Want to start right away by talking about the prosecuting of Donald Trump because what's really interesting is there's a pretty left-leaning article and newspaper organization that just came out and said wait a minute maybe a big mistake is being made and this was mind-blowing to me because I'm a big fan of trying to understand corporate and media biases and I'm blown away that the Economist said that potentially Prosecuting Trump in the Stormy Daniels case looks like a mistake. This blows my mind because I'll tell you I listen to The Economist a lot. but I know they are. They definitely lean left I wouldn't say they're super far left.

they're sort of like there's the middle and then they're just as far left as the Wall Street Journal is to the right. But what blows my mind is the media reaction here that the Economist would actually under perp talk say okay, Prosecuting Donald Trump and the Stormy Daniels case looks like a mistake. This blows my mind because really, what you have is you have a leftist organization saying hey, wait a minute, wait a minute. Maybe we shouldn't convict or prosecute Donald Trump for for these crimes Now yesterday I did a complete about 40-minute live stream going through the entire Uh indictment, the likely claims in it, the booking process.

Willie B Handcuffed Will he not be the difference between the Secret Service handcuffing him being Donald Trump's Choice the Uh New York Police Department handcuffing him being the choice of the District Attorney, which we don't think will happen more likely a secret service would at the direction of Donald Trump This is likely to happen next week where Donald Trump will be booked and then enter his non-guilty plea during the arraignment. If you want the complete details to that, watch the other video just type into YouTube Meet Kevin Donald Trump indictment. You'll see everything about it, the history, the background, everything but regarding this reaction: I Have to get through this because I I think it blows my mind. So first of all, after so much speculation that it seemed America's media might have just repeated uh Echoes a Grand jury indeed indicted the 45th President of the United States This is to use a term that is worn out by or was worn out by the end of of the Trump Administration historic.

So they've already kind of got this sort of like tone of being a little like All right, All right, we're kind of over Trump here and and they're very clear about that. You'll see at the end of this article. they do not like Trump but listen to what they say and it just it blows my mind. Trump has been fundraising for weeks on the back of his potential indictment which he predicted was coming on March 18th.

It turns out to have been one of his more accurate posts. again, sort of another Slam at Trump for potentially a hyperbole or exaggerating. But anyway, if Mr Trump has committed a crime, it would be wrong to duck Prosecuting him because it would put stress on America's governing institutions. In other words, if he did indeed commit a crime, of course he should be prosecuted.

For example, other presidents like Uh Sylvia Bussellini in Italy or Nicolas sucker Z in France were convicted as well. For example, in the case of Sarkozy he was convicted of one year or one corruption count for which he needed to serve one year in prison after being president of France and a second corruption charge to be served in home confinement. Now treating a former president like any other Citizen though Cuts both ways says The Economist Now this is really interesting. They see on they say on one hand you should apply the law equally to everyone like nobody's Above The Law if somebody committed a crime, they should be prosecuted.

But if you're turning a blind eye to a ton of crimes in your city like New York is why are you looking into this Trump case? Because this isn't like the most clear Smoking Gun you could have picked. So that's what they say here. They say a prosecutor has to weigh the seriousness of a crime, the likelihood of securing a conviction, and the public interest in securing. not not like the Public's media interests, but like the public safety interest and Prosecuting the crime about uh.

And then of course in this case they talk about how potentially half of America is going to look at this Uh trial as impartial and a political weaponization and the other half of America is going to look at this as like that's right, we're looking to serve Justice So we've got this real divide in America Democrats cheering about Yay! Trump's finally going to come to Justice And and Republicans why are we weaponizing the District Attorney right? But now here's what I think is very interesting: The Economist says ethics and hypocrisy are not what are on trial in Manhattan. So in other words, The Economist is like look, we could bag on his ethics and his hypocrisy all day long. but this is a prosecution about potentially hush money payment where a payment was labeled potentially a legal expense which is a misdemeanor. But now prosecutors are arguing that this misdemeanor made it a breach of federal and state campaign Finance Violations and linking these charges is actually really novel.

It's a novel way to try to bring this test and it's not the strongest case you could bring against Trump. They actually suggest that the case in Georgia is much stronger. so listen to this. The Economist says while Trump remains a threat, not just to America but to the rest of the West.

Remember they lean pretty left. They say if Trump is to be prosecuted, it should be for something that cannot be dismissed as a technicality. where the law is clearer. the Manhattan DA's case looks like a mistake.

Think about that for a moment. You literally have a leftist paper saying it seems like a mistake to prosecute Donald Trump Because this is not a smoking gun case and it's just going to divide America more if Donald Trump killed somebody and he was caught on video holding a Smoking Gun just like any other person, he should be prosecuted and convicted. Nobody is above the law, but in this case it seems almost like evidence and we don't know yet. We don't actually have the complete indictment and the evidence that'll come out soon enough, but at least right now it seems like a lot of this has been strung together to create a pretty loose and potentially not very sticky case against a former president that is making this case look very politically motivated.

The Wall Street journals editorial board actually had a very similar thing to say. They say, hey, look, maybe there's going to be new evidence coming up, but that evidence. This is the Wall Street Journal now, right. They lean it a little bit more right.

Wall Street Journal says that new evidence better be solid enough that a reasonable voter would find it persuasive. The last thing a politically polarized America needs is a case in which partisans line up on either side like a political O.J Simpson Trial and the prosecution must be seen by the country as an example of fair-minded Justice Now I find this really incredible. The fact that you have newspapers and And basically Publishers uh for uh Politics on both sides arguing that this case is a mistake against Donald Trump Even if you hate Trump's guts, it's a mistake because all you're doing is polarizing America more with what seems like it could be a relatively weak case. So that's pretty incredible to me.

I'm surprised to see this, especially from The Economist because I listen to them a lot because they have really good economic information. I try to take out their political bias when I can. but I have to say both of these papers, they're right. The people on the left and right, they're right here.

This is probably not the best case to bring against Donald Trump.