- 6 months ago
Category
✨
PeopleTranscript
00:00Criminal defense attorney David Shone is with me now. David, welcome. As you have heard and
00:05undoubtedly seen and anticipated, James and her defenders say that the charges are motivated by
00:11politics and Trump's pledge of retribution. Is that all it is? Do you buy it?
00:18I don't buy it. I mean, first of all, that ought to sort of fall on deaf ears,
00:22given that she campaigned on a promise of getting Trump, that sort of thing. So
00:27I don't think that's going to go very far. And nor did that fall on legal deaf ears or just the
00:33court of public opinion. Would a judge see it that way? I think because I think so. I think that
00:38first of all, I think it's relevant. But secondly, I think that the vindictive prosecution and selective
00:42prosecution claims that were brought in the cases that she brought didn't go anyplace either,
00:46despite the campaign promises and threats to get Donald Trump. But listen, nobody likes a
00:52weaponized justice system. But this indictment speaks for itself, I think. I know you mentioned,
00:57you know, the government's credibility will be an issue. But I think the government will just rely
01:01on the documents in this case. And I think very interesting point you raised about the line in
01:07the indictment about what she represented to the IRS. That is that she told the IRS there was
01:13investment property, no days, personal days in the property and so on. I think that's relevant to
01:18proving that she allegedly knowingly lied in the documents to the mortgage company in which she
01:25said she was going to live in the house and wouldn't rent it out. So they can't have it coming
01:29and going. And if she's right on the other, she may well fakes tax fraud charges because she got
01:34an advantage from treating it like an investment property for tax purposes. I'd add one more thing.
01:40I wouldn't be surprised. First of all, most important thing is presumption of innocence.
01:44Of course.
01:44She's presumed to be innocent with any defendant. And she has a fine lawyer who will make that
01:48case for her. But I also have to say, I think the prosecutor in this case was very impressive
01:52to put this together because it's a case that clearly is based on documents. And I also would
01:57say the media got it wrong beforehand. The media and her lawyer were all talking about a property
02:03on which she allegedly lied on a power of attorney, said it was a primary residence, but that that was
02:09undercut by other documents she filed. This looks like a completely different property. That's not what
02:14this case is about, according to this. And what I would ask is, if she, as alleged, lied on the
02:21mortgage documents, what about other things? Did she put in an insurance policy on the on the
02:27property? What did she represent to the insurance company? Did she put in any claim? She could well
02:31face insurance fraud charges, but we don't know. We do describe this at the where we are procedurally,
02:38the infancy of an indictment. And we know you can't have superseding indictments, a fancy way of
02:42saying, I'm going to add stuff to it. You could also, though, have the potential for dismissals based
02:47on a number of factors. We don't know where things stand right now. But I am intrigued by you saying
02:53you are impressed by the prosecution of this, particularly given the fact that we know that
02:59Ms. Halligan, who is an attorney, and we're all presumed generalists, you know that, but she wasn't a
03:04prosecutor, but she's heading the EDVA. And the person that she took over the job from was ousted because
03:10he thought there wasn't sufficient evidence to bring any indictment against, I guess, Comey or
03:14Letitia James. Why do you think this should be viewed without skepticism, given two weeks ago they thought
03:22they had insufficient evidence? Well, first of all, I don't know that we really know what happened on the
03:28scene. Remember, Mr. Comey had a relative working in that office. Did that influence a decision in the
03:34office? A different division. National Security Division, I understand. I think there was a son-in-law
03:38who'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
03:42U.S. Attorney there. No, no, no. I understand, but that may well have influenced the decision. I don't
03:48know, Mr. Siebert, and I really don't know why he was ousted, if he was ousted. And I do it from media
03:53reports, it appears he was ousted. What I would say about Ms. Halligan is, though, this isn't just her
03:58indictment. She came on the scene and quickly, I'm sure, got together with agents. This wasn't put
04:03together by herself. She had to have worked with agents to put this case together, and a grand jury
04:09issued the indictment. Now, we all know it may not be so difficult to get a grand jury to indict. You know,
04:14it's a one-sided process. But she put it together, and the grand jurors heard the evidence, not just what
04:20she had to say, one would think. I wasn't there. Nobody else was there, obviously. But we'll see how it plays
04:25out. But again, it doesn't rely on her credibility. It will rely on the documents in this case. And it's a serious
04:31case. These are 30-year charges. And a forfeiture. No, I don't, I'm not dismissive of it at all. I
04:38mean, no one wants their name on the other side of a federal indictment, least of which somebody who
04:42is a prosecutor like a New York attorney general. But I do wonder and have questions, knowing that
04:48this is, it's, we don't have all the information about how they will ultimately present their case
04:53at trial when there's a different burden of proof. But I am skeptical about how a potential juror
04:59might see all of this in the political context. Because try as we might, that will come in. What
05:05do you think? I'm not sure that evidence will come in. It didn't come in in a number of other cases
05:10that the idea of political prosecution. No, no, not the evidence. I mean, I don't, I'm gonna cut you
05:15off. I don't mean the evidence when I say that. I'm talking about the optics will be contemplated by
05:19jurors. Could be. But on the other hand, maybe the optics will be if the chief law enforcement
05:26officer of the state of New York, knowingly, as you pointed out, lied on documents that she filed
05:32to get advantage. And the difference here is, by the way, the bank did suffer a loss, according to
05:36the indictment. They suffered a loss in the interest payments that they would have gotten at $18,000,
05:41as you pointed out, over the course of a loan. That's also why there's a forfeiture process. But if
05:45the chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York knowingly lied on documents, then I think
05:51that should outrage people. And especially on the backdrop of someone who campaigned on,
05:56I'm going to get Donald Trump and this theme of no one is above the law. I don't think you've seen
06:01the end of this thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see more evidence, maybe a superseding indictment,
06:05but we just don't know. We have seen far from the end of this, but it's the end of our
06:10conversation for now. We'll talk again. David Schoen, thank you. Thank you very much.
Comments