Re: Hello
[{"sender": "David Schoen", "recipients": ["jeevacation@gmail.com"], "timestamp": "Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:54 PM", "subject": "Re: Hello", "body": "Just checking in to see how you are getting along these days. I hope all the litigation is well behind you and things are going well\nTake care."}, {"sender": "jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>", "recipients": ["David Schoen"], "timestamp": "Wed, Jul 4, 2018 8:10 am", "subject": "Re: Hello", "body": "is it overblown. ? all mob prosecutors have strong feelings towards their targets. I recall many that told stories of how they despised gotti etc. why is stryok different ?"}, {"sender": "David Schoen", "recipients": ["jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>"], "timestamp": "Wed, Jul 4, 2018 7:51 AM", "subject": "Re: Hello", "body": "I am obsessed with prosecutorial and FBI misconduct wherever it rears it ugly head and i am committed to doing what i can to fight it whether for my death penalty clients or a klansman. Lots of wrongdoing here and we all lose when the system breaks down.\n\nI assume you were just flipping the channels.\n\nHope you are doing well. I see they never miss an opportunity to try to drag you in - saw an article the other day asking how you missed the #metoo press and tying you to trump. Didn't mention much of all you have been put through already. I hope the cases are all behind you now. I would have liked to have helped; but i guess you and your team decided on a different direction. Whatever works best.\n\njudge jeannie?"}, {"sender": "jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>", "recipients": ["David Schoen"], "timestamp": "Wed, Jul 4, 2018 8:51 am", "subject": "Re: Hello", "body": "we're on the same team. strzok. testimony was that discussions with lovers , often include embellishments, and not indicative of non professionalism. I believe he said nothing more than it referenced \" andys office\". . says andy was there. how many other people were there ? were strzok and . off in the corner talking to each other. was mccabe on the phone? you know that taking emails alone is not meaningful. . isnt it a but much to say that prosecutors that have strong opinions . should be looked out with skepticism? who doesnt have bias. . strzok had many neg hillary opinions .. - michael cohen. michael flynn.. are not fictions created by mueller ? how are you ?"}, {"sender": null, "recipients": ["jeevacation@gmail.com"], "timestamp": "7/4/2018 1:02:08 PM", "subject": "Re: Hello", "body": "Personal/Political bias is one thing (I still would exploit it any and every time on cross); this was an obsession and directly relevant \"Stop Trump.\" Also, the IG made clear in his testimony Strzok told him McCabe was there. McCabe is another real character. He denies this; but he also is irreconcilably at odds with Comey on WSJ leak. Absolutely right that taking emails alone is not fair; but I would point out that it is folks like Strzok and company who have ruined many a businesman's life based exclusively on a twisted reading of emails sold to a jury. Flynn is an interesting case. I believe I could have gotten his plea back for him in a second based on what has surfaced; but he decided to go a different way. But as to your underlying point that there might well be something to go after with these guys, I hear you; but I have spent my whole career fighting bullies and crooked, unethical prosecutors. That will remain a guiding principle for me, whether the target is popular, hated, a complete jerk, guilty, etc. I am doing ok, thanks. I see you really follow this stuff."}]