The StoneZONE with Roger Stone - David Schoen ｜ 08-06-25

00:00:00.240 The Stone Zone, entertaining and informative on the Red Apple Podcast Network.

00:00:07.600 Former Trump impeachment attorney David Schoen, criminal defense attorney extraordinaire,

00:00:13.240 who ably represented Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial,

00:00:17.660 joins us now because he believes that this precedent could hit Obama squarely in his legacy.

00:00:26.500 David Schoen, welcome back in to The Stone Zone.

00:00:30.000 Thank you very much. It was an honor to be with you.

00:00:32.900 So, David, we saw a clip the other day of the president.

00:00:37.120 He was asked directly whether this recent Supreme Court decision regarding the president having immunity

00:00:43.960 would protect Barack Obama from prosecution based on everything we know.

00:00:50.880 And I think he said kind of cavalierly, yes, probably helps him a lot.

00:00:55.820 But you put forward a very shrewd analysis that the Democrats now be have the risk of being hoisted on their own petard, so to speak.

00:01:07.800 Lay this out for us.

00:01:09.920 Yeah, sure.

00:01:10.820 So, President Trump was absolutely right when he said that the immunity decision, Trump versus the United States,

00:01:17.080 would help former President Obama evade prosecution at this point.

00:01:22.100 All of this is based on the idea, the premise, the evidence shows, as Director Gabbard has said,

00:01:27.620 that former President Obama was directly involved in a scheme with others to skew the election result, undermine the will of the people in the election.

00:01:38.880 If the evidence doesn't show that, then the discussion is simply academic.

00:01:42.360 But assuming for these purposes, the evidence shows that.

00:01:45.120 President Trump was right that the immunity decision helps President Obama in a matter of first course.

00:01:50.500 But what doesn't help him with is the impeachment process.

00:01:53.700 Without any question, 100 percent, according to the Democratic members of the House of Representatives

00:01:59.920 and the Senate vote in the second impeachment trial,

00:02:03.740 former President Obama absolutely can be impeached and convicted in a trial before the Senate.

00:02:10.260 I argued vigorously against that position that a former president is not subject to impeachment and conviction in a Senate trial once out of office

00:02:20.000 because removal from office is a prerequisite for an impeachment concept.

00:02:26.200 However, the House managers argued some 30 pages in their brief that that's not at all the case.

00:02:33.320 His history and other interpretive tools tell us that, without any question, a former president can be impeached and convicted,

00:02:43.220 going back as far as George Washington and any other former president.

00:02:47.100 And they go on to explain all of their reasons why and why there are two separate provisions in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7.

00:02:55.240 One provides for removal and the other provides for disqualification from holding future office.

00:03:02.080 And that's why their reason is essentially a former president can be impeached and convicted because they say it's just as important

00:03:10.320 that person could have followers even after leaving office.

00:03:13.720 And so the person should never be able to hold high office again.

00:03:16.900 But in fact, they went much further.

00:03:18.420 And this is particularly telling, it seems to me, if the evidence shows what Director Gabbard has suggested it shows,

00:03:25.400 it goes right to the heart of the democracy, the power of the vote, the will of the people exercised through their vote.

00:03:33.060 What they wrote, the House managers, Jamie Raskin and crew, wrote in their brief was that the framers anticipated the risk of someone being out of office.

00:03:41.260 And they explained that presidential abuse aimed at our democratic process itself was the single most urgent basis for impeachment.

00:03:50.040 Of course, the evidence we're talking about here, if it's proven, goes to the very core of the democratic process.

00:03:56.380 And therefore, there would be an imperative to impeach former President Obama, because as the House managers wrote,

00:04:02.860 if you do let someone get away with attacking the democratic process, it will send a horrible message throughout the rest of American history.

00:04:13.320 And so I think, you know, their words are very powerful in there.

00:04:17.240 But this goes beyond it, Roger.

00:04:19.100 And I think this is an important point to make.

00:04:21.540 The immunity decision, as I say, and President Trump said, as a matter of first courts, would probably, probably prohibit prosecution.

00:04:29.020 Some have suggested otherwise.

00:04:30.400 And the key here is understanding what that decision held.

00:04:33.660 Very simply, it held that if something is within the core official acts of the president,

00:04:39.060 then it's absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, just as it is from a civil lawsuit in Nixon versus Fitzgerald.

00:04:45.600 And if it's within that outer limit of the official acts, it's presumptively immune.

00:04:53.800 It's presumptive immunity.

00:04:55.080 Something that's not an official act wouldn't have the benefit of immunity.

00:04:58.300 But we're also not allowed to look into the motive behind the action.

00:05:01.940 So let's just say that the evidence is there.

00:05:04.920 However, former President Obama and his colleagues can spin a tail so that this was somehow his view of, you know, ensuring the integrity of the election.

00:05:13.520 Something like that.

00:05:14.140 So he has the benefit of immunity.

00:05:16.140 Now he gets impeached by the House.

00:05:18.780 The majority of the House impeaches him.

00:05:20.080 And he gets tried before the Senate and convicted because the evidence is overwhelming.

00:05:23.680 Let's just assume for argument's sake.

00:05:26.140 Now, according to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, in my view, he would be able to be prosecuted criminally.

00:05:35.040 Why?

00:05:35.600 Because the text of the Constitution expressly provides for it in that case.

00:05:40.520 And that, in the case here, it says,

00:05:42.420 judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, etc.

00:05:52.280 But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

00:06:02.260 And so one would argue this would supersede that immunity decision because there's been an intervening event, an impeachment, and a conviction by the Senate under Article 1, Section 3.

00:06:14.820 So, therefore, it triggers this clause.

00:06:17.440 And it could be indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury criminally.

00:06:22.720 This, by the way, is perfectly consistent with an argument that President Trump made in the immunity case.

00:06:29.760 And that is, using the impeachment clause, he argued, in the position that was rejected by the Supreme Court,

00:06:36.180 he argued that the only way a person can be tried criminally is if they're first convicted after an impeachment trial in the Senate.

00:06:45.380 So it's probably very consistent with his view on that.

00:06:48.180 But it's in the language, the express language of the Constitution.

00:06:51.780 So, David, President Donald Trump filed a civil lawsuit in March of 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,

00:07:02.700 specifically against Hillary Clinton, the Democrat National Committee, and others,

00:07:07.740 alleging a conspiracy to falsely tie his 2016 presidential campaign to Russia.

00:07:13.340 The case was dismissed in September of 2022 by U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, a Clinton appointee,

00:07:22.680 who described it as being without merit, as having glaring structural deficiencies,

00:07:29.360 and he imposed sanctions of nearly $1 million against President Trump and his attorney in the case, Alina Haber.

00:07:37.260 Now that the assertions in that lawsuit have been proven by the declassification of these documents to be completely and totally true,

00:07:47.160 what happens to this lawsuit, and more specifically, what happens to this million-dollar fine?

00:07:54.260 Yeah, well, that's a great question.

00:07:56.180 On the one hand, federal courts make it very difficult to come back and revisit a final judgment in the case.

00:08:02.740 I would add, by the way, Judge Middlebrooks is not one of my favorites, but that's beside the point.

00:08:10.320 So, anyway, federal courts make it difficult to come back and revisit a final judgment.

00:08:14.720 However, there are tools under Rule 60D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that, in certain circumstances, do allow it.

00:08:22.120 Some of them are time-sensitive, but some aren't.

00:08:25.180 There's a catch-all clause, 60D6.

00:08:26.860 But it may be that 60D4 and 60D5 apply here because, as you said, there's a fine involved here of $1 million.

00:08:35.560 If you can show extraordinary circumstances, and certainly it seems like extraordinary circumstances,

00:08:42.240 to uncover previously classified or secret documents that now expose events that are at odds with the basis on which the judge made his judgment,

00:08:52.000 that's an extraordinary circumstance, it seems to me, but beyond that, they're using that judgment for prospective purposes.

00:08:59.880 It's not just that the judgment sat there and had some impact at that time.

00:09:03.940 It can be used now to collect on that judgment, and one would argue that it's an invalid judgment

00:09:11.720 for the reasons of the extraordinary circumstances of this disclosure explained.

00:09:16.640 And therefore, another mechanism to get back in could be either 60B5 or 60B4,

00:09:22.720 arguing that we can't allow a void or invalid judgment to be used for prospective purposes.

00:09:30.780 How unfair would that be?

00:09:32.700 You were wrong, Judge, but we're still going to let you collect a million dollars in sanctions for the other side?

00:09:37.580 So, yesterday, John Solomon with Just the News reported that the Attorney General, Pam Bondi,

00:09:46.960 had ordered a federal prosecutor to begin presenting evidence to a grand jury

00:09:52.700 against those who were exposed in the declassification of documents by Tulsi Gabbard.

00:10:00.180 But the speculation was that that grand jury was in Florida rather than in the District of Columbia.

00:10:08.200 I obviously welcome that news, if it is correct, but I'm trying to determine why that venue.

00:10:16.160 And here's a theory.

00:10:18.020 The raid on Mar-a-Lago, since it was actually designed to seize evidence of the guilt of those involved in the Russian collusion hoax,

00:10:28.740 was part of a continuing seditious conspiracy, continued until that date,

00:10:35.520 and that took place in Florida, thus allowing the case to be pursued in the Sunshine State.

00:10:42.780 Now, that's so much for my amateur lawyering.

00:10:46.220 How could this case against Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Biden, Rice, Weissman, Mueller, this list goes on and on,

00:10:56.520 how could this be pursued someplace where there could actually be a fair trial

00:11:01.960 and where there's a reasonable probability of conviction based on the evidence?

00:11:06.820 Yes.

00:11:07.880 Good question again, and I think your analysis, you know, your theory is a good one.

00:11:11.600 But remember, you know, in the Florida case, they convened a grand jury in Washington, D.C.

00:11:16.800 to hear much of the evidence then used or to be used in the Florida case.

00:11:21.720 Here, I think there could be a theory also.

00:11:24.580 First of all, the point is, we want it outside of D.C., ideally, because, you know,

00:11:30.520 it's one of the jurisdictions in the country in which, you know, the voters are overwhelmingly Democratic,

00:11:36.940 and we see a lot of political decisions from the judges in that jurisdiction and from juries.

00:11:43.860 It's human nature, in a sense.

00:11:45.080 I think one could make an argument that if the evidence here really is evidence of a vicious conspiracy

00:11:51.480 under 18 U.S.C. 2384 or in some offense that relates to undermining the vote, will of the voters,

00:12:02.120 theoretically, it affects, it has an effect in every state in the union,

00:12:06.640 and therefore, a grand jury could be convened any place.

00:12:10.480 I think that's one theory that could be, you know, floated out there.

00:12:14.880 Every American has a stake in seeing justice done because it affects the vote of every American one way or another.

00:12:22.360 But we have to see, I think, what the evidence is, what the conduct at issue was.

00:12:26.380 It might be that if there were discussions like this, some discussions took place over the telephone

00:12:31.040 or the Internet from, you know, various places outside of Washington, D.C.

00:12:37.380 I don't know. We have to see what the evidence is, I think.

00:12:40.480 I appreciate that analysis.

00:12:42.620 I hope springs eternal that this trial will be, that trials will take place in a jurisdiction other than the District of Columbia.

00:12:50.560 I've personally been through that meat grinder, as I said earlier in the show.

00:12:54.320 In the District of Columbia, the Constitution, the law, the facts, the evidence, the rules,

00:12:59.900 none of these things matter when the court is in order.

00:13:04.300 It is the most politicized jurisdiction in the country.

00:13:06.980 In my particular case, when we learned that the jury forewoman who denied during jury selection and the trial,

00:13:14.700 that she had any knowledge of me or my case, had been attacking me on Facebook and Twitter by name,

00:13:21.020 but had those postings on a private setting.

00:13:24.060 Once that was revealed, the judge actually ruled that none of that was evidence of bias.

00:13:29.860 Wherever you do, don't touch that dial.

00:13:32.320 This is the Stone Zone with Roger Stone.

00:13:43.960 This shrimp and coconut sauce is divine.

00:13:46.620 What's your secret?

00:13:47.600 Goya coconut milk.

00:13:48.760 How does it taste so good?

00:13:50.120 It's all in that real coconut flavor and that rich, creamy texture.

00:13:54.200 What about thickeners and added sugars?

00:13:56.420 None.

00:13:57.000 Just smooth, coconutty goodness.

00:13:59.100 What can I make with it?

00:14:00.660 From curries to sweet treats like coconut flan, the possibilities are endless.

00:14:06.000 Goya coconut milk.

00:14:07.200 Take your cooking to the next level.

00:14:08.820 No question about it.

00:14:09.900 Find it in the Goya section of your local grocery store.

00:14:12.240 If it's Goya, it has to be good.

00:14:24.020 This is the Stone Zone.

00:14:26.160 Now, get in the zone. 0.94

00:14:28.500 It's the Stone Zone.

00:14:30.520 Here's Roger Stone.

00:14:33.560 And we're back in the Stone Zone.

00:14:36.160 We're talking to perhaps the preeminent criminal defense attorney in the country today,

00:14:41.560 David Schoen, who very ably represented President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial

00:14:47.100 on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

00:14:48.500 David, you were back in the news only days ago because of this vicious effort to smear Donald

00:14:56.220 Trump as having had a somehow inappropriate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted

00:15:02.640 of sex crimes in Florida and was indicted in 2019 in New York on one count of child sex

00:15:10.140 trafficking and a second count of the conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking.

00:15:15.560 But you revealed to the American public that you discussed this matter with Jeffrey Epstein

00:15:21.840 just before his death.

00:15:23.780 Why don't you take it from there?

00:15:26.540 Sure.

00:15:27.260 Well, you know, as one might imagine, any criminal defense lawyer in meeting with a client who's

00:15:33.040 facing a federal indictment would want to know what kind of leverage that defendant might

00:15:39.280 have to help himself in some kind of deal or something like that.

00:15:44.200 I happen to have made it a practice in my practice that I don't represent cooperators,

00:15:48.620 but everyone ought to be advised of that opportunity.

00:15:52.220 I just don't believe it philosophically that one should turn against friends, all that.

00:15:55.720 But everyone should have that opportunity to help him or herself in a case.

00:15:59.800 And a lawyer has an obligation to explain that to the client.

00:16:03.140 I won't, you know, I never go into attorney-client privilege discussions regarding any of my

00:16:08.880 conversations with any client.

00:16:11.100 However, in this case, I expressly discussed with Jeffrey Epstein whether he had anything,

00:16:17.920 any information that could help him by hurting Donald Trump.

00:16:21.800 That is, any information that Donald Trump did anything illegal or improper.

00:16:26.220 And had he not authorized me to, I wouldn't have disclosed the answer to that.

00:16:31.680 But he did.

00:16:32.600 And he said to me, in no uncertain terms, and he had no information that could hurt Donald Trump

00:16:37.340 in any way because Donald Trump had not done anything illegal or improper with him.

00:16:41.800 And then he made it clear that he wanted that known.

00:16:44.340 So that's why I've revealed it now.

00:16:46.020 I revealed it in response to Mr. Musk's tweet suggesting that maybe President Trump was withholding

00:16:51.340 documents here because he had something to appear for himself.

00:16:53.560 I thought that was an outrageous even suggestion to make.

00:16:57.160 And I knew it not to be true.

00:16:58.680 So I felt an obligation to come forward.

00:17:00.360 But again, I would not have had Jeffrey Epstein not authorized it.

00:17:03.740 He felt strongly about it.

00:17:04.960 He didn't want anybody, but particularly Donald Trump, and I can explain why, being falsely

00:17:09.680 accused of having been engaged in conduct with him.

00:17:12.680 It was illegal, et cetera.

00:17:14.460 Donald Trump, they had had a friendship like, you know, tens or hundreds of wealthy, successful

00:17:21.120 people in the world had with Jeffrey Epstein, some friendship on some level.

00:17:27.600 And Donald Trump, among all of the other people, is the one person who cut off that relationship,

00:17:34.140 cut it off for a couple of reasons, but cut it off, we're talking, you know, decades ago.

00:17:38.480 And so, you know, that hurt Epstein to some degree.

00:17:42.800 But he also respected, appreciated, in any event, whether he wanted the friendship back

00:17:48.280 or not, he made clear that Donald Trump had done nothing illegal or improper with him,

00:17:52.960 and that he wanted that made known.

00:17:55.540 Now, you know, some suggested, oh, gee, that's convenient.

00:17:57.580 You know, here you represented Donald Trump in his impeachment trial.

00:18:00.500 Now you're saying this about Jeffrey Epstein.

00:18:02.160 I didn't know Donald Trump at that time.

00:18:04.320 We're talking about 2019.

00:18:05.460 I got a call to represent President Trump in his impeachment trial two weeks before the

00:18:10.560 impeachment trial in 2021.

00:18:13.680 So, you know, one can suggest anything they like, but I've got no other motive here, except

00:18:19.280 that I think it's important to bring the truth out.

00:18:21.780 I think what's going on here, quite frankly, in my view, is an attempt, but look, the left

00:18:26.680 and the right have separate agendas here.

00:18:28.480 But on the left, to drag this thing out, out, out, to make it sort of Mueller two, try to

00:18:35.140 paralyze the government, try to distract from all of President Trump's accomplishments,

00:18:38.980 and help themselves in the midterms with these, you know, suggestions of maybe something

00:18:45.280 improper.

00:18:45.960 But it defies logic.

00:18:47.520 You can be sure.

00:18:48.680 The accusers of Jeffrey Epstein filed lawsuit after lawsuit with lawyers who have made millions

00:18:53.880 of dollars against anyone who those accusers said they had any illicit affair with through

00:19:00.340 Jeffrey Epstein.

00:19:01.080 So, you can imagine that if some accuser were out there and had some knowledge about

00:19:05.500 Donald Trump, they would have filed a lawsuit a long time ago.

00:19:09.040 I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there.

00:19:10.420 I want to thank our guest, David Schoen, and for our many guests until tomorrow, God bless

00:19:15.060 you and Godspeed.

00:19:16.840 Thanks for listening to The Stone Zone with Roger Stone.

00:19:21.680 You can hear The Stone Zone with Roger Stone weeknights at 8 on 77 WABC.

00:19:27.940 If you like the podcast, share it with your friends and listen anytime at wabcradio.com

00:19:33.840 and download the WABC Radio app.

00:19:36.500 Hit that subscribe button on all major podcast platforms.

00:19:39.620 Plus, follow WABC on social, on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and X.

00:19:45.720 See you next time for a new episode so you never have to wonder.

00:19:49.580 What the heck is going on here?

The StoneZONE with Roger Stone - August 07, 2025

David Schoen ｜ 08-06-25

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript