Parties that may have made efforts to coordinate with stones efforts. Here are big questions. Who are the officials that stone talked to. Who was the senior official that he interacted with and most importantly, who was the person that directed that senior official to go to stone for help about what else he has to damage hillary clinton. Cuomos court will deliver over those questions. The white house insists the charges of the president s associates have nothing to do with him. How is that possible . The two men the president has known the best and the longest, stone and manafort taking risks, alleged committing crimes, supposedly on his behalf and he didnt know . My argument on that is ahead. Its a huge night. So lets get after it. I have to say, when indicted most people become a ghost. Youre lucky if you hear from their lawyer, but roger stone is not most people. He has decided not only to enter the safe space of the mothership at fox tonight but hes also willing to come here. Obviously his lawyers arent going to want him to discuss the details of the case, we know that, but theres plenty to get into on the merits. Roger stone, thank you for taking this opportunity, especially on a day like this. After that last panel i feel some need to defend myself. John dean a man i exposed as a perjurier and liar. Comparing his testimony to special prosecutors in the book. Preet, who lied to a federal judge about leaking federal grand jury information calls me a liar, please and the subject of my next book, fake news lets not deal with trading barbs and allegations. They beat me up pretty good. I deserve the opportunity. Thats why youre here tonight. I want you to have an opportunity to address what matters. The panel is not on my show and theyre not here to defend themselves either. So lets move forward. You told me in the past, i do expect that the probe is going to expose me to some type of action at some point but you never expected what happened at your home this morning. Tell me about that. First of all, i always said there could be some process crime. Theres still no evidence whatsoever that i had advanced knowledge of the topic and subject. Or the source. I never received any of the wikileaks disclosures. I never communitied with wikileaks. On the other hand, i dont have a valid passport, either that or its about to expire in the next few days. I have no previous record. I do not own a firearm, i am not violent and there was no need to have 29 fbi agents with assault weapons and hand grenades to smash in my front door. They could have called my attorney and i would have surrendered voluntarily. My wife is deaf. She was in the upstairs bedroom. I had a concern that she did not know what was going on and could be shot or injured. My dogs are not dangerous. Theyre tiny, although they were terrorized. So when you dont have evidence, you use theatrics. It was an overreaction and the real proof of it is the judge only hours later gave me a 250,000 surety bond on my own signature. If youre a flight risk, they wouldnt have done that. He didnt have to give you any bond, but when you say theres no proof. I dont want to dig into the merits. I know the Legal Council you have been given and i understand it. Im surprised they have you out at all. When you say they have no proof, i have not seen an indictment connected to this probe that has more proof than this one does of communication that prove you didnt tell the truth to the congress. The Congressional Panel you were before. False, if you go to my website and watch my interviews i have refuted virtually everything in there and then theres a bunch of things in there that i dont believe are true. No Senior Campaign official told me to find out anything about wick leek. There will be no corroboration for it and no other person in the campaign thats a junior official inquiry of what happened. What i did hear from steve bannon. After a press event on october is 1. Responded to two public records. He said is there would be releases for the following weeks. And the u. S. Related campaign elect or election related material would be released in the weeks before the election. Just to be clear and allow you to respond whats in the indictment, if youre comfortable doing so, youre saying the only communication you ever had with anybody related to the campaign was the one communication that youre saying is already published. It was published by the time and i responded to it in great written detail. My response to him is public information. And that was the only communication . Thats the only one that i recall. The only one that i can find in my emails. I never discussed this with donald trump. So speculation tonight by wolf blitzer and others that trump directed me to do this or directed someone to direct me to do this, speculation in the Washington Post that i ever discussed this, chuck todd asked me about this on meet the press a year ago and i told him no. Thats still your answer. Its still my answer. So theres a 100 chance in your mind that nobody can offer any compelling credible proof that donald trump knew about your efforts to get to wikileaks . Nobody can supply any corroborated truth. People can have their testimony composed, particularly if theyre looking for a reduction in their sentence but there is no proof here. Many of the things in this indictment i already addressed and rebutted in great document and detail. I have a pretty good idea, even though i have 1 million emails and i never deleted anything whatsoever but the idea that they need evidence, they have been in my email and Text Messages and phone calls for two years and read them to my associates before the grand jury, the New York Times reported on january 20th that i was under surveillance. But thats why im wondering you denied any of these things. You had to know they surveilled you and when asking you said i had never communicated with them. And didnt you know they would be monitoring your communications, and theyd get you the way that they did . Heres the irony of that. The Text Messages that were an old cell phone are exculpatory. They prove he was my source and he denies, and that his source is a wikileaks lawyer. I did honestly forget a series of Text Messages that prove that i was telling the truth. But even the ones you were having during the testimony, the same day . That really jumps the shark. Theyre saying have you ever spoken to him about it . You were talking that day. You say, no i dont want to dig into the facts with you because i respect you and your council. First of all, i dont know if thats true, but he is an impressionist. Thats what he does and he does a very funny imitation. Certainly not an implication that he should kill himself or that he should lie. But you did tell him he shouldnt testify, he should plead the fifth. Dont turn anything over to them. Thats why theyre coming after you for tampering. Context. All of those Text Messages need to be seen in some context and when theyre seen in context, theyre light hearted and theyre not serious. The only other thing that was a bright line distinction is they were asking you, who was talking to you . Who was helping you . Why didnt you want to mention corsi . Why did you only want to mention it . Because everything in the indictment is true, but why didnt you want to mention him . You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble. First of all, he said a number of things that werent true. A memo that he prepared for me regarding the business dealings suggests its part of a cover up. Covering up what . He never told me that the emails had been stolen. Theres no corroboration or evidence in writing that proves that. That comes from his memory. He told Tucker Carlson that and many people. He told everyone he knew. He certainly didnt tell me and theres no proof that he did. But you do have the communication between the two of you. Mueller seems to have proof. You know, in all honesty, i dont believe he was ever in touch with wikileaks and the prognostications he made regarding wikileaks on august 2nd all turn out to be incorrect. I dont he had any idea what he was talking about. And he was not a campaign official. So theyre trying to criminalize legitimate journalistic or political inquiry . I dont think thats reasonable. Theyre getting you for lying about it. Theyre not saying that the actions were criminal, theyre saying that you lied about it to congress and they have the proof on paper. Forget about the merits, why put yourself out there like this roger. You had a chance to change the testimony. Why would you even talk to them in the first place and put yourself in this jeopardy . As you know, perjury requires materiality and intent. There is none. But secondarily, wheres the russian collusion . Where is the wikileaks collaboration . Wheres the evidence that i received anything from wikileaks and passed it on to donald trump or the Trump Campaign . It simply does not exist. I agree with you on those basis. I keep qualifying this. I want to keep my word. I want to keep my word and i told you and council that i wouldnt dig into the merits on this but the argument would be the coordination is youre trying to find out whats happening and youre telling the campaign so that they could go ordinate their message to syncronize what they were saying. As the wikileaks got dumped. Trying to find dirt on hillary clinton. To help your friend in the campaign. That might not be a crime, maybe, maybe not, but it is collusion. I wasnt doing that. I will prove that at trial. You said a couple of things already that are important to people. You didnt talk to the president about it and you dont believe he knew anything about it. Address peoples skepticism. He has known you the longest he has the deepest relationship with you, second only to Paul Manafort in terms of the population of this campaign that you introduced him to and you suggested him once again to help with the campaign. Why would people believe that his oldest most trusted adviser was doing Something Like this for him at the same time that he kept talking up wikileaks and yet he knew nothing about it. First of all, he can read and watch television and any this was getting coverage. Any suggestion that we did discuss it would be conjecture, would be supposition. Theres no evidence to that. First of all, and when you talk to him on it, he talks and you listen. We just never discussed this topic and theres been a great effort. I have seen it here on cnn to conflate the emails which are the clinton missing emails. Two completely different things. What was in there that might be of value to the campaign. And im just saying its going to be hard for people to believe the man that knew you best and longest and trusted you the most wouldnt have known what you were doing on his own behalf. You say you would not testify against the president , you would not bare false witness. Interesting phrase. And you are open to telling the truth, and is there any chance that the truth you have to tell could compromise other people that are part of the campaign . Certainly not the president. I have no information. Anybody . I have to know what the circumstances would be. Its highly unlikely. First of all, this idea that i was in regular contact with the campaign after Paul Manafort left is not true. Frankly, i didnt have a high regard for many of the people working there. The people in the grass roots, yes, but the people in washington, many of them had no idea what they were doing and they were not Close Associates of mine. So this idea that i was trying to curry favor with them. I have no reason to do so. I have a relationship with the president of 40 years. Thats a misnomer. Theres a New York Times story to that effect. Trying to burnish my reputation with the campaign. That was completely unnecessary and false. Agreed. Im saying any contact and you brought up Paul Manafort, did you have any idea that he had given poll data to one of his friends and he met with another guy so closely connected to russia about u. S. Policy . No, i never heard of that guy, whatever i have seen his name in the paper. I was not familiar with him prior to the recent stories. And your second question that he also had a secondary meeting with somebody where they discussed u. S. Policy visa vi russia and ukraine and that was period similar to how it had been changed. Were you aware manafort was doing any of that. No. This is a ballsy move youre taking here. Coming on and taking on these charges, once you have been indicted, especially with what i read in this indictment, it makes me think you must believe theres a light at the end of the tunnel. You believe that light is not the train but it is the president and he will pardon you for keeping your mouth shut. Ive never had any discussion with him or communication with him regarding that. I have no idea what he might do. The only persons that i have recommended a pardon for is i wrote a number of opeds as to why i think Julian Assange should be pardoned because i believe he is a journalist and i who does the same thing the New York Times and Washington Post do. Have come out strongly and written one for marcus. Would you accept one . Would you accept one . I dont expect to be convicted, so im not going to address it. I dont address hypothetical questions, as you know. Would you entertain cutting a deal or anything short of going to trial on these charges. Again, youre asking me to answer a hypothetical question without knowing any of the facts. I know that i am innocent. My intention is to plead not guilty and to fight the charges and i have had no discussion with anyone regarding a pardon. Youve never been in this situation before. You have been in a lot of jams over the years but not like this. Are you worried this isnt going to go your way . I believe in god. I know what i have and have not done. I have a great wife and family that support me. I have to raise 2 million through because im not a wealthy man and the Legal Expenses so far have been very damaging and very devastating, plus the censorship of my radio show on info wars. The censorship of my Facebook Page has made the selling of my books more difficult. So i have to raise a lot of money to defend myself. This is very typical. We saw this with general mike flynn where the Legal Expenses are such that you end up pleading guilty to a crime that you did not commit. I dont intend to do that. He admitted to lying about a couple of different material matters, but i take your point and i really appreciate you on a night like tonight doing something very atypical. Coming out and addressing the charges and the indictment against you, and i appreciate that. Well, i was up a little earlier this morning than i had planned. So i hear. I could use a good nights sleep. Thank you very much. We have someone that knows you very well, Kristen Davis coming on the show to talk about what this means to you in her opinion as well. There was roger stone. There you see Kristen Davis. She worked with roger stone. She shares a home with stone. They got searched by the fbi today and she was questioned by muellers grand jury, not stone. Her reactions, next. Dont let your longwear weigh you down. New Infallible Fresh Wear Foundation by loreal. With up to 24 hr wear. Now, get longwear coverage from our most lightweight, breathable formula. For makeup that wont weigh you down. Defies sweat. And transfer. Stays fresh. Feels light. All day tonight. In 30 natural, matte shades. New Infallible Fresh Wear Foundation by loreal paris. Now im gonna tell my momma that im a traveller transitions™ light under control™ transitions™ presents four new colors style colors by transitions™ transitions™ presents four new colors wake up early, o. Slap on some cologne im 85 and i wanna go home just got a job as a lifeguard in savannah im 85 and i wanna go home dropping sick beats, they call me dj nana 85 and i wanna go dont get mad. Get e trade, kiddo. To put on our website . I mean i would have but im a commercial vehicle so i dont have hands. Or a camera. Or a website. Should we franchise . Is the market ready for that . Can we franchise . How do you do that . Meg oh meg we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. Meg hi. Im here for. Im here for the evans wedding. Weve got the cake in the back, so, yeah. Meg thank you. Progressive knows Small Business makes big demands. Youre not gonna make it, youre not gonna make it ask her if we can do her next wedding too so well design the insurance solution that fits your business. On second thought, dont. Ask that. All right, so look this was a very big day concerning roger stone. His home in florida wasnt the only one the fbi searched. Agents also showed up at the duplex he shares with my next guest. Kristen davis once testified before muellers grand jury. Welcome back to primetime. This is not what you want to be doing right now, but you want to support your friend. How concerned are you . I mean, i am concerned. They obviously indicted him already and hes been arrested. Im also concerned because i watch cnn all day long and everyone had an opinion but no one knows roger personally and most of their opinions are based on their own agenda so i think we should put some things in context. Like. First of all, randy, for example person number 2 in the indictment. Person number 2, we all know that, theyre frenimes. They had a horrible off and on relationship for 20 plus years. They threaten each other all the time and then the next month theyre going out to dinner so a lot of these things are taken out of context. Randy has personally threatened stone on many occasions. They got into a fistfight in 2010 on one of my campaign events. Instigated by randy. So i think people are seeing he threatened him, no, no, what he said was im going to take your dog because randy doesnt treat his dog well and stone is an animal advocate. So Everyone Wants to make him out to be this awful guy based on his public image but thats just who he is you dont believe roger ever intended to threaten him not to testify. No beh