J6 IS THE MARXIST DEMS’ EFFORT TO DISTRACT VOTERS FROM THE ELECTION THAT THE GOP WILL WIN OVERWHELMINGLY
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
164.54457
Summary
David Schoen, who represented President Trump in his second impeachment case, and who represents Steve Bannon in his contempt of Congress case, joins us to discuss the similarities between the Bannon case and the Watergate scandal, and the ongoing special counsel investigation into the Trump administration.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs, and welcome to The Great America Show.
00:00:04.740
Truth, justice, and the American way are our creed here, and that means we have absolutely
00:00:10.800
nothing to do with the folks who make up the Biden White House and administration.
00:00:16.380
We do watch them, though, and fairly carefully, as discomforting as such an enterprise is,
00:00:22.540
as they explain that two straight quarters of negative GDP doesn't a recession make
00:00:28.320
in the Biden White House. Their economists don't even bother with PhDs in economics.
00:00:34.720
They have law degrees. All the better to help them argue the innocence of this impaired president
00:00:40.580
for the suffering of tens of millions of Americans, all as a result of his Marxist-dim
00:00:46.140
economic policies and the very real possibility that we will have two quarters in a row completed
00:00:53.580
of contracted GDP at the end of this month. Of course, this is the same administration
00:01:01.000
whose Department of Homeland Security secretary declares the border with Mexico is under control.
00:01:08.200
Secretary Mayorkas repeats the declaration, even as millions of illegals and truckloads of deadly
00:01:15.100
drugs, especially fentanyl, pour across the border unchecked. Mayorkas and President Biden lie
00:01:22.240
with impunity, as does the entire administration. We Americans are bombarded with lies these days
00:01:30.380
nonstop. And not all of those lies necessarily originate in government. Ours or theirs. But lies
00:01:38.620
abound in all kinds of national media. And publishing is rife with lies as well. And I want to credit
00:01:46.640
Jack Wolfson of the National Review for catching the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary's capitulation
00:01:53.600
to the trans agenda. Webster's adding a secondary definition to the word female, which defines
00:02:00.900
female as, quote, having a gender identity that is the opposite of male, end quote. And so it goes in
00:02:10.200
the increasingly ambiguous and often confusing politics of language, Marxist-dim style, and the
00:02:17.300
culture war's rage. No better culture warrior than Steve Bannon, leading political podcaster host of
00:02:24.640
Steve Bannon's War Room, former aide to President Trump, his chief strategist, in fact, and now in a
00:02:31.740
legal battle with a highly illegitimate January 6th committee and the politically corrupt Biden
00:02:37.640
Department of Justice, which charged Bannon with two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing a
00:02:44.400
subpoena. Crushing Bannon's constitutional rights, denying him due process throughout, a D.C. federal
00:02:51.820
court trial resulted in two guilty verdicts against him. Our guest today is distinguished civil rights
00:02:58.160
attorney David Schoen, who represented President Trump in his second impeachment, and who represents
00:03:04.240
Steve Bannon in his contempt of Congress case. David, welcome to the Great America Show, and thank you for
00:03:11.000
being with us today to help us understand what the Marxist Dems leading the Democrat Party and the Deep State
00:03:17.960
and the Justice Department are doing to Steve Bannon, and why every American should care passionately and
00:03:25.480
deeply about what happens in this case. The only analog I can think of in American history that's
00:03:32.780
reasonably close to the Bannon trial are the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s.
00:03:40.240
I think you're absolutely right, and first of all, thank you very much for having me. I've been a long-time
00:03:44.800
fan of yours. No, I think you're right. You know, it sounds overly dramatic, frankly, because that was such a
00:03:50.580
checkered time in our history, but I don't think we've seen anything else like it since then, and I do
00:03:55.880
think there are some parallels to be drawn, as many scholars have drawn, but part of this, I think,
00:04:00.900
results from the idea that right now, with this administration, we have no checks and balances in
00:04:05.380
place, frankly. It seems to be of all one mindset, policy-wise, and fundamental constitutional
00:04:12.980
principles being thrown out the door, including, in, for example, the Bannon case, the concept of
00:04:18.320
separation of powers, when privilege was invoked, but a number of things, and it's tragic to see,
00:04:24.460
but, you know, we have to survive it. Yeah, indeed. Representing now, Steve Bannon, and previously
00:04:33.180
you led the president's defense in the second impeachment. This is, it seems, one continuum from
00:04:42.940
at the, at the latest, August of 2016, to this very moment, and we know it'll go beyond, obviously.
00:04:53.020
Your thoughts about the similarities to the impeachments of special counsel, three years of FBI
00:04:59.820
investigation? I hear the president's credibility question, but he is the only one who emerged through
00:05:06.200
that entire period with his credibility intact, and so many others, whether they're in the Department
00:05:14.620
of Justice, the FBI, or whether they are sitting on the impeachment committee, known liars, certified
00:05:23.560
liars, as a result of the actions they brought. Right. You know, let me make one thing clear from
00:05:28.500
the start, because people try to pit and hold me or others. I represented the Democratic Party twice,
00:05:34.480
including this year. I represented a socialist candidate for president in 2020, challenging
00:05:40.540
ballot access laws. I'm interested in the issues. I am interested in our constitution. That's what
00:05:45.420
I've dedicated my career to. So this has nothing to do, in my view, at least, from my perspective,
00:05:50.420
my involvement with politics. Now, to answer your question, I think that, you know, it sounds funny,
00:05:56.340
but a common thread with all of this takes me back to a comment that Jerry Nadler made several years
00:06:02.140
ago during the Trump administration, and he said, we have to do these things because we can't trust
00:06:07.640
the voters. That's about as sick a commentary on our democracy, especially from a sitting
00:06:13.040
congressman, as I can remember. We do trust our voters, and we follow the voters' will. So a
00:06:18.260
parallel between the second impeachment, at least, and I believe the first impeachment, and what's going
00:06:23.080
on now with this January 6th sham committee, in my view, illegitimate from its formation, on a very
00:06:29.500
important subject, and that's cheating the American public. But anyway, a parallel is, barring President
00:06:35.160
Trump from running for office again, and certainly from becoming president again, is the number one
00:06:40.160
agenda figure. They made no bones about it in the second impeachment. Remember, you know, he was out
00:06:45.360
of office already, but they still insisted on the impeachment, and they had a theory for that
00:06:49.840
impeachment that would have meant that any former president from George Washington on could be
00:06:55.580
impeached today. Once he's out of office, if they decided today that George Washington's policies were
00:07:00.680
bad, literally in their brief, they could impeach him. So that's how far removed we've come from
00:07:06.960
common sense and fundamental constitutional principles. And right now, as I say, we just don't have any checks
00:07:14.580
No checks and balances. We also have peculiar statements from the judge. And to remind everyone,
00:07:22.240
Steve Bannon didn't stand up and defend himself in that quote-unquote trial. But it wasn't on trial
00:07:30.840
before the committee, and their issues, the substance of what was at work here on the part of this
00:07:37.880
committee, never, ever entered the proceedings, did they?
00:07:43.000
That's exactly right. Listen, the government overreached. They had overly aggressive prosecutors who
00:07:49.040
were sort of trying to compensate for their abilities, I think. And they convinced the judge
00:07:53.600
to go along with that sort of approach. I'm surprised and disappointed because this is a
00:07:57.640
very good judge, very fair, good demeanor, and so on. Very smart fellow. But he bought into a theory,
00:08:04.600
I think, that was misguided. So one week before the trial started, July 11th, the trial started July
00:08:09.840
18th, the judge responded to the motions to dismiss in the case and barred every substantive defense
00:08:15.680
that Mr. Bannon had. I took the position within our team then. I was hired to be lead counsel.
00:08:20.800
I took the position within the team. First, I said to the judge, judge, by entering this order,
00:08:25.360
you will require me to provide ineffective assistance of counsel, failing the Sixth Amendment,
00:08:31.140
guarantee the defendant has. And therefore, within our team, I took the position that I would not be a
00:08:35.840
party to that. I would not do the opening and closing. I would not examine witnesses. I would continue
00:08:40.860
to raise the legal issues. And that's the role I played. Co-counsel in the case, Evan Corcoran,
00:08:46.420
took a different position. He had a strategy that he had worked out. And he agreed to go forward with
00:08:51.160
the examinations. So I credit him for making that decision. We each had to make our own decision.
00:08:56.800
But yes, the judge ruled in this case that the jury could not hear from Mr. Bannon. In fact,
00:09:02.180
it was prohibited from considering Mr. Bannon's reasons for his response to the subpoena. And those
00:09:07.500
reasons were, in a nutshell, his lawyer got the subpoena from the committee. Former President
00:09:12.320
Trump invoked executive privilege. The lawyer told Mr. Bannon, executive privilege has been
00:09:17.580
invoked. You may not comply with this subpoena. It's not your privilege to waive. Whether he
00:09:22.500
construed it too broadly, whether he took the proper approach or not, the jury never got to consider
00:09:27.640
that that's what Mr. Bannon had before him. And the lawyer wrote to the congressional committee
00:09:31.980
saying Mr. Bannon wants to comply. What he would suggest is either work out the privilege issue
00:09:37.780
with former President Trump, or let's go before a judge in a civil enforcement proceeding. That's
00:09:43.220
what Congress does all the time, because only the courts can be the neutral arbiter. In this case,
00:09:48.540
and this is why another example I say of the over-politicalization of the Justice Department,
00:09:53.060
these prosecutors argued to the jury that Mr. Bannon defied Congress's order. Doesn't matter that
00:09:59.660
executive privilege was invoked. They said, this is like telling the referee on a soccer field
00:10:04.360
that he or she can't tell your son what to do. No, it's not. Constitutionally, Congress is not a
00:10:10.100
referee. The president invokes executive privilege. Under the Constitution, it's presumptively valid.
00:10:16.920
The separation of powers concept provides that Congress can't determine its validity or its breadth.
00:10:23.000
The only branch that can is a court. So he said, let's go to court. If the court tells me to testify,
00:10:28.280
I will testify. They chose to go criminal, meaning they would guarantee they wouldn't get his testimony
00:10:33.300
because they never wanted it. But in any event, what's relevant, most relevant here, I think, is
00:10:37.400
the judge barred the jury from hearing any of that, from hearing the advice of counsels, what he relied
00:10:42.880
on, from hearing that he believed executive privilege barred him, and then let them decide.
00:10:47.420
But remember, fundamentally, this is a statute that charges criminal willful conduct. The judge said
00:10:53.880
that he was bound by a 1961 case that, in the context of this statute alone, says willful means
00:11:00.620
did you get a subpoena and did you comply, period. Your reasons aren't relevant. That cannot comport
00:11:06.780
with constitutional law, and especially not the modern concept. And to give you an example,
00:11:12.540
by the way, just how honest this judge was, he said about four or five times he was inclined to think
00:11:18.000
we were right that that's not what willfulness means here, that willfulness requires constitutionally
00:11:22.960
some idea that the defendant is doing something wrong or committing a crime. Here's what the judge
00:11:27.980
said on January 11th when he cut out the defenses. As I've stressed many times, I have serious
00:11:33.140
reservations that the Court of Appeals interpretation of willfully is consistent with a modern understanding
00:11:38.320
of the word. It's not consistent with modern case law surrounding the use of that term,
00:11:43.160
let alone the traditional definition of the word. But as I've previously held, and I reiterate again
00:11:47.360
today, I am bound by Licavoli and its holdings. That's why I say, not only we should 100% win this
00:11:53.620
appeal, every American better hope we win this appeal. Because if willfully means that an innocent person
00:11:59.860
can be ensnared in criminal conduct, we're in a heck of a lot of trouble in this country. That's never been
00:12:05.760
the way our American system of justice works. I couldn't agree with you more. And Judge Nichols,
00:12:12.360
in this case, being bound, as he expressed it, I can't understand, as a layman, why he is bound with
00:12:25.040
something that is on its face illogical, un-American, and suddenly binding. Could you explain that for us?
00:12:35.660
Well, you know, he was generally a federal district court, the trial court level, is bound by precedent
00:12:41.760
by the Court of Appeals. However, as I pointed out, we've had 30 or more years of jurisprudence
00:12:48.100
since that case, maybe 60. The case was 60 years old, clearly affirming from the Supreme Court that
00:12:54.760
the concept of willfully has progressed over time. So, you know, we've seen major precedents fall by the
00:13:01.060
wayside in the past. This is one of them. And I said to the judge respectfully, number one, I don't
00:13:05.900
think he's bound by this because this case involved executive privilege. That wasn't at all at issue
00:13:10.600
in that Licavoli case from 1961. Number two, in Licavoli, despite his holding, they allowed the
00:13:17.280
defendant to tell his whole story to the jury to say that he had relied on advice of counsel. They
00:13:22.460
didn't allow the jury to consider the advice of counsel, which was wrong, but at least they let him tell
00:13:26.560
a story. Mr. Bannon wasn't ever permitted to tell the story of why he didn't comply.
00:13:31.260
So I said respectfully to the judge that I think he's mistaken that he's bound by this after all
00:13:36.660
of the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, including a case three months ago that interpreted
00:13:41.920
the word knowingly. And a case in 2019 said willfully, even more than knowingly, means that a defendant
00:13:49.220
must know that his or her conduct was wrong, criminal, violated the law. And in this case, listen,
00:13:56.100
we say let the jury decide that. Let the jury decide if he did something unlawful. But at
00:14:00.560
least they must hear from him why he thought it was lawful.
00:14:05.300
And with that, due process was thrown out the window in that court proceeding. And Steve Bannon
00:14:14.180
never had a chance at preserving his rights, advancing his argument or prevailing against
00:14:22.560
the prosecutors. This is un-American, a process, you know, I can't say that we've heard of,
00:14:32.020
but it is among the worst cases of violating due process that I've heard of since January 6th,
00:14:39.020
because we've got hundreds of people whose rights have been violated and who serve now as prisoners
00:14:45.440
of war and political prisoners, if you will. Yeah. Let me tell you one of the ultimate ironies in this
00:14:52.700
case, in my view, at least. We subpoenaed each of the January 6th committee members, along with
00:14:58.260
Speaker Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clymer, and the House counsel, Mr. Letter, for a number of reasons.
00:15:06.840
There were reasons based on the composition of the committee, rules violations, and so on.
00:15:10.780
This Mr. Letter contradicted himself. At one point, he said to the FBI in making this case,
00:15:16.280
there is no ranking minority member on this committee, which would be a rules violation.
00:15:20.660
Later, he said in written papers, oh, Liz Cheney, of course, is the ranking minority member. Well,
00:15:24.760
of course, she isn't. She's part of the same Trump-hating group. Ranking minority member is
00:15:29.440
meant to be a buffer so that the committee doesn't overreach. And so we wanted to know about his
00:15:34.260
contradiction. But we also wanted the committee members present at trial, and we subpoenaed them
00:15:38.180
for trial, to answer questions like, why wouldn't you go with a civil enforcement proceeding? What
00:15:43.000
made you go for Steve Bannon to the criminal route, which meant you guaranteed you wouldn't get his
00:15:47.240
testimony? Why wouldn't you give him a weak extension to study the issue when the Trump versus
00:15:52.240
Thompson case came down, which involved executive privilege? When after the subpoena date passed,
00:15:57.600
President Biden sent a letter saying, Bannon, we don't believe you have privilege. And Bannon asked
00:16:02.280
for one week from that day to study the issue. They said no, because they had their televised
00:16:06.780
contempt proceedings scheduled already for the next day. So what happened? The committee members to
00:16:12.940
every single one of them and the speaker and others invoked their own privilege, the speech or
00:16:17.820
debate clause. So consider the irony, Steve Bannon is prosecuted criminally, because he honored the
00:16:24.480
former president's invocation of privilege believed in the Constitution as he understood it. And he's
00:16:29.340
prosecuted criminally. It's not his privilege. He couldn't waive it. The committee members come
00:16:33.880
forward, and they raise their own privilege as a bar to testifying when each one of them could have
00:16:39.140
waived it, could have come in voluntarily and explained to the American people why they did what
00:16:43.140
they did to Steve Bannon, and each one of them refused. This is sickening to watch. And the McCarthy
00:16:52.520
hearings in the 50s are definitively, to me at least, it turns out, at least they were fairer in that they
00:17:01.580
had representation for those people testifying in those hearings. As awful as Joseph McCarthy was,
00:17:09.940
he at least was called to task in those hearings by the opposing counsel.
00:17:17.840
Right. That's, you know, that famous scene. In fact, I linked to a clip from that scene to make a
00:17:22.980
point in the papers that I filed here, when finally one courageous lawyer stands up and says,
00:17:28.420
I actually get emotional when I think about it, but he said, at long last, Senator, have you no dignity?
00:17:34.980
Have you no sense of honor? He took him to task over it. We don't have that today. And what we do
00:17:41.460
have today, unfortunately, that makes these hearings even more effective for political partisans, I
00:17:46.160
suppose, is modern editing. I mean, this committee brought in literally a television executive to
00:17:52.080
produce these hearings. They edit them selectively, and they're presented as if they're presenting
00:17:56.980
evidence without any testing of credibility and all of that. I say this is cheating the American
00:18:02.220
public. If you believe that the events of January 6th were important, then let's have an honest
00:18:06.780
broker present them and actually investigate them. Because consider this, Mr. Dobbs, you have as the
00:18:12.060
chairman of this committee, Chairman Thompson, who just before he became chairman, sued President Trump
00:18:17.680
over the events of January 6th, saying that he, Chairman Thompson, was personally injured by
00:18:22.780
President Trump. That might be the last member of Congress that should be chairing an investigative
00:18:27.460
committee into those same events. You have Raskin and Schiff, who've written books that they're
00:18:31.800
hawking now about the events of January 6th and how President Trump is to blame. They have
00:18:36.660
personal, reputational, maybe financial interests in ensuring that the committee's conclusions are
00:18:43.300
consistent with their books. All of what you say is true. I do quibble about reputational,
00:18:51.800
because neither man has a reputation for anything positive. They are notorious. They are,
00:18:59.260
I think, absolute cowards and liars. And we have a public record of them both being such. So I just
00:19:11.040
cannot imagine the Department of Justice being a party to this proceeding. I know that there are lots
00:19:18.840
of ways to look at this, and there are different perspectives and different values, at least in
00:19:23.680
partisan politics, with which I'm, by the way, not unfamiliar. But I am saying to you, the Department
00:19:30.740
of Justice to be a tool of these ignorant Marxist Dems pursuing their agenda in public and trashing
00:19:42.040
I think that, from my perspective at least, Merrick Garland has turned out to be a major
00:19:47.220
disappointment. I have to say that I had a case, a client of mine's case, in front of him. I thought,
00:19:53.280
I happened to have thought he was an excellent judge when he was a judge. I thought he was a
00:19:56.100
fair-minded judge. But I think he's really become now sucked into this and become a part of it. He
00:20:00.640
issued a press release when Mr. Bannon was indicted, saying he wants the country to know that this case
00:20:06.100
reflects the fair and equal application of the law across the board. That's just not true. The
00:20:12.680
Justice Department has had a policy of six decades of not using this criminal contempt statute when
00:20:18.520
executive privilege has been invoked like this. It's just not true.
00:20:22.300
It's not true. And there's so much to question about Merrick Garland as Attorney General, his actions,
00:20:29.640
his words, his statements like that. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon is under full, full attack by the
00:20:41.180
Marxist Dems, who are leading this administration, in my judgment, and the Democrat Party, along with
00:20:47.100
the deep state. They are trying their very best to trash Bannon because he is, I guess as they see it,
00:20:55.980
a bit of an obstacle as they try to simply disqualify Donald Trump from running in 2024.
00:21:10.360
Steve Bannon is a powerful force in America with millions and millions of followers. Whether one
00:21:15.480
likes his message or doesn't like his message, he is a force to be reckoned with, and they know that.
00:21:20.720
And frankly, whatever one thinks about anybody's political philosophy, he is living what America
00:21:29.020
stands for, and that is voicing his views, which, as I say, have tremendous following, tremendous
00:21:35.660
appeal. He faces being labeled with these horrible names that should never be used with anyone, and he
00:21:42.640
continues to stand up for principle. You know, he made a statement after the case. They tried to use this
00:21:48.060
against him, that he stands with Trump, and he stands with the Constitution, and he emphasized
00:21:51.780
that he stands with both, but he really emphasized the Constitution. You know, as many people have
00:21:56.100
said, Steve Bannon could have come in and just taken the fifth to the committee, like many other people
00:22:00.040
did, but nothing wrong with that. It's a constitutional right, although, I must say, Chairman
00:22:04.800
Thompson belittled that constitutional right and made a public statement that anyone who takes the fifth
00:22:09.200
has something to hide. That's reprehensible and irresponsible for any public figure to take.
00:22:14.220
But in any event, Steve Bannon committed that he would never do that. He wanted to testify.
00:22:18.680
However, he also honored the constitutional invocation of executive privilege, and until that was released
00:22:25.580
on July 9th, when President Trump finally had enough of seeing what was going on, then he felt his hands
00:22:32.240
were tied, as his lawyer had told him, and he could not comply.
00:22:35.260
And do you have an explanation? Have you reasoned this through, why the Department of Justice would
00:22:43.580
allow itself to become just a tool of the Marxist Dems? They're effectively enemies of the state.
00:22:52.900
I think that in this case, a terrible partisan political decision was made. I think there was a lot of
00:22:59.680
pressure from Congress to prosecute Steve Bannon criminally. You'll remember that, unprecedented,
00:23:05.700
President Biden came forward and said that he believes these people who so-called defy the
00:23:10.960
subpoenas should be prosecuted. We don't allow the President of the United States to weigh in on that
00:23:16.080
and corrupt the system like that. So then the Justice Department immediately issued a statement,
00:23:20.180
oh, you know, we're going to make an independent decision. Well, they didn't make any independent
00:23:23.660
decision in this case, because they went against their own precedent. And Congress, again, was cynical in
00:23:28.560
referring it for criminal prosecution. They had an easy out, go to a judge, let a judge order him to
00:23:34.280
testify, he would testify. So I think, again, as part of this complete lack of checks and balances now,
00:23:40.460
I think it's the void in policy. Unfortunately, as I say, I represented the Democratic Party earlier
00:23:45.720
this year. But there is a void of policy right now, so that the January 6th committee has become a
00:23:51.700
policy. Scare the people, convince them that President Trump, you know, was bad or was involved with the
00:23:57.440
January 6th thing. And that's our policy. That will help us get votes. That's not the policy we're
00:24:02.860
looking for, I think, in these very troubling times, economically, politically, internationally,
00:24:09.460
and so on. But it seems to be all they've got. And so they double down on it.
00:24:14.760
I just can't imagine what the rest of the world thinks of us right now. This January 6th committee,
00:24:20.540
which is more akin to a Soviet-style show trial, it is something that you would expect to happen in a
00:24:31.500
third-world country. We have an impaired president. We have a vice president who is the least knowledgeable
00:24:39.360
vice president and seemingly inarticulate person I've ever seen in the vice presidency. And we've had
00:24:45.440
some beauties over the course of my lifetime. We have two individuals that I can't imagine being
00:24:52.420
in any public role, public service, and they're at the top of our government. What is going on in this
00:25:02.620
country where there are no standards? There is no expectation of excellence. There are these mad
00:25:09.580
adventures like this January 6th committee, two presidential impeachments, a special counsel
00:25:16.240
built on an absolute fiction trying to overthrow the Trump presidency, having failed to overthrow his
00:25:24.100
candidacy. And you know what, Mr. Dobbs, I would bet that you regret having to say every word that you
00:25:30.000
just said, because I know that you root for this country every day and for greatness in this country
00:25:36.520
every day. It's, you know, it really, one could hang his head and just be depressed about all this.
00:25:43.660
But I think, you know, by doing shows like you do and calling out the conduct that we're seeing
00:25:49.920
and calling for better, I think that's the only course we can take here. Sometimes it seems like
00:25:55.740
beating your head against the wall because we see these confounding developments. We see corruption.
00:26:00.920
We see roadblocks put up toward fair and honest elections. And everybody in this country must
00:26:09.360
have an interest in election integrity. And again, I don't say this is a political position. I was on
00:26:15.980
the losing side of the Voting Rights Act case, you know, the Holder case, Shelby County, this Holder
00:26:23.060
case. I was on the losing side. I represented the Alabama voter taking the position that the Voting Rights
00:26:28.080
Act should still apply. I'm in favor of election integrity. I represent minor parties trying to get
00:26:34.080
on the ballot. I'm in favor of full ballot access and all of that. That's what makes this country
00:26:38.580
great. But the problems you're talking about transcend politics. And they fortunately, because
00:26:45.360
every American ought to be able to see that corruption is wrong. Malfeasance is wrong.
00:26:51.540
Not putting people in office are capable is wrong. We have to be able to raise this country to the
00:26:56.860
greatness again, that it's designed to provide, and that it certainly will accomplish again one day.
00:27:04.040
We have, and I have to say, your words capture the times perfectly, and our extant reality.
00:27:16.860
There was a time I thought that the Republican Party was the party of business, the Democratic Party
00:27:24.880
who was the party of the working man and woman. All of it's on its head. The Republican Party now
00:27:31.360
represents the working man and woman in this country because of America first policy of Donald
00:27:37.820
Trump. And the left, what do they represent? I cannot find anything positive that they represent.
00:27:46.480
There is nothing that I can say about any one of the executive orders of this president,
00:27:53.220
the policies he's pursuing that I say is in the interest of the nation, that is in the interest of the
00:27:58.360
American people. We have a media that is a corporatist media that has simply lost its way.
00:28:08.220
That's the kindest interpretation, and the worst interpretation is they're complicit. It is a time
00:28:21.100
Well, you know, your comments about the media are just right on and depressing, and you certainly know
00:28:26.000
that far better than I do. You've made a career out of being a media success, but it's depressing
00:28:31.980
because that's in these days, that's the way, you know, our voices get out. And if our voices are
00:28:37.400
stifled, because the media takes one position all of the time, and they cover up other facts that are
00:28:43.480
clearly demonstrable facts, it's very dangerous for our republic. But, you know, I think in terms of
00:28:48.860
policy, certainly I have no better answers than anybody else. I would express at least my surprise and
00:28:54.620
dismay that when this administration came in, they seemed like they felt obligated to pander to what
00:29:01.980
I call the hate squad, others just call the squad, and their philosophy, which is as un-American a
00:29:08.360
philosophy as I have ever seen. It's completely deconstructionist, and it's everything that this
00:29:14.840
country stands for, in their view, it seems to me, is a failure. And they do it under the guise of,
00:29:20.100
you know, promoting what they think the country's values are. Absolutely not. Their position is
00:29:25.220
antithetical to it. They call themselves progressives. They're regressives. They don't
00:29:29.900
deserve a term progressive as if that had any, if that has any positive connotation, and it should.
00:29:36.480
It's horrible. We see anti-Semitism from that group. We see just base hatred of anything that
00:29:43.860
doesn't agree with them. And if you criticize them, then you pose a tremendous threat. They scream
00:29:49.320
bloody murder. It's a horrible situation. And I had thought that President Biden would be above all
00:29:54.580
of that. But instead, he seems obligated to pander to it. I want to turn to where we go from here.
00:30:01.460
You're an attorney. You represent the President of the United States. You represent one of the most
00:30:07.620
popular media figures in Steve Bannon. We have an American Bar Association. We have all sorts of
00:30:16.320
legal associations. Why is there not one person among them who says, let's walk over to the Capitol.
00:30:27.540
Let's walk over to the White House and say, let's stop this now. Six years, almost six years of
00:30:35.540
persecution of one man, Donald Trump. And the only people that have been revealed to be dishonest and
00:30:45.400
un-American have been the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Democratic Party, the Democratic Central
00:30:53.440
Committee, the Hillary Campaign Committee. And we don't have any leaders stepping up to say,
00:31:01.200
this is the moment. And we are going to not going to be defined by the defilement of our
00:31:09.200
our great American society. Yeah, I know you're 100 percent right. I would hope there are voices
00:31:14.420
that say it. However, I think your point earlier is correct. Right on the media stifles it. And
00:31:19.620
without the voice in the media, I'm afraid, you know, we don't all know about the good people
00:31:24.260
who are standing up. But yeah, at some point, we have to just say at least the rule of law
00:31:29.440
has to has to apply. You know, my father was an FBI agent. So a lot of this is very depressing for
00:31:34.640
me to see with the Justice Department and the FBI and all that. These are all groups that I grew up,
00:31:39.180
you know, looking up to the Attorney General of the United States. This is, you know, I got into this
00:31:44.220
to work within the system. But you're right, we all have an obligation to speak up. I'm sorry that
00:31:50.600
some Republican members of Congress, if it's a political, if it's political divide,
00:31:54.820
let's just say responsible members of Congress, whichever party they're in, that they don't come
00:31:59.360
forward more forcefully and say, stop, not in my name. This cannot go on in our Congress. That's the
00:32:05.480
one area we have some sway over. But I don't even hear that. We're just not hearing enough return to
00:32:13.000
our values, neutral principles of law, and standard of excellence, as you said earlier. All of
00:32:20.440
those kinds of things. But remember, you know, many of the legal groups, unfortunately, have a
00:32:25.180
particular perspective. Also, I've been very disappointed as I've been a civil rights lawyer for
00:32:29.780
36 years. And not, I would say to you that one of the things I'm most proud of is, I won years ago,
00:32:36.440
the American Bar Association Award for having made more of a difference in public institutions, they
00:32:40.800
said, and quoted some federal judges, that public institutions in the South than any lawyer of this
00:32:45.020
era. I've worked as a public interest lawyer, my entire career, I worked as a civil rights lawyer,
00:32:49.380
criminal defense lawyer. When I took on the representation of President Trump, which was a
00:32:54.140
far departure from anything I had done before, I was dropped from civil rights listserv groups.
00:33:00.600
They said they didn't feel safe if I were on the list anymore. I was dropped from, I prepared to teach
00:33:07.720
a course in civil rights at a leading law school, civil rights litigation, my field. They said, no,
00:33:12.700
the students and faculty wouldn't feel comfortable anymore. I said, this is a representation I took on
00:33:17.500
for two weeks. I was honored. The President of the United States would call me and ask me a solo
00:33:22.520
practitioner in Montgomery, Alabama to represent him. And when they had the team in South Carolina,
00:33:27.440
it asked me to lead that team of fine lawyers who I didn't even know at the time. I was flattered by all
00:33:32.700
of that. I wouldn't have considered saying no. I called up some of my old friends to say, what do you
00:33:37.460
think? And they said, of course, you have to take that on. President of the United States has asked you,
00:33:41.500
and so on. What happened to the 36 years of civil rights experience? What happened to all of the
00:33:46.000
difference that I purportedly made for civil rights parties in the past, for poor people,
00:33:51.680
underrepresented people? All of that in the public perception goes by the wayside because of the
00:33:56.380
kinds of times, polarized times we're living in. To me, one person who at least speaks the truth on
00:34:02.260
this kind of stuff still is Alan Dershowitz. And he says these people calling themselves liberals now
00:34:06.940
are not liberals from his day. Liberalism back then meant open speech, open debate, not shutting down
00:34:14.400
every opposing point of view, like we see on the universities and all of that. And what's that
00:34:19.340
gotten him? That's gotten him barred from all of his old friends, you know, and so on. I grew up
00:34:24.660
believing in his principle, the constitutional principle, that we have an obligation to represent
00:34:29.800
unpopular people, unpopular causes, but to stand up for our constitution and principles. And that's how
00:34:35.720
I've tried to guide my career. It just doesn't seem to mean anything in the public perception now.
00:34:40.480
That value is fundamental to the American way. This is a battle. This is a war. And it is a war
00:34:50.920
that was declared by the Marxist Dems. The left of this country means to destroy America and everything
00:34:58.000
it stands for. And David, you're one of the few people standing up for the principles of what this
00:35:05.200
country does stand for. And we thank you for doing so. I'd like to conclude with two thoughts. One is
00:35:14.020
how, what is your next step? Will you appeal straight away?
00:35:20.960
Sure. We have to wait until the sentencing and following the sentencing, we will file a notice
00:35:25.440
of appeal immediately and take it from there, make the legal arguments that we preserved in the district
00:35:30.800
court. And what will, in your judgment, the outcome be? It has to be. I have to believe that it has to
00:35:39.680
be that the conviction will be reversed and this willfulness standard will be set straight. And what
00:35:45.720
I say, you know, all along is every American better hope we win because everybody is at risk. If you can
00:35:52.440
have in this country, someone convicted of a crime without truly acting willfully in the sense that
00:35:58.760
it's always meant. And that means knowing you were doing something wrong or believing you were doing
00:36:03.320
something wrong. We don't, as the Supreme Court has said, we can't have a statute that ensnares the
00:36:08.460
innocent simply by the terms of the statute into having committed, being considered committed a crime
00:36:15.500
by conduct they believe to be completely innocent. David, thanks so much for being with us here today.
00:36:21.780
We appreciate all that you're doing. I'll look forward to other conversations along the way as
00:36:28.800
you prevail. And we do thank you so much for your service. Thank you for having me.
00:36:35.620
David Schoen, God bless you. It is becoming increasingly clear, I believe, to most Americans
00:36:43.240
that we are now a nation at war and the political parties are quite different. The Democrats are
00:36:51.280
waging war and the Republicans are pretending it isn't necessary. That's why they need Donald Trump
00:36:59.440
to lead them. I just have to say this directly and straightforwardly. The January 6th committee
00:37:06.100
is a travesty and it's a blight on America and everything we stand for is a people. The FBI agents
00:37:13.360
and the officials of the FBI and Justice Department, you were once heroes to Americans of all ages.
00:37:19.540
You are now nothing more than tools of the Marxist left, the Democrats who follow them and the deep state
00:37:26.740
of which you are part. David Schoen referred to the council representing the U.S. Army in the famous
00:37:33.600
McCarthy hearings in 1954. The attorney representing the army was Joseph Welch, responding to attacks by
00:37:42.100
McCarthy that ultimately shut down the hearings for good. Welch's words today are powerfully appropriate
00:37:50.340
and relevant to the Democrats and their travesty of justice, the January 6th committee.
00:37:57.460
Joseph Welch said these words directly to Senator McCarthy.
00:38:00.980
You have done enough. Have you no sense of dignity? Think about it and let's ask ourselves why we have
00:38:11.560
no one standing up as Joseph Welch and uttering those very words. Perhaps soon. Thanks everybody
00:38:19.320
for being with us today. Our guest tomorrow is Congresswoman Myra Flores, who just flipped a deep
00:38:25.320
blue district on the border of Texas and Mexico to bright red in a special election. Congresswoman Flores
00:38:32.920
is with us here tomorrow to take up some of the biggest issues and threats facing our border states
00:38:38.920
and in truth, all of our states. Please join us here tomorrow. Till then, God bless you and God bless America.