The Duran Podcast
Trump gets richer as DEMs try to make him poorer
All right, Alexandra, 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, $3.5 billion richer from his, his floating of truth, truth social. What, 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 is farcical, because it's also in some ways disturbing, 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, this law case in New York was to bankrupt Trump. In other words, to create a situation where the Attorney General in New York would be able to start sequestering his properties, and that would set in train a cascade of crisis across his entire business empire. That would supposedly bankrupt Trump, bankrupting Trump, who actually read this somewhere, would supposedly destroy his reputation amongst the American people, because part of his reputation is bound up with his successors, a businessman, and as 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 this actually achieved, it's done, diametric opposite. 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 sum. I'm sure he can, by the way. 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 group for Donald Trump to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, say that his appeal rights would be denied him, that he was facing a disproportionate sentence, and I think he would have had some grounds for good reasons to succeed. So, this is clearly a correct decision. Well, I could take that back. It wasn't a correct decision. I think you York Court of Appeals. A correct decision would have been to reduce the bond to a much smaller amount still, not $175 million, but $1 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 the payments that he's made to those two women. The case in Georgia, the case is 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 that's made it much given it vastly more retention. So, the result is that it's now merged, hidden, 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 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 trying 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 dividing 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, do all 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 for 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 now so committed to this strategy that they can't pull back from it. How can 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 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 do they say, you know, these cases are absurd. Let's 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. 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, I mean, they're threadbare. And for that reason, they should never have been started in the first place. Do they have anything? Once you start it, you can't, I mean, even if you, even if they wanted to stop them now, much very difficult. Yeah, 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 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 and that would stay in a call. But I just said the same thing about all of these other cases that they brought as well. I mean, you know, it's, it's, it's not as if this is a sort of conventional, rational discussion about bringing a case against someone. So given that these, 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 say that they can't bring another one. They could always create more cases out of the air. I mean, there has been 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 way. I wonder if they're going to, just the final thought, if they're just going to go back to some sort of Russian 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 have a syndrome, Havana syndrome, like it's like 60 minutes. The other day that Russia was behind it. I mean, you know, Russia, let's, 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 tread out with it. So, you know, if they started up again, which quite plausibly, they will, I again suspect that, you know, they will, they will come across sounding like a broken record. You remember the old LPs? You got stuck in the groove and you just have to feed yourself. And it can be effective at the beginning, but beyond a certain point, you just become starsome. 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, very anti-Trump. But he's actually come out and finally said it that all of these law fair cases were a huge mistake. The way to defeat Trump is political. You take him on politically. You find out where his weak points are, your criticized his economic program, your criticized his social programs, your criticized his foreign policy ideas. You do it in that way. And of course, that's not what these guys ever wanted to do. I agree. They never fight a political battle. Never. All right. We will leave it there. The derailleur.locals.com. We are on Rumble. Odyssey, Bitchew Telegram, Rockfin, and Twitter X and go to the Durant shop. Pick up some limited merch. The link is in the description box down below. Take care. [Music]