# Post ts_112100398005271024 - Post ID: `ts_112100398005271024` - Platform: Truth Social - Posted: 2024-03-15T15:25:27.022Z (UTC) - Deleted: no - Repost: no - Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_112100398005271024 - Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_112100398005271024/analysis - Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/ts_112100398005271024.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording) ## Post text > David Schoen and James Trusty join Laura Ingraham, a must watch! ## What the media says **Video transcript** (6:48), transcribed automatically, so names and numbers may be wrong. Speakers aren't identified, so a voice in it may not be his: > Joining me now to unpack all of this — I'm sorry, Fonny, Fonny, Fonny, I keep saying the wrong thing, sorry about that — is David Schoen, former lead counsel in Trump's impeachment case, and Jim Trusty, another former Trump attorney. Both are intimately familiar with the cases against the former president. We're going to get to Georgia in a second, gentlemen, but I wanted to get Jim's take first on what took place in Miami today in the classified docs case. Judge Eileen Cannon has denied Trump's motion to dismiss, Jim. She said, essentially, that the various phrases that were being contested as too vague, phrases like "entitled to receive" or "related to the national defense," "authorized persons," that there were too many outstanding legal questions for her to grant the motion to dismiss. Do you agree with her ultimate finding there? Well, I do somewhat, and that might be surprising, but the reason why, she's taking a very incremental approach towards everything, towards scheduling, towards resolution of discovery issues. And that's what we're used to in federal courts. That's what we actually want from our judges, is to decide the issues that are ripe at the time they need to be decided. So what she did is she dismissed this without prejudice, saying we can circle back when we're dealing with jury instructions and decide if there's really a constitutional problem with the charges for vagueness. That's a very difficult standard to meet in general. But the key thing, I think, today wasn't that. It was that she keeps talking and asking questions about selective prosecution. You know, you mentioned weaponization. That's the real—I mean, that's an uphill battle normally, but here, the way DOJ has treated President Trump when it comes to Mar-a-Lago, that's a ripe issue that's going to land in her wheelhouse at some point, and it could be a big one. So I don't think it was a bad day for President Trump just to temporarily lose one kind of nuanced, difficult constitutional issue for the time being. Yeah. And it's pretty funny to watch, David, the reaction from some of the Trump critics. They act like they won the case today. I mean, a first-year law student knows how difficult it is to have a motion to dismiss granted when there's a dispute as to some of the underlying facts, and she essentially wrote that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still fluctuating definitions of statutory terms and phrases as charged, et cetera. I just think this was a very conservative ruling on her part. I mean, a lot of people want this to go away. I mean, I think it should go away, but I think this is actually quite smart of this judge in this case. I don't think this is a loss at all for President Trump, and I think Jim is right that she handled it in the proper way. He has, in this case, unlike many other cases, some really serious arguments for dismissal. They're going to have to confront the mens rea element here, the mindset willfully in the context of the Presidential Records Act. You know, a lot of the commentators want to say, "Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with this case," and so on. They're just wrong. If you look at the 2012 decision from Amy Berman Jackson in D.C., a real Trump hater on which she said, "The statute is silent as to who has the right to designate, except insofar as it names the executive as the only person with the right to designate personal versus Presidential Records while that person's in office." That goes, if nothing else, to the mens rea as to whether President Trump willfully violated the law, and willfully means doing something of reasonable belief was criminal. He had people telling him, people who should know, telling him that he had the right to designate these as personal records. So that issue, I think the Evan Corcoran issue, his records, the Judge Howell in D.C. ordered turned over in virtually wholesale fashion despite the attorney-client privilege. I think that ought to lead to a dismissal. I think the grand jury was tainted by that evidence. So there are many issues in this case. This wasn't a loss for President Trump. Now, it's just hilarious to watch, especially non-lawyers, and obviously we're all lawyers, but it's not that complicated, really. When you boil it down to the facts, I just want to play one sound bite for you, Jim, because this made me scream laughing. This was the media in mourning when they realized that some of the charges against Trump were dropped in that Georgia case, and then it ultimately kind of is foreboding for the future of Fonny Willis watch. I just wonder if he would go there, if he would dismiss charges if he's planning to throw out the case or remove it from Fonny Willis to try to look on the bright side. In many ways, this potentially could streamline the case. We're having this conversation against the backdrop of her potential disqualification. This could be sort of death by a thousand cuts. I mean, Jim, they are just trying to find any little thread to kind of try to give some credibility, which is obviously a disaster of a case that was brought by Ms. Willis and her paramour. Yeah, I mean, they may be watching the last few bubbles escape the Titanic on the way down when it comes to Georgia. I mean, I think that this judge did a very, very cerebral job of addressing a challenging motion and he had an elected district attorney perjuring herself in court, disrespectfully doing so. He kept this calm. He waded through the facts. He's wading through the legal issues. And the beauty of this one from President Trump's perspective is if it's dismissed without prejudice, which is usually almost a Pyrrhic victory for the defense because they go back to the grand jury and they recharge it. But if he dismisses it without prejudice and the disqualification kicks in of the entire office, which is what Georgia law says happens under the circumstances, nobody is going to pick this thing up if they have any sense at all. No other DA is going to say, Oh, let me jump into that, you know, morass and handle the same case. David, you agree it's a dead cat bounce at that point? I think so. I really don't know. It depends on who they select and who does the selecting at the end of the day. But I'm going to tell you, this judge is onto something with the charges that he dismissed. His problem with them was one can't really know how to defend against them because they're not specific enough. That's a real issue in the New York case. The New York case is a cockamamie felony by charging a misdemeanor to commit a target act. The grand jury never specified what that target act is. Is it to affect the election? Was it for tax purposes? That can't be cured by a bill of particulars. I think that's fatally defective to the New York case. I hope the lawyers will latch on to that. Oh, that's fascinating. The bootstrapping isn't going to work for them. David and Jim, thanks so much. ## Media - video: https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/112/100/397/535/655/476/original/9f55c7e72d2183c9.mp4 ## Engagement - Likes: 8,926 - Reposts: 2,560 - Replies: 461 - Views: unknown - Metrics collected: 2026-02-01T01:19:51.365Z (UTC) # Analysis _Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-03-21T05:07:23.473Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._ # Post Analysis: ts_112100398005271024 — March 15, 2024 ## Overview A minimal promotional post directing followers to a Fox News segment featuring former Trump attorneys David Schoen and James Trusty appearing with host Laura Ingraham. The post is accompanied by a video clip. On its own, this post carries minimal clinical weight; its significance is contextual—it functions as part of a coordinated same-day messaging cluster centered on legal grievance and victimhood framing. --- ## Authorship Attribution **Verdict: Aide-written (high confidence)** UTC timestamp 15:25:27 converts to approximately **11:25 AM Eastern Time** at Mar-a-Lago (Trump's most likely location in mid-March 2024, during primary campaign season). This falls squarely within business hours. The post exhibits all Scavino-pattern markers: correct grammar, no typos, polished sentence structure, event/media promotion format, and professional imperative ("a must watch!"). No emotional reactivity, no ALL CAPS, no stream-of-consciousness drift. The sole informal element—the absent subject ("a must watch!" with implicit "this is")—is a common social media convention rather than an authentic Trumpian digression. --- ## Psychological State and Context Within the day's posting cluster, this item functions as a **surrogate amplifier**: rather than Trump speaking directly, he forwards favorable legal commentary through allies. Schoen (impeachment defense attorney) and Trusty (who resigned as Trump's attorney during the classified documents investigation in June 2023) are proxies who can articulate the legal persecution narrative without requiring Trump's direct voice. The surrounding posts establish the day's psychological theme: "TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE," the J6 committee framed as a "media farce to get Trump," and electoral messaging. This post slots into the **victimhood/grievance** sequence—the implied message is that his former attorneys will validate the narrative that he is being politically prosecuted. **Trigger:** Supply-seeking and maintenance—no acute narcissistic injury visible in this specific post, though the broader cluster suggests ongoing processing of legal vulnerabilities. **Narcissistic state:** Grandiose-adjacent through proxy. Rather than direct self-aggrandizement, the post recruits legal allies to perform the validation function. This is a mature deployment of surrogate narcissistic supply. --- ## Defense Mechanisms - **Rationalization** (neurotic): Framing attorney appearances as newsworthy civic commentary normalizes what is essentially partisan legal advocacy. - **Projection** (immature, contextual from cluster): The "two tiers of justice" framing in surrounding posts projects prosecutorial overreach onto opponents. --- ## Rhetorical Analysis The post is minimalist but performs a specific function: it lends the weight of "former attorneys" (implied legal credibility) to whatever narrative is being advanced on Ingraham's show. "Must watch" is a mild imperative, the weakest form of audience mobilization. No dehumanizing language, no violent imagery, no stochastic terrorism indicators. --- ## Cognitive Assessment One sentence, simple syntax, no production errors. Not a useful data point for cognitive assessment—this is aide-composed and doesn't reflect spontaneous language production. --- ## Fact Verification | Claim | Verdict | Evidence | |-------|---------|----------| | "David Schoen is a Trump attorney" | **True** | David Schoen represented Trump as lead defense counsel in both Senate impeachment trials (January 2021 and February 2021). | | "James Trusty is a Trump attorney" | **Mostly True** | James Trusty served as one of Trump's lead attorneys during the classified documents investigation but resigned in June 2023, approximately 9 months before this post. He is a former rather than current attorney at time of posting. | Overall Veracity: 90% ## Danger Assessment **None.** This is routine media promotion with no threat indicators. --- ## Summary *Not clinically significant in isolation.* This post is a low-affect, aide-authored promotional item that serves a surrogate-supply function within a broader same-day grievance cluster. Its psychological interest is contextual rather than intrinsic. ## Authorship Analysis **Aide-Written** (score: 10%) ### Indicators - 11:25 AM ET posting time (business hours at Mar-a-Lago) - No typos or misspellings - Clean grammatical structure - Event/media promotion format typical of Scavino - No ALL CAPS or emotional reactivity ## Psychological Profile ### State **Grandiose State** **Trigger:** Maintenance (Ongoing legal proceedings and the post-nomination media cycle) Sentiment: +0.20 ### Clinical **Malignant Narcissism:** - Narcissistic: 20% - Antisocial: 0% - Paranoid: 10% - Sadism: 0% **Defense Mechanisms:** - rationalization (neurotic) - displacement (neurotic) **Cognitive Complexity:** - Complexity: 15% **Parasocial Techniques:** - Imperative framing ('must watch') to direct follower behavior - Credentialing surrogates to lend legal authority to persecution narrative ## Fact Checks (2) _The model's verdicts from 2026-03-21._ > David Schoen is a Trump attorney **TRUE** David Schoen represented Trump as lead defense counsel in both Senate impeachment trials (January 2021 and February 2021). Sources: General knowledge — Senate impeachment trial records > James Trusty is a Trump attorney **MOSTLY TRUE** James Trusty served as one of Trump's lead attorneys during the classified documents investigation but resigned in June 2023, approximately 9 months before this post. He is a former rather than current attorney at time of posting. Sources: General knowledge — documented resignation June 6, 2023 Overall Veracity: 90% ## Tags - media_promotion (90%) - surrogate_amplification (80%) - legal_grievance_adjacent (50%) - aide_authored (90%) - fox_news_loop (70%) ## That day _From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._ **Post-Nomination Triumphalism Peaks as Nathan Wade Resignation Becomes Victory Lap Centerpiece** Trump spent March 15th in a confident, expansive mood — three days after clinching the Republican nomination and with a major legal development breaking in his favor. The morning opened with a rapid burst of endorsement posts quoting Republican allies, punctuated by a brief flash of anger about a "two-tier justice system." The day's main event was the resignation of Nathan Wade from the Georgia prosecution team, which Trump seized on with visible relish, mocking the prosecutors by name and calling for Jack Smith to be fired next. He closed the evening at a UFC event in Miami with Dana White, capping a day that felt more like a victory tour than a campaign schedule. Full digest for 2024-03-15: https://trump.fm/date/2024-03-15/analysis ## Citation - APA: Trump, D. J. (2024, March 15). David Schoen and James Trusty join Laura... [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_112100398005271024 - MLA: Trump, Donald J. "David Schoen and James Trusty join Laura Ingraham, a must..." Truth Social, 15 Mar. 2024. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_112100398005271024. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026. - Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "David Schoen and James Trusty join Laura Ingraham, a must...," Truth Social, March 15, 2024, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_112100398005271024. ## For agents - Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt - API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json - MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth) - This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_112100398005271024 - Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_112100398005271024 - All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_112100398005271024 - Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2024-03-15 - The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_112100398005271024.md?analysis=false _Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._