Well, Donald Trump has Congress doing his bidding for him Congress Just sent an eight-page complaint to the District Attorney Mr Bragg of Manhattan demanding they turn over information that they have on Donald Trump Now this is phase two of The Saga They started with an inquiry letter to which the district attorney replied and said hey, hey hey y'all are overstepping your Authority Congress Back off. This is a local case for a local prosecution against Donald Trump and this is our case and that was their response to car a congressional request uh from a committee of three individuals the first time that was their first response. Now Congress has responded again and you're gonna love their response. But first, I want to touch on some of the various different allegations that are being made Aid against Donald Trump and there are a lot of them.

I'm going to go in reverse order and I'm going to keep them somewhat simple just so you can kind of maybe like if you're keeping track, you can kind of just number them. So first, we've got the Insurrection right crime 2 in sight or Aid in the Uh in the comfort of an Insurrection call it what you want. That is what the allegation is. Okay, it's not me calling an Insurrection this is what the allegation is.

so that's one. The next Uh is conspiracy to commit wire fraud and a lot of this has to do with 130 000 of hush money payments in 2016-17 that went to Stormy Daniels Now apparently through recordings that we've heard this money went from Michael Cohen Uh two Stormy Daniels and then potentially was reimbursed to Michael Cohen for who was Trump's fixer at the time was potentially reimbursed a Cohen indirectly through shell companies. Now, there have been a lot of circulating documents on Twitter suggesting that wait a second Mr or Donald Trump never reimburse this 130 000 of hush money payments because here are legal letters showing that that never happened. In fact, that legal letter that keeps circulating is right here.

It's this legal letter that says from 2018 which is stamped highly confidential, which quite frankly, anybody could stamp that on there. and it's this: Council for Michael Cohen suggesting that hey, look, uh, Michael Cohen used his own personal funds to facilitate that 130 000 payment to Stephanie Clifford which is Stormy Daniels real name and neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Clifford and neither reimbursed Mr Cohen for payments. uh, directly or indirectly. That's fantastic and people on the right are saying that's it Case Closed Donald Trump is free Donald Trump never paid that hush money payments.

But wait a minute. This letter itself is very carefully worded. It says neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign reimbursed Michael Cohen right? But others are saying it was Donald Trump's Family Trust that reimbursed Michael Cohen See how you could trick people? Trump organization is one entity Trump Camp K Campaign is an entity Trump Family Trust is another entity. So that other entity could have reimbursed Michael Cohen for that 130 000.

However, this guy's a convicted threats. Dear Mr Cohen So I don't really hold much esteem for Michael Cohen's attorney which is who wrote that letter and it does. I Wouldn't put it past them to sort of manipulate the facts in such a way. Donald Trump is also being alleged for potentially article 175 in New York falsifying business records suggesting uh, that uh, there is a book or was bookkeeping fraud that had happened that could potentially carry a four-year sentence, but you would need to prove that he knowingly caused false entries into company records quote with the intent to defraud There are campaign Finance violation allegations.

The allegation that potentially this hush money payment was made via The Campaign which Donald Trump has argued no the campaign would never make such payments uh to Stormy Daniels and this is where you have the New York District Attorney potentially elevating uh, this particular crime from a misdemeanor to a felony which will actually be really important in the Congressional response because they destroy the New York District attorney for basically de-escalating most felonies to misdemeanors and still only having about a 50 conviction rate. Then there is an argument that 103 classified documents were found with Donald Trump. Theoretically, there's a 10-year penalty for every document that you knew you were in possession of and failed to comply with returning when you were asked. Then there's another charge about Criminal Intent to conceal records.

Now this the only way this would Pat like actually stick is if a court could show Donald Trump knew he had files that were responsive to the National Archives uh efforts that has a 20-year penalty for uh, per offense, mishandling of documents criminalizes the concealment or destruction of documents, basically alleging that potentially Donald Trump tore up Pages There's the contempt of court charge which is disobeying a subpoena from May of 2022 to turn over documents because later more documents were found. There's a conspiracy to make a false statement which would make it a crime and and would be a violation of the law to lie about other documents being available. But then again, they'd have to prove that Donald Trump knew about these and I'm just giving you all of these potential charges against Donald Trump right? Uh, Then there's the Georgia election charge that Donald Trump pressuring the governor uh and Secretary of State to find additional votes was really a crime to solicit someone else to commit election fraud, but that you know a lot of these feel a little scratchy because really, then you have to ask? Well, was Donald Trump just saying can we like can we double check to make sure there aren't illegally cast votes or was he asking can you just get me some fake votes right? like That's going to be very difficult I think probably to prove in court. there are also potential crimes of Rico laws racketeering laws which are usually violent in Georgia Rico laws are usually related to Violent uh breaking of laws but uh, this there could be Rico claims for the solicitation to make false statements for forgery related to not Georgia phone call Uh, then of course you have uh January 6th which we talked about already regarding those introduction Clips So so these together are sort of.

all of these claims that are being thrown against Donald Trump And people on the left are very frustrated because they're like how is this guy Teflon Don But then when you look at every single one of the claims individually, there might not be the biggest Smoking Gun but not because maybe Donald Trump didn't manage to to kind of skirt the way things were supposed to be done. But because of the legal standard, that's the fight. This isn't Democrat Republican I Mean, even though it is, we know it is. We know it's Democrat Republican But when you look at the legal standard, the legal standard is so high to prove how, how do you go to a court and somehow prove oh, he knew the documents were there.

He knew how many there were. He knew exactly where. How do you prove that? Even if Trump knew, how do you prove that He knew right? Remember you in a criminal case, you have to convince a jury or a judge. Beyond A Reasonable Doubt And if there's any doubt that Donald Trump didn't know about these documents, if there's any doubt that he didn't know exactly what Michael Cohen was doing, If there's any doubt that he didn't know exactly what his words meant when he said them on January sex because he would have not expected that people would have actually broken down doors and windows at uh uh at Congress then it's kind of hard to convict because there's doubt.

So it's kind of interesting. But what's very fascinating is this Congressional response right here. And this just came out yesterday and so this is a letter to Alvin Bragg the District Attorney of New York bagging on him and saying yo now remember at the beginning of this segment what did I tell you I said Congress wanted information on Trump The response from the District attorney was dude, no, this is not your place like back off, this is our case. You don't deserve to have any insight into these documents because you have no jurisdiction here F off like this is on us so go away and what do we actually have now? Well, Congress comes back with yet another argument and their argument is pretty detailed and I think it's definitely worth going through.

so let's do it. Look at this in reply. We did. It's worth noting that uh, the allegations of potential pressure from the left that Congress is making against the District Attorney was not addressed At All by their office.

In other words, these Uh individuals who are writing this letter in Congress which are Jim Jordan the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Bryant Steele Chairman of the Committee On House Administration and James calmer, the Chairman of the Committee On Oversight and Accountability. These chair folks are making the allegation that hey, you know in our first letter to us where we said you guys are basically just folding to political pressure from the left and you're weaponizing the office of the District Attorney, you didn't even address that in your last letter And why are you upgrading a misdemeanor charge against Donald Trump to a felony using an untested legal Theory at the same time as you're simultaneously downgrading other felonies in your jurisdiction. So what has happened here is the District Attorney has really poked the bear. They've poked the bear and now all of a sudden you have a very upset Congress And some of the arguments they make here are very interesting.

so they say here. First of all, this is extremely important for National purposes because if a President ever in the future avoids taking an action he believes is in the National interest because it would negatively impact a local jurisdiction because of fear that they would be subject to retaliatory prosecution from a city, then Congress needs to know about that. And that's basically how they start over here. So they make this argument that, look, this is a national security issue because really, what you're doing is you're saying, hey, if a president can get sued after they leave office, then what happens in the future if another president gets in, let's say you know Robert Jones is president in 10 years and Robert Jones passes a law or signs a law into effect that hurts New York What If after he's done, he gets prosecuted, that's the argument.

Uh, that uh, Congress These these three individuals in Congress are responding with uh and they are threatening to potentially take legislative action to potentially protect former or current presidents from politically motivated prosecutions now. I Wrote a little note here and I said LOL empty threat and that's true. There's probably not going to be any legislative action between now and the 2024 election because after midterms, very little gets done other than what is necessary. But I did actually write that I Thought this was a very nice count.

Like a pretty solid counter by Congress here. Like look, this is the responsibility of Congress because it affects how presidents potentially act in the future. It's actually a good point, especially since Bragg when he campaigned for office said he felt convinced he wanted to prosecute Donald Trump based on what he publicly believed was enough evidence to prosecute Trump So it's kind of like he went into office and got elected with a mandate to prosecute Trump and now he's Prosecuting Trump And of course the left is arguing good. Donald Trump deserves to be taking the justice and the right argues what the hell? Like you're supposed to see a crime and then investigate, not investigate somebody and then find crimes like it's backwards because you're weaponizing the office for political purposes.

Like that's not how it's supposed to work. It's not like you're supposed to say who whom do we think is deserves to go to jail Trump Okay, how are we going to get him in trouble? Let's find something that's sticking with that And a lot of people are saying this is scary. This is not how law enforcement should work, just work the other way around. If you do a crime, then you get caught, then you get investigated, then you go to jail, not the other way around.

All right, get going here. Congress Argues that the Supreme Court has, and when I say Congress in the context of this video, it's important to remember. Uh, it's those three Representatives So they make this argument that the Supreme Court has recognized a broad and indispensable power to conduct oversight. thanks to a 1961 or 62 I can't remember, it was either 61 or 62.

law or case law Wilkinson versus the United States And they created a three-prong test to determine the legal sufficiency of basically a congressional inquiry. And basically the standard is pretty light. It basically says any committee can investigate broad subject matter that's authorized by Congress which could be Appropriations. The investigations must be pursuant to a valid legislative purpose which could be oversight and the specifics of the inquiries must be involved pertinent to Broad subject matter which have been authorized by Congress.

Basically this three-purpose test is kind of saying: as long as Congress wants to conduct oversight, they can look into anything they want. So it's a pretty broad interpretation of case line. It was a pretty broad case uh for for what it gives the power to do so. They then argue that committees are authorized to conduct such an inquiry.

They talk about how, uh, the last thing we want is a collision between the Secret Service and local law enforcement officials. They go on to talk about how and this is what happens when you poke the Bear by the way, like your your own faults come up. Listen to this one under your leadership. The New York Dis New York County District Attorney General's office has adopted and defended your Progressive criminal justice policies which include downgrading 52 percent of felony cases to misdemeanors.

Even with downgrading more than half of your felony cases to misdemeanors, your office's conviction rate when Prosecuting serious felony charges was just 51 percent. Think about that for a moment. That's pretty incredible. So what they're basically saying is 52 percent of felony cases were downgraded to misdemeanors of that 52.

So if you have a hundred, that just turned into 52. of those 52, only about 25 ended up in convictions. So in other words, your conviction rate on felonies is only about 25. That's crazy.

Yeah, there it is. You're convinced. Oh well. And then look at this, then it gets even crazier.

then it says Also, your conviction rate for misdemeanors is just 28. So in other words, in New York they're basically saying the felony conviction rate when you combine the uh discounting of of demoting uh felonies to misdemeanors is only about 25 and your misdemeanor, uh, conviction rate is only about 28. So in other words, if you want to commit crime, Congress is basically saying go to New York because their conviction rates are horrible I Mean this is what happens when you poke the bear like you kind of get exposed. Uh.

So then they argue here. In fact, in a Judiciary subcommittee here last year on a mother of an army veteran testified after her son was murdered in your District she criticized your office's handling of her son's murder because you offered a plea deal to the defendants despite the fact that the murder and their roles was caught on video. Yikes! That would definitely piss off a mom who lost their son and then saw plea deals being offered to murderers. So they keep going and talking about some basis.

I'm really just wanting to show you the most interesting parts. They argue that Congress absolutely has the right to investigate because even though the District Attorney says hey, your requests are an unlawful incursion into New York Sovereignty They say our inquiry does nothing to stop your duties. Oversight and inquiry is not something that distracts you from doing your job, it's a normal course of business. Fair argument.

You know that's kind of like saying hey, if you got an SEC art audit, uh to make sure you're doing what you're supposed to be doing correctly Uh, then that's not like saying oh well, now I'm distracted I can't do my job. That is part of your job to respond to oversight requests. Anyway, the court has further noted that a Congressional committee engaged in legitimate legislative investigation need not grind to a halt whenever it responds to inquiries. Same thing I just said.

Basically, so they make their case here and they sign it. Please respond no later than March 31st. Now keep in mind they did not explicitly threaten a subpoena against Uh Bragg's office. but let's just say a lot of people are really pissed.

Uh, even to the point where bomb threats have been called into the New York Criminal Court Apparently now, a suspicious white powdery substance was mailed to the DA's office, which anybody who is probably older than like 25 remembers the whole like Anthrax scare of uh, uh, the past. So it's kind of scary. So uh, kind of wild to see all of the the uh political trauma on both sides around this. but my goal is to do my best to provide you insights on both sides.

I Know that's not like the most popular thing to do because then people are like no man, you're young and then they don't actually tell you how they're wrong or or that I'm wrong because my opinion is just different. My opinion is really designed to just be in the middle. like when I look at something like that, that article on Twitter or like 99 of the responses or that letter on Twitter to the letter on Twitter 99 of the responses to that letter on Twitter Are people going? That's it Case Closed man it's over. Trump's free.

No like if you actually read it with detail, you could see where the holes are and that's my point is to show I I Don't want to say like make people more jaded, but I do think we need more of that sort of critical analysis when we look at things and I think it's a good thing like hey, what I would do if I you know if I had any involvement in this is I would send a letter to that law firm and I'd be like hey, you know you all wrote a letter in 2018 Could you verify that it's not just the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign or Trump personally or his family trust personally that didn't reimburse anybody. And if they don't say anything, that's kind of a Smoking Gun to some degree there, right? Because it's like, all right, you found the hole. Maybe not right Or maybe they respond and say yep, nope, no organization of Donald Trump They didn't say no organization of Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for Stormy Daniels They specifically said Trump org or Trump campaign. Okay, well, he's got like 20 other businesses maybe uh, Atlantic Trump Atlantic casinos did it or Trump University or Trump's trust.

Yeah, the point is, these are all like this. this. these letters often, uh, seem like they're so conclusive, they're really not. so.

Anyway, I think that's very interesting. Uh, so with that said, I need to remind you to get yourself twill free stocks from Weeble by going to Metcaven.com Weeble Check out Now we have Buy now, Pay Later, a firm being the most popular, Clarna coming in second close second there for the courses on building your wealth linked down below. You could break up those payments in three months. six months, 12 months if you want.

Generally don't recommend using buying I pay later, but some people have been demanding it, so it's there. Check out those programs. link down below and get your life insurance in as little as five minutes by going to Metcaven.com Life. Thanks so much for watching and we'll see you in the next meet.

Kevin Report All right.