S3 E11 Dismantling Donald Trump's Felony - The DA's Purpose, Illustrated by Jeopardy

How does a city District Attorney get famous?  Concoct a felony charge against the most famous politician on Earth. 

An explanation of the amazingly contradictory, illogical and implausible case against Donald Trump.  You already know what was said.  Here's what was missed.

Commentary on trending issues brought to you with a moderate perspective.

Transcript

The nation of Peru, one of our South American neighbors, has a prison dedicated to former presidents.  Should Americans be concerned that we’re following Peru’s example, today on The Tenth Man.

Introduction

It’s true, Peru really does have a prison just for its former presidents.  Not only that but the prison is full. It has a capacity of three inmates, and three former presidents are being incarcerated there. The last one barely managed to find a place – the previous inmate had just been released. 

Is America in danger of becoming like Peru, with President Trump having been convicted of 34 felonies? Maybe yes, maybe no.  You see many Americans believe Trump is guilty of his crimes. Guilty enough to affect they way they vote. But there are two problems with these Americans’ beliefs.

The first is the Peruvian crimes are real crimes like human rights abuses and money laundering.  No one is accusing Trump of money laundering.  Biden maybe, but not Trump.

The second is that the Americans who think Trump’s conviction is justified, believe that because they believe he is guilty of hiding a hush money payment.  Which he may be.  But that is not a crime, and it’s not what he is literally accused of doing.

Explanation

Or maybe it is what he is accused of but let’s pursue that for a moment.  Because it’s a good thing the Democrats are not pro-life because they really would be killing women if they were.  That’s if you follow their logic.

You see, Trump was approached by Stormy Daniels’ press agent with a threat of blackmail or extortion, take your pick.  The agent said Stormy Daniels was going to claim she had had sex with Donald Trump unless he paid her not to. 

We’re saying “claim” because it does not matter whether she did or she didn’t.  Using the word “claim” is the responsible journalistic term. If this were fake news we would say she “falsely claimed” or would legitimize her claim by saying “she threatened to expose their sexual encounter”, wording that assumes it took place.

That of course is the tack taken by the fake news, acting as if the event did take place.  As did the prosecution in the sham trial, putting Daniels on the stand testifying for hours about sex when sex was not the crime.

Having sex is not illegal, and neither is paying someone not to talk about it.  But the news constantly referred to it as Trump’s Hush Money trial, when it should have been Daniels’ extortion trial. 

So what were the actual charges?  In plain language, the Manhattan District Attorney said that although paying someone to keep a secret is completely legal, you have to tell the taxpayers that you did it.  You heard that right.  If you pay hush money you must reveal it.

Donald Trump paid Stormy to keep quiet, and marked it as a legal expense.  The DA said he only marked it as a legal expense instead of a campaign expense to keep it a secret.

He further reasoned that Trump only wanted to keep it a secret so that he could win the election.  The DA thus concocted the legal technicality that this expenditure had to be a campaign expense - campaign expenses being open to public scrutiny due to campaign finance laws – and not a legal expense so that he could link the two and create a felony.

So paying hush money is legal as long as you tell everyone about it.

This is all a matter of public record.  Everybody knows that deliberately marking an expense a legal expense instead of a campaign expense is a misdemeanor.   DA Alvin Bragg had to use the obscure  principle that a misdemeanor linked to another crime can become a felony.  The supposed “crime” is wanting to win the election and paying hush money to influence it.

Folks, everything a candidate does on the campaign trail is to influence the election.  If you stop the bus next to a fire hydrant for Biden to step out, you’ve committed a misdemeanor to influence the election. Bragg would prosecute Trump for it.

And this is not all.  The statute of limitations on misdemeanors is just two years.  Bragg is using the longer term for the felony to resurrect the misdemeanor and link them all together with an obscure and questionable New York State election law which allows him to indict for other crimes by “unlawful means”.  These “unlawful means” crimes are why the case may fall apart on appeal.  

Because they were never revealed by the DA until just before the closing arguments and the judge allowed this to pass.

Defenders of Bragg say that he has pursued many powerful politicians besides Trump and that is true.  But they – like the Peruvian presidents – were guilty of real crimes like money laundering, bribery and corruption.  Despite the fake news claims, nowhere in the US at any time has a candidate been charged with a felony for erroneous business recordkeeping.

Nor for the obvious Catch-22 where you can pay someone to keep a secret, but you must then tell the secret yourself.  It truly amazes that this is not the reason the case was dismissed.

Not a Lawyer

“You’re not a lawyer, what makes you so smart?”   That’s the question I’ve been asked.  Well, I’m also not a blind supporter of Trump, but it appears what went wrong in this case is that Trump made his lawyers waste their efforts on disproving the Stormy Daniels claims rather than dismantling the legal arguments.  You’ll see this is true, eventually.

Remember many errors have been made by our courts. Remember also that a Jury can hear evidence, retire to deliberate, then return with any decision it wants. 

Remember above all that the law and justice are a matter of common sense.   It takes a lawyer to make it more complicated than that.

Hush Money

When this was happening you heard about the Hush Money Trial every day. Now that the trial of public opinion is over they are more often referring to the falsification of records.  But let’s talk about the hush money case, the one Trump’s lawyers should have made.

A non-disclosure agreement, the legal term for hush money, is perfectly legal. People who are taking sides against Trump based on their dislike of the man have not thought through the ramifications of their biases. Let’s look at some other scenarios involving hush money.

And I don’t mean the well-known cases of Bill Clinton paying off women who he absolutely did sexually assault.  It’s good to remember that in those cases as well, hush money isn’t illegal, and that in the Monica Lewinsky case he was impeached not for having sex with an intern – an arguable imbalance of power – but for lying to Congress.

Look rather at these three hypothetical examples:  Imagine the NDA was to protect not Trump but Daniels, and then Trump was the one who broke the agreement. If having sex with Trump is such a disgrace, you wonder why Daniels wouldn’t just take the money and run.   Why did she bravely come forward.  I’m sure there’s an answer, just not a plausible one.  But supposing Trump and Daniels reached an amicable agreement that neither wanted this to come out, him to protect his marriage, her because Trump is a creep, and then one of Trump’s employees let it slip?   They’d all blame Trump, no?  Daniels would demand damages, would she not?

Or what if – and this is plausible – what if Daniels was pregnant with Trump’s child?  What if the payment was actually to provide for the welfare of the minor child, and the hush money was just the cover story.  Then the press exposed it all to win the election and ruined the child’s life?  What would your opinion be of DA Bragg then?  It’s okay to bring down Trump, but not an innocent child?  It tugs at your sympathies, but either case is wrong.  They had an agreement.

Or what if Trump was not a man but a woman?    What if this woman had an affair years ago and a pregnancy resulted?   What if she had obtained an abortion and concealed it from her husband.  Years later the man came forward and threatened to expose the female presidential candidate’s abortion unless he were paid off.  Would Bragg prosecute this female politician for paying hush money to win an election?

This situation is going to happen if it hasn’t already.  And the guy telling you is not a lawyer.

TikTok

If you’re not already following us on TikTok, the short on this topic did blow up.  We also have a Youtube channel with videos on multiple topics center-right. 

Be sure to tell a friend about the Podcast.  They can simply say “Alexa, play The Tenth Man podcast”.  It works with Siri too. 

Catch 22 

We spoke of abortion, it’s a good thing the Democrats are not pro-life because they really would be killing women if they were.    Remember you can only pay hush money if you tell the American public why you paid it.

This is like going to a state where women may only get an abortion to save the life of the mother, and you try to get an abortion and the state says, no, wait, let’s see if the mother really dies.  If the mother dies then the abortion is legal.

Um yeah, but the intent of the law isn’t carried out.  Remember your purpose. 

Other Sham

This trial is a sham and not the only example of one.  The Democrats are willing to perform any legal distortions to get Trump, even against the backdrop of glaring contradictions. 

Bragg’s whole case is the people’s “right to know”, yet the judge put repeated gag orders on Trump. There’s a gag order on him now – after the conviction.  He’s not allowed to discuss anyaspects of the trial the judge doesn’t allow.    Same man – has to talk here, not allowed to talk there. Forced to tell his private matters here, not allowed to reveal public matters there.

The US Justice Department considered taking up this case and rejected it, and many Democrats even criticized Bragg for pursuing it.  But pursue it he did with the federal government’s tacit blessing.  

Compare this to Texas governor Greg Abbot placing floatation barriers into the Rio Grande to stop illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration is not some imaginary or contrived offense.  Look at Alvin Bragg’s charges against Donald Trump – who is even the victim of this complicated tapestry of litigation?  Greg Abbot on the other hand placed barriers to prevent obvious crimes against the citizens of Texas.  Criminals entering illegally.  Crimes that were specific violations of federal law.  Did President Biden sit back with thanks to Governor Abbot for doing Biden’s job for him?  No.  He sued the state of Texas, saying that enforcing immigration law was a federal responsibility, and Texas had to remove the barriers.

The same thing is happening in Michigan with the so-called “false electors” case.  Michigan citizens who happen to be Republicans are being persecuted by the state government for alleged violations of federal election law.  The justice department specifically ruled out these prosecutions by the Feds, so the state attorney general - who should be looking into children being shot at splash pad mass shootings -  is putting the power of the state into sham prosecutions of private citizens who support Trump. 

Then regarding Trump, advice columnist E. Jean Carroll was allowed to sue Trump for sexual assault a quarter century after the events in question supposedly took place.  The state of New York suspended the statute of limitation for sexual assault allowing her to make her claim long after the evidence was fresh.  Trump is accused of dozens of offenses from corruption to racism to sexual assault, all of which took place years ago.  Years ago when he was not running for office.  Years ago when he was a Democrat.  No one had a problem with him when he was on their side.

Speaking of the law versus the calendar, Joe Biden just declared immigrants who had been here for a long period could become citizens.  So, if you’re accused of one crime years ago like Trump, the state will pass a special law waiving the statute of limitations to prosecute you, but if you commit a crime continuously, living here illegally year after year, failing to report, failing to leave, failing to follow the legal path to citizenship, the same government will pass another special law wiping out your crimes.  

Then of course there’s the case of Hunter Biden, where again, the charges against him are simple.  He did have incriminating emails on his laptop and multiple people in government lied about them.   He definitely was using drugs and lied about it on a form to purchase a gun. 

President Biden’s agreeing to accept a verdict against Hunter for a real crime, is being exploited by the mainstream media and the Democrats to show why the Republicans should accept a false verdict against the former president.  The Democrats are using Hunter as a scapegoat.   Joe Biden is not sad to see Hunter prosecuted.  On the contrary he is overjoyed to have this sacrifice to make.  See, we offer up Hunter therefore you should sacrifice Trump.  It’s no skin off Joe Biden’s nose. As if the two people or the two crimes are comparable.  The people don’t want Hunter do they. The people want “the big guy”.

Biden’s supporters don’t think Hunter’s crimes should reflect negatively on his father the President.  That’s not the president being accused, it’s the president’s family.  But the same supporters attack conservative supreme court justices for the opinions of their wives.  Not the crimes of their wives, but for their opinions.  Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have both been asked to step aside based on their wives’ political views.  Not crimes.  Opinions. 

Biden himself declared that Trump should respect the rule of law in this sham case by a rogue DA.  He said “don’t call the trial rigged just because you don’t like the verdict”. He then immediately flipped accusing the highest court in the land of being “out of kilter” because he didn’t like its ruling on a case. 

Bragg

The biggest sham of all – the greatest harm being done - is that the Manhattan DA is prosecuting this imaginary crime just to make a name for himself, when there are real crimes, with real victims that he could be pursuing.  Put aside all partisanship and look at violent crime and the people hurt.  

While Bragg is making the case that the American people are victims of Trump’s deception in falsifying records, NYC police are being assaulted by Joe Biden’s illegal immigrant thugs.  Dangerous men attacking the police who are arrested and immediately set free.

While Bragg is giving interviews on TV, little old ladies are being pushed down stone stairs, or shoved to their deaths on to the subway tracks of New York. 

While Bragg is building his reputation,  NYC thugs are playing the knockout game, walking up to young women and  punching them in the face.  Assaults are up in NYC while he fabricates  charges against Trump. 

And terrorists are attacking police with machetes.

Bragg, like many, has simply forgotten his real purpose, which serving and protecting the people.  Prosecuting Trump accomplishes none of this. 

Purpose

Remembering our purpose is a lesson for us all.  In the last episode I referred to the Jeopardy television show as having lost its purpose.  That show is in decline and if you’re a fan or curious, here’s how and why.

Jeopardy used to be a good quiz show where you could watch, play along and try to answer and do as well as the guests who were other somewhat bright but ordinary people.  The show is changing all that because they have created a self-perpetuating problem of “not enough players”.

Jeopardy geeks – I’ve known a few – used to track when and where the next qualifying test would be given and show up in person to try and qualify.  If you succeeded and went on the show you could only win a maximum of five games.  There was constant turnover and no one became famous.

The host of the show now is a man named Ken Jennings.  He’s not a professional announcer like Pat Sajak or Alex Trebek, his predecessor. He doesn’t have a particularly good speaking voice – on the contrary he has a speech impediment – and in the competition to select him a Jeopardy show producer did a much better job, but a scandal was created around that guy and several “stars” were considered better choices than the man who could actually do the job the best.

Jennings himself is a “star” for winning the game 74 times in a row.  Jennings accomplished this back in 2004 when the show was already thirty years old and everyone thinks it’s an amazing feat.  It isn’t.  Jennings did this because they lifted the 5-game limit in 2003, the only reason it took so long to have a repeat champion.  It’s now a common phenomenon because everyone who does well does better with experience ringing in, because who rings in first is the main factor in winning.  Once you win five games, winning many more is a given even if you meet someone smarter on the playing field. 

To get to the point: Jeopardy used to be a show anyone could tune in and watch; now it’s an insider’s game focused not on its audience but the people playing.  There are long interviews of the players where Jennings interjects his unnecessary connection to any of their life events “oh yes, I tried juggling once”.  

The show should have listened to its long-time host, Alex Trebek who died in 2020, and although Trebek insisted the game was not about him, now every day they introduce the players “here on the Alex Trebek stage”.  If the show lasts people will someday be asking who the heck is Alex Trebek, and if they had any sense they’d be asking now why the show felt it necessary to give the floor a promotion to “stage” and give it a name in the first place and why name it after a man who reads questions on a game show for a living.

To be precise however, Trebek – unlike Jennings – was a professional in his field.  He was an announcer all his life of contests, sports, game shows and more, in two countries and in two languages, French as well as English.  Jennings has no credentials for the job he’s doing. 

Of course the show is woke.  Jeopardy makes it a point not only to select sexual deviants (using the word purely in the descriptive sense) but to make completely sure the audience is well aware of their deviancy.

Jeopardy is in a downward spiral of a decline in willing contestants.  They conduct repeated tournaments of champions where they bring back past winners for teacher tournaments, student tournaments, repeat winner tournaments, winners of championship tournament tournaments because that way they can recycle past players.  Rather than having players seek out their qualification quizzes, they have to advertise their online quiz and harvest contestants from Canada too. 

Obviously, not enough people want to participate in the queer championship celebrity star Jeopardy.  Because we are ordinary people and want to see ordinary people on quiz shows like Jeopardy, a show run by someone who can do the job.  Jeopardy is not.  Jeopardy has forgotten its purpose. 

This is the problem with our politicians.  People like Bragg have forgotten their purpose. 

We heard a list of brutal attacks, attacks where the perpetrators are always repeat offenders. Wouldn’t you think that if Bragg would put away just one of these horrible people, he’d be doing more good than convicting Trump of imaginary crimes?  So - now we all know that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels.  Great.  The great wrong has been righted.  In the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t putting away one or more of these violent criminals give the average Joe more satisfaction than having the inside scoop on Stormy?

Obviously it would because protecting the public, not putting Joe Biden into the White House, that’s the job, the purpose, of the Manhattan District Attorney.

Thanks for your attention.