Post from Truth Social

Welcome back, America. David Schoen from Jerusalem. We have a question about Washington, D.C. and what's going on in our country, here, directly. We have a special prosecutor. There's nothing special about him. He insists that presidential immunity, that is, a president can't be charged with a crime while he's president, even a phony made-up crime, but whatever it is. The Trump lawyers have said, "That's right, and so you can't charge President Trump for acts he did, or didn't do, as President of the United States after he leaves office because you completely undermine the whole concept of presidential immunity." Presidents will constantly be looking over their shoulders and wondering if they're going to be charged afterwards. So the impact on a chief executive, the ability to decapitate the executive branch through this litigation, he says, "I want to skip the circuit court. I'm going directly to the Supreme Court." The Supreme Court remarkably says, "Well, we may not take up the case, but we might." And they say, "Defense counsel, can we hear what you have to say about this? What do you make of all this?" I think it's outrageous. You raise a number of points here. First of all, the idea of circumventing the appellate court is a horrible decision. But it's also hypocritical. At every juncture of this case, when Judge Chutkin has been presented with a reason to postpone the trial or some other motion in the case, she has said over and over again, "I will not treat you, President Trump, like a special defendant. You will be treated like every other defendant before this court. I won't consider the political interests. I won't consider the public interest in an election. I won't consider your role as a leading candidate. You will move forward like everyone else." That's the opposite of what Jack Smith is saying in his petition. He's asking the Supreme Court to circumvent all of the analysis that a court of appeals would engage in and that every other defendant is entitled to. And what's his reason? Well, he says it's because there might not be sufficient time for the court to hear the case during this term. That's subterfuge. There's no reason for the court to hear it during this term. What he means is there's a possibility the court wouldn't hear it before Donald Trump is elected president. And that's what this is all about in this case. It's a horrible decision. And the decision he cites, by the way, in which the court took expedited review, United States v. Nixon, involved a subpoena, not the fundamental trial issues in the case, the fundamental underlying issue. This is what Nixon v. Fitzgerald was all about in 1982 in the civil context to find absolute immunity on separation of powers grounds and other grounds because the president must be able to act freely. In this case, at all times, President Trump acted under Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, which provides simply that he must faithfully execute the laws. Based on the information he had, he believed that he was acting to investigate what he believed to be election fraud. He was acting consistent with his duty, his oath under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, to execute his office faithfully and so on. That's what he believed. But your point is a president must be able to act freely and not worry about criminal liability over official acts in office. And the Nixon, the Fitzgerald court even said the outer perimeters of the office. This is the heart of the office. It's unbelievable when you look at this case, and let me just say they violate his First Amendment rights. The circuit court panel, two Obama appointees, one Biden appointee, says, OK, you can criticize Jack Smith, but that's it. That is a ridiculous interpretation of the First Amendment. And that First Amendment exists especially if you're a defendant and the government's trying to put you in prison for the rest of your life, especially when you're in the middle of a presidential election, but apparently not according to these courts. Violation of his First Amendment right, Fifth Amendment right. They took from him attorney-client privilege with his lead lawyer, so the lead lawyer had to testify for the government, and his notes are presented to the grand jury as well as his testimony. Sixth Amendment violation, the right to competent counsel where they're rushing the case in five months where you're talking about 12 million documents, and that's their side. The other side, the defense has a right to try and build a case with documents and witnesses do. And what's the rush, David Schoen? There's no emergency. There's no national security issue. There is nothing. Final words. I also believe they've stripped him of his right to a public trial, and the media and the public citizens' independent right to that public trial. He must be permitted to discuss the lack of integrity of this prosecution and of the prosecutors. I have a sanctions motion going against J.P. Cooney, who's Jack Smith's deputy chief counsel for lying to a federal court in order to get records. He must be able to speak on these matters of public interest to the greatest extent possible. And the court always says in other situations, when the government writes a speaking indictment, laying out unproven allegations in detail that everyone can download, well, a jury, we can do that in voir dire. We can search out whether a jury has been influenced by that. The same thing with any comments President Trump or his lawyers make.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.