happenshave seen what when hysteria is whipped up among the people by some in the mainstream media, and i always thought this was planned the two-party duopoly that has run this country into the ground. it deeply resents the election of donald trump. >> on the russian investigation itself, you referred to the fact that we learned a lot about mueller's team and their partisan biases since he was appointed. but we have also learned a lot about the trump campaign's contacts with a lot of

operatives and russian representatives that we did not know one year ago when donald trump took office. we learned about the trump tower meeting, in which the top officials of the trump campaign were offered -- were told, beher -- that they would given to rogatory information about hillary clinton. we learned about george papadopoulos, who actually met russians offering dirt on hillary clinton in the form of thousands of emails. we learned about jeff sessions's meetings with russian ambassador. we learned about michael flynn's contacts. would it not of been better for the president and his top people to have disclosed all of this from the very beginning, instead of having had this drip out over investigationan

that has cast a cloud over his presidency? stone: first of all, i think all of those things you said turn out to be innocuous. none of it constitutes collusion, meaning working with the russians to affect the outcome of the election. secondarily, we do not know that his lawyers have not disclosed these things. we are not privy to what they haven't -- -- -- me be papadopoulos, to call him a foreign-policy advisor is grandiose. he was a volunteer on a 100 member advisory board. he had no authority, and nobody approved. then-candidate trump identified him as a member of his or and policy team when asked to his members were. stone: reading off of a press release, yes.

which was a photoshop to demonstrate that there was a foreign-policy apparatus. >> my question was whether or not you think it adds up to anything. it certainly has fed the story. as a political matter, would it not have been better for the president to have gotten all of get-go, right from the rather than have this drag out over time? stone: i do not think so, because even the most innocent and innocuous contacts are hyped up by the president's opponents be more than they are. senator sessions, now attorney general sessions, was a member of the foreign relations committee. with the russian and as he is neither illegal nor improper, and nothing they discussed to our knowledge constitutes coordination or collusion or conspiracy regarding the election.

so look, these contexts get hyped up to be more than they are. again, no evidence of a crime. of russian collusion to affect the outcome of the election. is the president well served by secretary of state tillerson? the president's a non-interventionist, and i think tillerson tends to be more of a neocon. therefore, i am disappointed to be aare continuing presence in afghanistan. the president said during the campaign that he would wind that down. we appear to be increasing the levels. but let's be clear, the foreign-policy of this administration, at least at this point still driven by the president, understands that we do not need to march off to more

foreign wars. infowarsd i fornfowar that secretary tillerson will be gone by year's end. >> thank you for having us. we continue the conversation with michael isikoff. what are you hearing? michael: it is not going to wrap up anytime soon. if for no other reason, we have two outstanding indictment. paul manafort and rick gates, and they are going to trial. trials take a long time to be year it up and take place. mueller is certainly not going to wrap up until he -- until there is a resolution of the

mueller-gates matter. we do not know what michael the specialling counsel. we do not know what george papadopoulos is telling the special counsel. thatf those are wildcards the trump lawyers cannot possibly know the answer to at this point. hope i might have that there is going to be a wrapup of mueller's fanciful, at this point. >> rogers involvement with the president, what is it d think? i found it interesting that he said mueller steam has not counted him, because of suggest foreets knowledge of what julian assange was going to do. one of the democratic talking , ifts of possible collusion

that were the case one would have expected that stone would have been questioned already. if we taken at his word, anyway. but i think it was interesting today that he is now confirmed publicly for the first time that was the intermediary giving the heads up on what julian assange was going to do. and pence's political future in the white house is the gop prepares for midterms, what is -- >> the book itself will be a political biography of the vice president. he will go all the way back to his days as a child in columbus, indiana. his first two runs for congress in 1988 and 1990. host,reer as a talk show

running all the way up through his successful congressional career and all the way to the white house. in terms of where he is in the white house, what i hear is that he is a loyal soldier. i have not picked up on anything toof yet as far as an effort push out trump or fight him in any way. there was a big turn as we all the greathe summer, reporting from "the new york times" about fundraisers being showing up.ors turnabout ined a terms of the public support for the vice president, or the president. it is an interesting relationship, obviously. perhaps he is more supportive of

the president then you made to be with other presidents in public. coming into 2018, there is a big question out there. i am over in the house, i am asking about to think. i asked about russia, and i ask about vice president pence. these two things are essentially interconnected. if something were to happen, if there is an indictment or a big ife that comes through, there is an impeachment, then we have a president pence. >> i would like to point out the 25th amendment. i talked to scholars of the amendment who point out that it cannot be invoked under any without thes participation of vice president pence. in order for that to be the route by which president trump is removed from office, it would require vice president pence to push the button. the political peril of all of

this is incredible. we are at the end of 2017, and we have this pounding headache from one year ago. we got 2016 would be the end of the political insanity. it only ramped up. >> it only started. year.py new gentlemen, thank you both for being with us on "newsmakers." thank you for being with us. >> tomorrow night on c-span, samantha power talks about america's role in the world. abraham foxman. ms. power reflects on her time serving in the obama administration, and the global challenges she sees moving forward. >> i was a better leader of my

team at the end than i was at the beginning. i think sometimes, especially now that i see the morale of the state department and the diplomatic corps just being so gutted and these amazing people not being affirmed and celebrated as the public servants that they are, you know, somehow amid the crises, itspend more time, you know, is easier said than done in these jobs. in these national security jobs. if i could have made the time to do more of that, it would've been only for the good. now that i have time and i am , a lot of my former team members are in some crisis right now because they are trying to decide whether or not it is a greater act of patriotism to stay or leave. the couch in my office is

getting a lot of use now. which is good, but i think it is a supreme form of patriotism to stay. and i can see some of my former teammates really making a difference. it, because it is not always a positive kind of difference. is something, and i am at the kennedy school where people are saying we cannot go in the foreign service. taking his way down. far fewer people are enrolling. you do not have an administration that values it the way that our national security requires. i still say to young people, go to the exam. by the time you take it and get in, your odds are probably hire of getting in now than any time in the history of it. so that is good. to also, you will do your these as stamping tours, and hopefully by then we will be in

a position to rehabilitate our leadership in the world and reinvest and reinvigorate diplomacy. >> you can watch the rest of that interview with samantha 25wer tomorrow night at 10: eastern here on c-span. " for the next week, washington journal" will feature key authors of books published this year. join us for a live conversation with authors about their popular books. buckley.ay, f h sunday, michael eric dyson talks about his book, " tears we cannot stop." and on christmas day, henry the working-class republican." "esday, ken stern with

republicans like me." and on wednesday, angela j davis with " policing the black man.' "ursday, cliff stearns with life in the marble palace." "so on friday, december 29, digital world war." 30,aturday, december jessica bruder with " no badlands." on sunday, december 31, officer chris woodhall with " the gatekeepers." washington journal's authors 8:00 on c-span, c-span.org, and c-span radio. we want to welcomck