Trump indictment, de-dollarization, should VCs back Chinese AI? RIP Bob Lee

The episode opens with banter rather than argument. One host recalls Mahalo, a human-curated search-page site he says reached $10,000,000 in revenue at its peak with a hundred writers. He says a Google "Panda update" throttled traffic overnight and cut revenue to $500,000, and that nobody at Google would answer his emails afterward. That is his own account and is not checked here; the others respond by mocking his product and track record.

The exchange then turns into a running joke about who is the richest and who has actually built products, with the hosts needling each other and a dictator comparison thrown in. It is comedy, not analysis, and carries no claims worth weighing.

The formal start follows with host introductions. One host asks GPT how it is doing and reads out its disclaimer that it has no feelings; another quips that GPT-4 is an equalizer for those on the spectrum, and a third jokes that the reply resembles how the asker feels. A gag about a shirt with only one button closes the greetings.

The host summarizes the news in his own words: Trump was arraigned in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, with prosecutor Alvin Bragg alleging a catch-and-kill scheme to suppress damaging information before the 2016 election. Trump pleaded not guilty. The alleged core is concealing payments to Stormy Daniels, the same matter for which Michael Cohen went to jail.

A recurring complaint is that the indictment did not spell out the legal theories, so Bragg has not shown his evidence. The host says this makes events harder to read and more divisive. The right calls it a witch hunt, but he notes that some on the left, including a former SDNY head he names as Preeth, regard it as the weakest of four major investigations of Trump and worry it is thin.

The host adds that the charges are misdemeanors being elevated to felonies, possibly through tax evasion or election interference. He says he considers Trump deeply unethical yet finds the case light and hopes Bragg holds stronger evidence. He asks Sacks to steelman it.

Sacks cites a liberal writer at New York magazine, whom he names as Jonathan Chait, and lists reasons the case looks weak. First, a private settlement with Stormy Daniels, even if called hush money, is legal. Second, Trump used personal rather than campaign funds, so Bragg has to argue he should have used campaign funds, which Sacks says would itself have been charged as a crime.

Third, Sacks says the campaign-finance rules are federal, not state, and that the feds looked and declined to prosecute. He compares Hillary Clinton's payment to Christopher Steele for the dossier, which he says was miscategorized as legal fees and drew a fine without anyone seeking prison. Fourth, he says the statute of limitations has long passed. His conclusion: Bragg is on a limb, enforcing laws that are not his to enforce on a distorted reading.

Sacks poses two explanations for Bragg: he is either very foolish or very smart. He relays the "three-dimensional chess" theory from Anne Coulter, as the source gives the name, that the case is a honeypot. Republicans rally around Trump, his primary polling rises and DeSantis's falls, and Biden would rather face Trump than a younger governor. This is speculation presented as a theory, not evidence.

The host asks whether Bragg may hold more, such as tax evasion, noting that the Trump Organization's CFO is going to jail for six months and the company was fined 600,000. A speaker restates that these are misdemeanors that become felonies only if committed to aid another crime, with tax evasion the likely hook. Another speaker finds the stated evidence points mainly to campaign finance violations and calls the whole thing a waste, citing the cost of securing New York City for motorcades and Secret Service whenever Trump appears.

A factual dispute follows over why earlier prosecutors did not proceed. One host says they were told to stand down because a sitting president cannot be indicted; Sacks counters that the feds decided not to prosecute years ago, while Cyrus Vance's office also chose not to move forward when the statute had not yet expired. The host plays a clip in which Vance says he was asked to stand down by the southern district US attorney's office. The speakers do not settle it and say it will come out in coming weeks.

The segment ends in agreement that the case is a poor outcome for everyone. One host asks whether Democrats truly want a conviction, arguing house arrest or acquittal would only help Trump win the nomination before losing to Biden, which he calls far-fetched. Others say it divides the country for no reason and urge moving on, with a final point that the case could be counterproductive even for anti-Trump forces.