Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 209: "Lied, Concealed, Indicted, He's Trump" is now available!

Podcast: I Feel Snitty

Episode 209: Lied, Concealed, Indicted, He's Trump

Premiere Date: 4/6/2023

Length: 15:36 (2,323 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/lied-concealed-indicted-he-s-trump/

Transcript: 

Welcome to “I Feel Snitty,” episode 209, entitled, “Lied, Concealed, Indicted, He’s Trump.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

 

Well, it happened. Former Puppet-in-Chief and man voted “Most Likely to Find Pleasure in Getting Spanked With a Magazine Featuring His Face On the Cover, By a Porn Star, While Married to a Mail-Order Bride” by his high school class – Donald Trump – was arrested and charged with not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8, not 9… You’re now wondering if I’d seriously be dull enough to go all the way, aren’t you? Well, I am. Where was I? Not 10, not 11, not 12, not 13, not 14, not 15, not 16, not 17, not 18…

 

:: We will now pause for intermission ::

 

…and we’re back. Continuing on… Not 19, not 20, not 21, not 22, not 23, not 24, not 25, not 26, not 27, not 28, not 29, not 30, not 31, not 32, not even 33, but 34, yes, 34 FELONIES! Holy shit, I’m out of breath. Give me a moment, please…

 

Donald Trump wasn’t charged with a single misdemeanor. He wasn’t charged with ANY misdemeanors. The guy has been charged with 34 felonies for falsifying business records with intent to conceal other criminal acts – or as the fancy kids nowadays like to say it, crimes.

 

Okay, so I’m going to break this into two parts: 1) I’ll provide my never-been-to-law-school legal expertise in how I see the case unfolding and 2) I’ll respond to some of the most ridiculous takes I’ve read and heard from Republican politicians and cable news talking heads alike.

 

I should start off by saying, in my wholly unbiased opinion, I think Trump is guilty as fuck. Sadly, unless I’m serving jury duty, my opinion doesn’t hold much Aquafina in courts of law. Having given my totally unbiased opinion, I should also note that I am a stickler for due process and abiding by the notion that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is why, when I did actually serve jury duty, the prosecutor eye-fucked the shit out of me – especially after I pulled a “Juror #8.” If you don’t get the reference, I recommend watching 12 Angry Men – the original. The remake is fine, but as is typical, doesn’t quite match the quality of the original. Enough with film reviews. As I was saying, while I think Trump is likely guilty on all 34 counts, my opinion doesn’t really matter; the question is can the prosecution prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Donald Trump is in fact guilty? I think they can – at least on some of the counts, but it won’t be easy.

 

What the prosecution has going for it is tangible evidence to prove Trump did in fact falsify business records on numerous occasions. We’ve seen several checks, with Trump’s unique signature on them, showcasing this. We’ve heard audio recordings of Trump doing this. The evidence is all there to convict Trump of falsifying business records. So, what’s the problem, Craig? Why did you say the case wouldn’t be a slam dunk? And why are you talking in the third-person? Let me tell you… If New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg decided to file 34 misdemeanor charges of falsifying business records against Donald Trump, I think that would likely have been a piece of cake. Like I said, the evidence is all there to prove this. The reason the charges have been pushed up to felonies, however, is due to the allegation that the falsifying of business records was used with the intent to conceal other crimes. Now, we don’t know specifically what these other illegal acts are, but District Attorney Bragg did allude to them dealing with campaign finance violations (on both the state and federal levels) and tax matters. Regardless, the question is can the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the INTENT to conceal other illegal activities? Intent isn’t easy to prove, especially beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I think it's quite likely Trump broke campaign finance laws and evaded taxes, but again, does that prove INTENT? That is the piece of the puzzle which will be the most difficult for the prosecution to fit. I personally think they can do it, at least with some of the charges, but again, it’s not going to be easy.

 

Now, I don’t want anybody thinking I’m raining on the “LOCK HIM UP!” parade. I want Trump locked up more than just about anybody. The guy is a piece of shit fraud, and I’d like nothing more than to see him spend the rest of his days behind bars, where he belongs. I’m just trying to be realistic. I will say I’d much rather be on the prosecution’s side than the defense’s right now. I mean, think about it… The prosecution has all the evidence they need to convict Trump. What does the defense have? Talking points? Word salads? Debunked conspiracies? They will need to pull some magic out of their asses to convince the jury there’s reasonable doubt.

 

I would like to make note of one more thing I found interesting. Yesterday on MSNBC, attorney and professor Andrew Weissmann said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that he found it interesting neither side protested the next hearing not being scheduled until December. On one hand, he said, if Trump were innocent, wouldn’t he want the trial to end as quickly as possible? On the other hand, and more interesting, in my opinion, he said the prosecution not protesting the long layoff until the next hearing may be a sign they’ve got something cooking, which will take some time – something in the works which could prove largely beneficial to their case. I thought that was a very interesting observation, and I couldn’t help but think, “Huh, he may be onto something.”

 

Okay, so to sum up part 1: Trump is guilty as fuck, but since he’s presumed innocent until proven guilty and the New York DA decided to charge him with 34 felonies instead of misdemeanors, the case won’t be as easy as it would’ve been – but minus word salads with bullshit-ic dressing, they’ve literally got nothing.

 

Moving onto part 2 of the podcast, I’d like to share a few of my favorite comments regarding the indictment by Republicans and media talking heads, and respond to each. Warning: If you develop a rash while listening to this segment, you’re allergic to bullshit, and should see a doctor immediately.

 

Don, Jr. posted a meme where his daddy is sitting; looking straight ahead; and pointing for some reason, with the words “IN REALITY THEY’RE NOT AFTER ME THEY’RE AFTER YOU I’M JUST IN THE WAY.”

 

The only way that makes sense is if he’s pointing at a mirror. Otherwise, it’s malarkey.

 

On the Fucker Carlson Show, Colonel Sanders’ evil twin Glenn Beck said, “The fundamental transformation that started in 2008 is finished. By 2025, we are going to be at war. We are going to have a new dollar, [and] we will live in a virtual police state.”

 

Wait, 2008? What happened in 2008? Oh yeah, we elected a black guy. Always the original recipe for him, isn’t it? Moving on…

 

Donald Trump tweeted on Truth Social, “WHERE’S HUNTER?”

 

I don’t know. Who fucking cares?!? Next…

 

Matt Taibbi tweeted, “If presidents think they will be chased into jail under thin pretexts as ex-presidents, they’ll try even harder to never leave office. This is how autocracies are born.”

 

Psst, dipshit, I wouldn’t classify 34 felonies as “thin pretexts”…

 

Don, Jr. went one further when he tweeted, “The irony of all the Putin haters endorsing the regime trying to jail the opposition leader is really something special to behold.”

 

Wait, so did a Moscow grand jury find probable cause to indict Putin’s opponent after Putin dethroned said opponent as president? No? Then that’s false equivalence. Try again.

 

Kevin McCarthy tweeted, “Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election.”

 

This is rich. Donald Trump incited a terrorist attack on our nation’s Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election; he’s facing 34 felony counts, where he’s alleged to have tried to impact the 2016 election by illegal means; and McCarthy is going to claim Democrats are the ones trying to interfere in an election 19 months from now, where they have the evidence necessary to prove Trump tried to influence the 2016 election by illegal means? Yeah, okay there, sparky…

 

Don, Jr. tweeted yet another gem, writing, “The Swamp fears President Trump because they don’t own him and can’t control him. We all know that they wouldn’t be weaponizing the government to target him with this BS if he wasn’t the biggest threat to their corrupt system!”

 

The only reason a swamp would fear Trump is because swamps are nasty enough as it is; they don’t want Trump’s indescribably appalling odor anywhere near it to make the smell worse. Also, you’re right; the swamp doesn’t control your daddy; Russia does.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene announced “We WILL Support President Trump And Protest Tyrants.”

 

Sorry, not possible. You either protest tyrants or you support Donald Trump. If you need a reminder on why I say this, two words: January 6th.

 

Randy Quaid, better known as Cousin Eddie, tweeted this, “The only felony here is the election interference Bragg is committing against Trump and all supporters. 90 million people will be indicted on Tuesday. Bragg must be prosecuted, not Trump. America is under assault and AMERICA STANDS WITH TRUMP.”

 

Not on election day, we didn’t. Also, please just stop talking. Your bullshitter’s full.

 

Gym Jordan tweeted, “Democrats:

-        Give us record crime, then indict their political rivals.

-        Give us record inflation, then want to spend more money.

-        Give us record illegal immigration, then can’t even admit there’s a border crisis.”

 

Jim Jordan: Give me your vote, then does nothing but tweet bullshit all day every day.

 

Jordan again, “The indictment wouldn’t happen if Trump didn’t run for office.”

 

More like the indictment wouldn’t happen if Trump wasn’t believed to have committed crimes.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene uttered these words: “Trump is joining some of the most incredible people in history being arrested today. Nelson Mandela was arrested, served time in prison. Jesus! Jesus was arrested and murdered.”

 

Ah, yes, Trump is JUST like Jesus, for he never met a Commandment he didn’t like…to break.

 

She then posted this on Twitter: “President Trump is THE leader of the Republican Party and I’m honored to be with him on this historic night!”

 

Why is it historic, you might ask? Trump became the first ex-president to get arrested and charged with crimes – 34 of them, as a matter of fact, and all felonies. Um, congratulations?

 

She added this tweet: “Democrats are so jealous.

 

They don’t have a Donald Trump.

 

They would give anything to have him.

 

But they don’t.

 

They’re like a jealous girl that got tossed to the side.

 

They’re blinded by hate & jealousy and will do anything to stop him because they can’t have him.

 

Psycho.”

 

Eh, no thanks. We prefer candidates that win elections. Also, why do you sign your name as “Psycho”? Nevermind, I get it.

 

Lastly, I’d like to respond to a few comments I’ve heard made ad nauseum by fellow liberals – most notably at MSNBC.

 

Regarding the Trump indictment, I’ve heard numerous talking heads utter the following:

 

-        “What could this potentially do to future ex-presidents? Does it make things easier to indict them for political reasons? What if that happens?”

-        “Doesn’t Donald Trump have a point that he’s been unfairly targeted?”

-        “Donald Trump is a master at shifting the narrative. So, we’ll see what he does to try and do that this time.”

 

Please, cut it out with all the “what ifs.” What sets a more dangerous precedent, indicting a private citizen-former president with crimes he allegedly committed out of office, or letting him get away with said crimes just because he was once president? You can’t say you believe no one is above the law, but then turn around and say presidents can’t be indicted while in nor after they leave office. If that’s not being above the law, I don’t know what is.

 

No, Donald Trump has not been unfairly targeted. The reason this particular case has taken so long is because Donald Trump and his team of mobsters, I mean lawyers have been able to successfully delay it time and time again. A grand jury found probable cause to indict Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. This wasn’t Joe Biden’s doing, nor George Soros, nor the party’s donkey mascot; it was a grand jury. Donald Trump has been targeted, but not unfairly, for he’s been targeted, not by Democrats, but by the law.

 

Finally, why do you suppose Donald Trump is able to shift the narrative so easily? It’s not rocket surgery; the media allows him to do so. Donald Trump is like a human car crash. Human car crashes bring in ratings. That’s all networks care about – ratings. So whenever this human car crash moves, the media’s there. If he’s driven to a convenience mart, they’re there. If he uses the restroom at an airport; they’re there. If he sneezes; they provide the Puffs Kleenex. I don’t want to tell the media how to do their jobs, but I’m going to anyway. When something major happens, like a former president gets indicted on 34 felony counts, you cover THAT story thoroughly, and don’t blink if he suddenly points up to the sky and shouts “LOOK! SQUIRREL!”

 

That’s it for today’s episode. Until next time, you can check me out on Twitter, Podbean, YouTube, Facebook, Blogger, and your mom. This has been “I Feel Snitty,” with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"