The Duran Podcast - Trump gets richer as DEMs try to make him poorer

Episode Date: April 8, 2024

Trump gets richer as DEMs try to make him poorer

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the legal cases against Trump, the effort to try and destroy Trump or make him poor to try and make Trump in the Trump campaign. Poor, which is not working. It's actually made Trump richer, $3.5 billion richer from his floating of truth social. what are your thoughts about or how are the the attacks against Trump going the Trump campaign going I mean this is a farcical story I mean it is I mean it's farcical because it's also in some ways disturbing but because I mean it's not quite openly discussed it has been quite openly discussed especially in the British media that part of the purpose of this of this law case in New York was to bankrupt Trump

In other words, the creative situation where the Attorney General in New York would be able to start sequestering his properties, and that would set in the train, a cascade of crisis across his entire business empire. That would supposedly bankrupt Trump. Bankrupting Trump, I actually read this somewhere, would supposedly destroy his reputation. amongst the American people because part of his reputation is bound up with his success as a businessman and his wealth and his wealth so if he's bankrupted you know he's no longer able to convey that image and of course what is actually achieved it's done diametric operative Donald Trump is now much richer than he was he's more than doubled his wealth and in fact

He's now apparently amongst the 500 richest men in the world. I mean, it's almost incredible to see how they try something with all of these cases, and it ends up leading directly to the opposite result of what they expected. Now, what has happened is, first of all, on the bond issue, the New York Court of Appeals reduced the bond from the ridiculous, what was it, $450 billion, to $175 billion. Trump says he can raise that some. I'm sure he can, by the way.

And in effect, that particular ploy of sequestering his property has collapsed. I think that the New York Court of Appeals did that because they sensed that if they didn't do it, there would have been an open route

for Donald Trump to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, say that his appeal rights were being denied him, that he was facing a disproportionate sentence, and I think he would have had some grounds of good reasons to succeed. So this is clearly a correct decision. Well, I could take that back. It wasn't a correct decision, but I think of your court of appeals.

A correct decision would have been to reduce the bond to a much smaller amount still, not 175 million, but, you know, a million or something like that. But anyway, whatever, they did it. So that problem is out of the way. But the point is that with all of these legal cases, with all of this constant lawfare against Donald Trump, with this case in New York in particular going on the way that it has done, with all the other cases, the weird defamation cases, the extraordinary case about. you know, the payments that he's made to those two women.

The case in Georgia, the cases that Jack Smith is bringing against him. Well, this has given true social, his new platform, an enormous amount of work activity that's increased its profile, it's made it much, given it vastly more attention. So the result is that it's now merged in a much bigger entity. That's made him vastly richer. It's the classic example. What doesn't break you makes you stronger, and it's made Donald Trump much, much stronger. So instead of being broken, bankrupt, crippled, discredited by the American people,

he comes forward looking mightier and stronger than ever before. And it's totally predictable. But they still do it. They still have this compulsion. to do these things. Yeah, I wonder what they're going to try next. Or are they going to continue to chip away at this strategy of lawfare combined with, I guess you could say they're just trying to empty out the coffers of Trump or the Trump campaign.

So I think the strategy now is just a lot of legal cases, as well as try to tie up Trump in those legal cases and make it very expensive for Trump so that he has to divert whatever money he has or he raises for his campaign. He has to divert it to fighting the legal battles. I mean, I think that's pretty much the strategy that they're employing right now. I wonder if they're going to try something else or if they're going to continue down this path. I think that was the strategy that they started out with. Tie him down, scare off the donors, get him spending all his money on legal cases, ultimately bankrupt him.

of those things. It hasn't worked. There's no reason to think it is going to work. The legal cases are getting him support and sympathy from more and more people in the United States. They've also made him, as we see, much richer than he was previously. But straightforwardly, I think they are so committed to this strategy that they can't pull back from it. How can't they? How can Jack Smith, say, for example, you know, I brought all these prosecutions, but having thought about it, carefully, I've decided that I'm not going to bring them after all. Or, you know, the case in Georgia, which is collapsing in all kinds of strange ways with all sorts of problems with the prosecutors. How can they turn around and drop that one? Or these absurd cases in New York. How did they say, you know,

these cases were absurd, let's let go with them. Let's not pursue them any further. These cases, Once you start, so by the way, advice lawyers always give their clients, once you start a litigation process, you lose control. You can't just stop because if you stop in a certain, or try to stop in a certain, at a certain point, what it means is you lose. It's, litigation is very, it's, litigation is very much an all-or-nothing thing. This is why lawyers, good lawyers, are always very, very careful to advise their clients before they start on litigation. Think very carefully what you're doing, even if you appear to have a very, very strong case.

It might not be to your advantage to pursue it in this way. These cases are not strong. I'm being generous. I mean, they're threadbare. and for that reason they should never have been started in the first place. But you can't, once you start it, you can't, I mean, even if you, even if they wanted to stop them now, much, very difficult. Legally, do they have anything, anything else that they can try to go with? I mean, I have that.

I don't want to say they've exhausted all of their options. Obviously, they're not going to stop these guys. but just trying to think if they have anything else that they can they can try to pile on to the Trump. The difficulty is that I would, I should say no because I can't really see what they have against Trump, that they can bring against them that would stay in a court. But I just said the same thing about all of these other cases that they brought as well. I mean, you know, it's not as if this is a sort of conventional, rational discussion about bringing a case against someone.

So given that some of these cases have just been created out of the air, I can't really see, I can't really see how I can't say that they can't bring another one. they could always create more cases out of the air. I mean, there must be an infinite number of cases that they can create. I'm not going to try and guess what they might be because my mind doesn't stretch that way. I mean, I don't think in that kind of a way. I wonder if they're going to just a final thought,

if they're just going to go back to some sort of Russia narrative. If they're probably going to say to themselves, you know, the Russia thing worked out pretty well last time, maybe we should fall back to another Russian narrative. I think they might very well. Havana syndrome, like what's like 60 minutes talked about the other day that Russia was behind the Havana. I mean, you know, Russia. Let's just work the Russia angle again, you know, in whatever way we can.

Quite possibly. I mean, it's not implausible. I mean, given that there are still so many people around the world and in the United States who believe it. But of course, there are an awful lot more people now who are utterly exasperated and fed up with it. So, you know, if they started up again, which quite plausibly they will, I again suspect that, you know, they will come across sounding like a broken record. You remember the old LPs when you got stuck in the groove and he doesn't feed yourself. And it can be effective at the beginning, but beyond a certain point, it just becomes starting. them and I think this is what probably they will find.

We have this left-wing journalist in Britain called Owen Jones, who, you know, he's a person who's very, very left-wing, very, very, very anti-Trump. But he's actually come out and finally said it that all of these lawfare cases were a huge mistake. The way to defeat Trump is political. You take him on politically. You find out where he's weak points are. You criticize his economic program. You criticize his social programs.

You criticize his foreign policy ideas. You do it in that way. Of course, that's not what these guys ever wanted to do. Agreed. They never fight a political battle. Never. All right. We will leave it there.

The durand. orgal.com. We are on Rumble. Odyssey, Bitch, you, Telegraph, Rockfin, and TwitterX and go to the Duran shop. Pick up some limited merch. Link is in the description box down below. Take care.