Newsmax host on James Comey indictment: Trump is “a New York developer. And if this is retaliation, it's retaliation. I can't blame him for that.”
Published
Citation
From the April 29, 2026, edition of Newsmax's Rob Schmitt Tonight
ROB SCHMITT (HOST): Roger, your reaction to the double indictment here.
ROGER STONE (GUEST): Well, first of all, the crime of threatening the life of a president is far more serious than the false charges that I was accused of — lying under oath to Congress about Russian collusion that we now know definitively never actually happened. So, I do have to question why Comey was allowed to peacefully turn himself in instead of having 29 heavily armed FBI agents wearing night goggles and brandishing fully automatic assault weapons surround his home at 6:00 o'clock in the morning with a CNN camera crew in tow. This is the second time for Mr. Comey. He only slipped the punch in the Eastern District of Virginia because three federal judges violated both the canon of ethics and their oath of office by dismissing the prosecutor claiming that she had been incorrectly appointed. They're wrong, by the way. That will be won on appeal. But in that case, Comey lied under oath about whether he had directed a third party to direct to leak privilege or sealed information to The New York Times when there was an email message to a colleague of his, Dan Richmond, which he told him to do exactly that.
SCHMITT: Victor, you know, when I first saw this, I kinda scoffed. I'm thinking it's an Instagram post. It just seems — it seems ridiculous. But, then I actually thought about all of the nonsense that they put him through. And then I thought, you know what? He's a New York developer. And if this is retaliation, it's retaliation. I can't blame him for that. How do you see it?
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (GUEST): Well, I think the earlier indictment was a much stronger one. He had 245 times he lied to House oversight committees that he didn't remember. And then they said, well, the prosecutor was not properly authorized to indict him and statute of limitations. But the more you think about this, he's a Machiavellian character. So he wants to threaten the president, but he wants to use a vicarious accidental finding to do it. So, then he can say either he doesn't know what 86 is and, of course, the chief law enforcement officer does know that.
SCHMITT: Of course.
HANSON: And second, nobody ever finds messages like that. And third, there's a little bit of wrinkle to this because when the attorney general's office announced the indictment, people were kinda startled. But then he said this was a long investigation, and we examined a lot of messaging. So what I'm getting at is if there is something more and what would that more be? If he said something in a private email that didn't come under attorney client privilege and it said maybe to his friend or his daughter, this was cool, or this is neat, or this is a good way to threaten the president. If he did any of that, and I think these people are adept enough in the DOJ that they would know that he would squirm out of this ostensibly unless he's referred to it in communications because they did mention that. They said we've done an exhaustive investigation, months long about his communication. So let's withhold judgment until we find out.