Post from Truth Social

Criminal defense attorney David Shown is with me now. David, welcome. As you have heard and undoubtedly seen and anticipated, James and her defenders say that the charges are motivated by politics and Trump's pledge of retribution. Is that all it is? Do you buy it? - I don't buy it. I mean, first of all, that ought to sort of fall on deaf ears given that she campaigned on a promise of getting Trump that sort of thing. So I don't think that's going to go very far. And nor did the selective prosecution-- - Will that fall on legal deaf ears or just the court of public opinion? Like, would a judge see it that way? - I think because, I think so. I think that, first of all, I think it's relevant. But secondly, I think that the vindictive prosecution and selective prosecution claims that were brought in the cases that she brought didn't go any place either despite the, you know, campaign promises and, you know, threats to get down to Trump. But listen, nobody likes a weaponized justice system, but this indictment speaks for itself. I think, I know you mentioned, you know, the government's credibility will be an issue, but I think the government will just rely on the documents in this case. And I think, very interesting point you raised about the line in the indictment about what she represented to the IRS. That is that she told the IRS it was an investment property, no days, personal days in the property and so on. I think that's relevant to proving that she allegedly knowingly lied in the documents to the mortgage company in which she said she was going to live in the house and wouldn't rent it out. So they can't have it coming and going. And if she's right on the other, she may well face tax fraud charges because she got an advantage from treating it like an investment property for tax purposes. I'd add one more thing. I wouldn't be surprised, first of all, most important thing is presumption of innocence. - Of course. - She's presumed to be innocent with any defendant and she has a fine lawyer who will make that case for her. But I also have to say, I think the prosecutor in this case was very impressive to put this together because it's a case that clearly is based on documents. And I also would say the media got it wrong beforehand. The media and her lawyer were all talking about a property on which she allegedly lied on a power of attorney, said it was a primary residence, but that that was undercut by other documents she filed. This looks like a completely different property. That's not what this case is about, according to this. And what I would ask is if she, as alleged, lied on the mortgage documents, what about other things? Did she put in an insurance policy on the property? What did she represent to the insurance company? Did she put in any claim? She could well face insurance fraud charges, but we don't know. We have to see the evidence. - You do describe this at the, where we are, procedurally, the infancy of an indictment. And we know you can't have a superseding indictment. It's a fancy way of saying, I'm gonna add stuff to it. You could also, though, have the potential for dismissals based on a number of factors. We don't know where things stand right now. - That's right. - I am intrigued by you saying you are impressed by the prosecution of this, particularly given the fact that we know that Ms. Halligan, who is an attorney, and we're all presumed generalists, you know that, but she wasn't a prosecutor, but she's heading the EDVA, and the person that she took over the job from was ousted because he thought there wasn't sufficient evidence to bring any indictment against, I guess, Comey or Letitia James. Why do you think this should be viewed without skepticism given two weeks ago, they thought they had insufficient evidence? - Well, first of all, I don't know that we really know what happened on the scene. Remember, Mr. Comey had a relative working in that office. Did that influence a decision in the office? - A different division. - Was that designed for the office? - National Security Division, I understand. It was, I think there was a son-in-law who's not there. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the person who was the head of the office, who was the U.S. attorney here. - No, no, no. I understand, but that may well have influenced the decision. I don't know Mr. Seabird, and I really don't know why he was ousted. If he was ousted, from media reports, it appears, he was ousted. What I would say about Ms. Halligan is, though, this isn't just her indictment. She came on the scene and quickly, I'm sure, got together with agents. This wasn't put together by herself. She had to have worked with agents to put this case together, and a grand jury issued the indictment. Now, we all know it may not be so difficult to get a grand jury to indict. It's a one-sided process, but she put it together, and the grand jurors heard the evidence, not just what she had to say, one would think. I wasn't there. Nobody else was there, obviously. But we'll see how it plays out. But again, it doesn't rely on her credibility. It will rely on the documents in this case, and it's a serious case. These are 30-year charges. - It is very serious. No, I don't, I'm not dismissive of it at all. I mean, no one wants their name on the other side of a federal indictment, least of where somebody who is a prosecutor, like a New York attorney general. But I do wonder and have questions, knowing that this is, it's, we don't have all the information about how they will ultimately present their case at trial when there's a different burden of proof. But I am skeptical about how a potential juror might see all of this in the political context, because try as we might, that will come in. What do you think? - I'm not sure that evidence will come in. It didn't come in in a number of other cases that the idea of political prosecution-- - No, no, not the evidence. I mean, I don't want to cut you off, but I don't mean the evidence when I say that. I'm talking about the optics will be contemplated by jurors. - Could be, but on the other hand, maybe the optics will be if the chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York knowingly, as you pointed out, lied on documents that she filed to get advantage. And the difference here is, by the way, the bank did suffer a loss according to the indictment. They suffered a loss in the interest payments that they would have gotten at $18,000, as you pointed out over the course of a loan. That's also why there's a forfeiture process. But if the chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York knowingly lied on documents, then I think that should outrage people, and especially on the backdrop of someone who campaigned on I'm gonna get Donald Trump and this theme of no one is above the law. I don't think you've seen the end of this thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see more evidence and maybe a superseding indictment, but we just don't know. - We have seen far from the end of this, but it's the end of our conversation for now. We'll talk again. David Schoen, thank you. - Thank you very much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.