[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> on c-span this morning, newsmakers is next with roger stone. then, a look at the white house holiday decorations and the lighting of the national christmas tree with president trump in the first lady. experts discuss the recent supreme court case that the bounce between religious freedom and antidiscrimination law. host: joining us from new york stone,makers is roger author of the making of the president 2016, how donald trump orchestrated a revolution.

thank you for being with us. stone: great to be here. host: joining us for the --stioning is michael is mr. stone, let me begin with the issue of robert mueller, do you suspect that he is preparing charges against the president? stone: i believe his inquiry is politically motivated. we've seen extraordinary evidence in the last couple weeks, tweets, e-mail records, the contributions that indicate his is a partisan hit squad. i think this is a political proceeding rather than a legal proceeding. i believe the president's lawyers are naive about mr. mueller's intentions. i think they misunderstand the

committee the political establishment in both parties has for the president and their resolve to remove him on any pretext whatsoever. to me, a strategy of just turning over hundreds of -- relying on the innate fairness of robert mueller is a foolish strategy. i think we have to see what comes out of general flynn's plea deal. general flynn has said a senior member of the president's transition team directed him to contact the russian ambassador to set up a meeting. a perfectly legal action on general flynn's part. muellermr. comey -- mr. is preparing an indictment of others. it's interesting to me that if mr. mueller should proceed

against the president, it appears it would be some kind of process related indictment, perjury, obstruction, nothing related specifically to collusion with the russians to affect the outcome of the elections host:. do you think there's anything in the president's tax returns the kavitha charges? stone: i do not. i have long fought that perhaps the president is not putting tax returns out because the total income law would be extraordinary for the rest of us , perhaps not as large as some people might expect. to the campaign, i've long thought the president should put his tax returns out to lay this to rest. legitimatet he took deductions for losses on a large scale. that is the tax code. if you don't like the tax code you can change the tax code.

as a savvy businessman, the president has taken advantage of the legitimate tax laws in that i don't think there is any business relationship with russian entities. steve: let me turn to michael isikoff. michael: to follow up on them all the issue, you just wrote and the daily caller that my advice to the president is he must disempower and dismantle mueller's robe prosecution getting. first, have you spoken to the president about this and have you specifically told him he should fire mueller? stone: i don't believe that he should fire mueller so i would not have told him that in have not told him that. shouldve the president

ignore the incorrect advice of his attorneys who appeared to have told him he does not have the authority to issue directives to the attorney general of the united states. the department of justice is an extension of the executive branch. the president should order mr. sessions to appoint a special counsel or in the matter of uranium one. that would put mr. mueller, mr. rosenstein even mr. under immediate federal investigation and i cannot see how they could proceed in the current jobs under that circumstance. michael: i'm a little confused because you wrote he should completely disempower and dismantle -- but now you are saying he should not fire him. how does he completely disempower and dismantle the team? stone: by the appointment of a

special prosecutor in uranium one. with that goes on, scandal it would be impossible for mueller to proceed. michael: have you given this advice directly to the president? stone: i have not. steve: tom lobianco of the associated press. tom: roger, thanks for doing this. i want to follow-up on steve's opening question. it sounds like you are saying, yes to the question of whether there will be charges against the president. legal, justified, what have you. it does seem like your answer is yes. is that where we are headed? stone: that is my concern. that is what i fear. i believe it would be a trumped up process related charge. given the erosion in public

confidence and the exposures about the partisan nature of this inquiry in the past couple of weeks, whether mr. mulder couldn't 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 matters pertaining to russian collusion, first it was by thanksgiving, then christmas, then the first of the year. now they are saying february. i think it underestimates the result and partisan nature of this inquiry. i don't think the president has committed any crime whatsoever. i think this is a political proceeding. the first step of a potential coup d'etat based on deep resentment and enmity for the fact that this president is an outsider and pushing a reform agenda that upsets many among the elites in both parties.

tom: let me hop in on the coop part. you're working on a book about this. the potential for removal of the president. stone: i was working on a book entitled the downfall of donald trump. . never said that if the president is taken down -- a rogue effort in some kind .f 25th amendment move you see joe scarborough and senator corker and don lemon and others increasingly saying he's crazy, insane, mentally imbalanced. that is all nonsense. he is all nonsense. he's the same person i've known for 40 years. unique style.

you see that as plan b for the establishment. this is a book i hope i do not have to write. is stones rules, which has nothing to do with this subject, more a book of maxims that i have delineated through a long career in public life and politics. it's a book i hope i don't have to write. but if i did write it, i would title it the unmaking of the president. it is based on my concerns. there was some confusion about that piece. again, i'm merely predicting that this could happen. it's a book i hope i don't have to write. michael: have you been questioned or contacted by mueller's team? stone: i have not. michael: they are not reach out

to you at all? stone: they have not. we talked about this. as i understand it, their charge is looking into collusion by the russians in the election. any other questions they may have pertaining to wikileaks or any other matter, they can simply read my extensive under oath statement for the house intelligence committee, which i think i addressed all of those questions. that michael: you did not address in your testimony to the house was who it was that was your intermediary with julian assad when you begin tweeting over the summer that wikileaks was going to be releasing damaging e-mails about john podesta and hillary clinton.

that individual has since then credico,d as randy new york comic and talkshow host. was he the person you're talking to who was giving you a heads up on what julian assange would be releasing? stone: that's a mischaracterization of his role. follow-up,y did supplied mr. credico's name to the committee. initially i did not do so. i feared professional reprisal against him should his name be known. he was terminated from his position. his role was very narrow and you will be familiar with it. before -- i included that in my own column and in a broadcast

for info wars. i wanted confirmation. he simply confirmed it. to be clear, he did not only the source of mr. assange information, he merely confirmed that wikileaks had explosive information on hillary clinton which they would publish, and they did. redico is a journalist and i believe assanmge is a journalist. i ultimately decided to supply that name. michael: how many conversations did you have with randy credico about julian assange's intentions of releasing e-mails related to hillary clinton? stone: multiple conversations but essentially i had the same conversation multiple times. he told me in late august that this would happen. he told me through september it , the material was

steve:.d let me follow-up on your point against robert mueller and also what were seen from the left. is there a concerted effort by and some sean hannity, of the president's supporters to discredit robert mueller before he comes to any conclusion? stone: facts are facts. thanks to the good work of judicial watch, info wars, crusading journalists like sean hannity and tucker carlson, judge jeanine. others. we learned extraordinary amount of things. extremes the folks in the justice department were so arrogant they betrayed their animus and hatred for donald trump in official e-mails and tweets and other records assuming hillary clinton would be elected and they would be able to cover that up.

all those folks have done is report the news and that has supplied some balance because there are certain other outlets that have ignored some of these significant findings. tom: i want to follow up on that question from steve. i feel like when we were covering the campaign, i was at cnn for 2016, i just feel like we never heard about uranium one . there was the clinton cash book that came out at the beginning. that made a big splash at the start of this, but then it just disappeared. what is behind the timing on it? 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? stone: i do not think anybody had yet connected the dots. i'm not sure anyone understood clinton foundation had taken

$145 million from nine separate board members of the company that was acquiring these uranium mining rights. not sure we understood the connection between the half-million dollar fee that former president clinton took from russian interest connected to this transaction. i'm not sure we understood the scope of it. we did not understand the role of mr. mueller, mr. comey, mr. mccabe, and mr. rosenstein at this time -- at that time, now we do. out in a piece for info wars and reported on it for the last week. i think that you have, unlike the russian collusion investigation, real evidence of what could be the largest treasonous financial crime in american history. onhael: just following up the uranium one story is a bit complicated. as i understand it, part of

what's new here is the focus on the investigation of bribery and n employee in the united states. the theory of your case is that muller knew about that and therefore should have alerted senior folks in the justice department and the obama administration about it so they could have pulled the plug on the uranium one deal because this was being done by corrupt folks in the russian government. the guy in charge of that case was rod rosenstein. the man who donald trump selected as deputy attorney general, the number two man in his justice department. do you have evidence that rod rosenstein was deliberately

concealing information in order to promote a corrupt russian takeover of uranium in the united states? stone: i think that this was a buck to him as mr. mueller hoped to wind it down and take no action. i view payments to the clinton foundation and to bill and hillary as bribes as well. they should be seen in the context. 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 democratic congressman. i have an example talked about of the president in many cases appointing establishment republicans who do

not support his agenda for reform. who did not vote for him. and i fear the extent to which he is surround himself with people who did not support him, who are not loyal to him. i am a loyal supporter of the president and i'm concerned about some of the people he has perhaps inadvertently put around him. michael: you have said you don't believe the president should fire mueller. do you believe you should fire rosenstein? stone: third reason i don't believe he should fire mueller is -- the reason i don't believe he should fire mueller is i believe democrats feel that lost the upper hand and i think they are trying to goad him into this. cumbersome inspires singh rumors are everywhere at the president is going to fire mueller. only the rumors you are starting. they believe if the president fired mr. mueller, say on new year's eve or christmas day,

that they would have the analogies to the saturday night massacre and therefore the momentum and public relations argument would flow back to them. the argument with the that trump fired mueller to cuddle up -- to cover up or stop his investigation rather than mueller being fired for his obvious by us and lack of objectivity. i think the same thing can be achieved without giving the left that opening. i believe mr. mueller could be checkmated. michael: the question was do believe he will fire rosenstein. stone: i'm going to hunt on that -- i'm going to punt on that. normally speaking, special counsel's are appointed when there's a crime identified and there some reason the justice department has a conflict of interest. recall that mr. mueller was

appointed by mr. rosenstein, not by the attorney general. -- hisein's lack of dodging and weaving in congressional testimony was extraordinary. when asked if he could see the obvious bias and partisanship in mr. mueller, he said he did not see it. -- it is fairly obvious. here.he 25th amendment do you have any evidence that anyone is actively plotting, attempting, laying groundwork, inside the administration, to make that removal? that would be the mechanism for that to happen. not people in the senate. not pundits or other folks. inside his own white house. stone: like you, i have sources and i work my sources. i believe there are some who have had this discussion.

this is both outside the cabinet and in. it is the fallback plan for the establishment. i'm trying to sound the clarion call. you will see an uptick in these irresponsible stories smearing the president as not up to the job and so on. particularly if mr. mueller should shoot and miss. i'm being realistic about what i believe is the resolve of many in the political establishment to remove the president under any means necessary. tom: who are we talking about? secretary of state, the vice president? stone: like you, i cannot reveal those sources and i'm not prepared to do so. tom: i'm not asking you to reveal your sources here.

but who are your sources telling you? stone: there are members of the cabinet who had this discussion. let me leave it at that. michael: can you tell us which cabinet members you talking about? .tone: not at this time i will probably report that fully at some point. is a planhink there of foot that is broader than the cabinet. the 25th amendment requires a majority of the cabinet and the vice president. i don't think that is achievable today. not on the heels of the historic tax cut, the disintegration of the credibility of the mueller investigation. whenve seen what happens hysteria is whipped up among the people by some in the mainstream media. i've always thought this is plan b for the two-party duopoly that

has run this country into the resents the election of donald trump. michael: on the russian investigation itself, you referred to the fact that we've learned a lot about mueller's sincend partisan biases he was appointed. we've also learned a lot about the trump campaign's contacts with a lot of russian operatives and russian representatives that we did not know a year ago when donald trump took office. we learned about the trump tower meeting in which top officials of the trump campaign were told they would be offered derogatory information about hillary clinton. we learned about george papadopoulos, who actually met with russian cutouts offering

dirt on hillary clinton in the form of thousands of e-mails. sessions' about jeff meetings with the russian ambassador, michael flynn's contact with the russian ambassador. wouldn't it have been better for the president and his top people to have disclosed all of this from the beginning? instead of having had this drip out over time, fueling an investigation that has cast a cloud over his presidency? stone: i think everyone of those contacts you described turns out to be innocuous and none of it constitutes collusion, meaning working with the russians to affect the outcome of the election. we don't know that the president's lawyers have not disclosed these things. clear, mr. papadopoulos's e-mails were turned over to the special counsel to the

president's lawyers. they have done what you say. papadopoulos, to call him a foreign-policy advisor is a little grandiose. he was a volunteer on a 100 member advisory board. no authority and nobody approved -- michael: then candidate trump identified him as a member of his foreign-policy team when asked who the members were. stone: reading off a press release, yes. --presidential campaigns which was a photo op to demonstrate that there was a foreign-policy apparatus. michael: whether or not you think it adds up to anything or , just as a political matter, would it not have been better for the president to have gotten all of this out right from the get-go rather than have this drag out over time?

stone: i don't think so because even the most innocent and innocuous context -- contacts are hyped up by the president's opponents to be more than what they were are. attorney general sessions, member of the senate foreign relations committee. contact between he and the russian ambassador is neither illegal nor improper. nothing they discussed constitutes coordination or collusion or conspiracy regarding the election. these contacts get heightened up to be more than they are. no evidence of a crime. collusione of russian to affect the outcome of the election. steve: is the president well served by secretary of state tillerson? stone: the president is not interventionist.

tillerson tends to be more of a neocon. therefore, i am disappointed that we are continuing to be a presence in afghanistan. the president said during the campaign he would wind that down. we appeared be staying at current levels, or maybe increasing it. let's be clear, the foreign policy of this administration, at least at this point, still driven by the president, who understands we don't need to march off to anymore foreign wars where our inherent national interest is not clear. i predicted that secretary tillerson will be gone new the .nd of the year steve: they give for your time on newsmakers. stone: thank you for having me here. steve: we continue the conversation with michael isikoff.

michael: it is not going to wrap up anytime soon. if for no other reason we have two outstanding indictments. .aul manafort and rick gates and they are going to trial. trials take a long time to be geared up and take place. mueller is not going to wrap up until there's a resolution of the mueller gates matter. that could be a year or more down the road. we don't know what michael flynn is telling a special counsel. we don't know what george papadopoulos is telling the special counsel. all of those are wildcards the trump lawyers can't possibly know the answer to at this point. havenk any hope they might that there's going to be a rapid

wrap up of mueller is fanciful. steve: roger stone's involvement in all of this, what is it do you think? michael: i thought he said it was interesting that he said mueller's team is not contacted him. one of democratic talking points of evidence of possible collusion. were that the case, one would have expected that stone would have been questioned already. if we take him at his word that he is not been contacted. i do think it was interesting today that i think he is now confirmed publicly for the first o was int randy credic fact the intermediary who was giving him a heads up on what julia--julian sanchez

assange do -- julian was going to do. steve: his role as the gop prayers for the midterms. .om: a brief breakdown a political biography of the vice president. were going to go all the way back to his days as a child in columbus, indiana. congress two runs for in 1998 and 1990. his career as a talk radio host through his successful congressional career to the white house in everything in between. in terms of where he is in the , what i hear is have notoyal soldier. seen an effort from him to fight trump in any way. , greatas a big turn

reporting from the new york times about the fundraisers being held at the vice president's residents. donor maintenance. that sparked a turnabout in terms of public support from the vice president. an interesting relationship obviously. coming into 2018 there's a big question. whenever i'm in the house, and asking about two things, and asking about russia and vice president pence. these two things are potentially interconnected. if something were to happen, if there is an indictment, if there's a big wave that comes impeachment, we

ence michael:. pan i talked to scholars who point invoked underbe any circumstances without participation of like president pence -- of vice president pence . in order for that to be the route president trump is removed from office it would require vice president pence push the button. tom: the political peril of all of this is incredible. i feel it we are here at the end we thought 2016 would be the end of the political insanity and it only ramped up. steve: happy new year. gentlemen, thank you for being with us. merry christmas. we appreciate your time. michael: thank you.

>> tonight on afterwards, scott kelly recalls his voyages into "endurance orook c." >> yours was the third servicing mission. >> having been a part of that mission and having become an official hubble hugger, talk to me about would you believe the legacy of hubble is or does it have a legacy? >> you would know better than i how long it's been up there. >> 27 years. >> doing that kind of science on a daily basis -- living not only the scientists experience the data that they get from it, which is most of the stuff you don't see, but also the public

provided andat is let people get a sense for where we are in the universe, which is pretty insignificant if you consider those images. i think it's been a great success. a great first mission for me. >> watch afterwards tonight on 2.span >> next, we spent some time at the white house looking at the holiday tree lighting and other festivities starting with the first lady making holiday decorations with children. ♪