Hey weirdo,

Let’s do something radical.

Let’s talk about Trump… without screaming.

I sat down with Evan Turk — estate attorney, founder of the American Rights Alliance, and someone who worked alongside the legal team representing Donald J. Trump.

Not a pundit.
Not a cable news panelist.
An attorney in the room.

And before you roll your eyes in either direction — left or right — breathe.

This isn’t a worship piece.

It’s a power piece.

That’s what Evan said.

Not about policy.
Not about personality.

About pressure.

He described Trump as intensely results-oriented. Hyper aware that one wrong move could trigger lawsuits, prosecution, media firestorms… or worse.

Agree with him or not — that’s a level of scrutiny almost nobody listening to this will ever experience.

You can hate the man.

But you can’t deny the scale.

And that got me thinking…

How much of what we believe about public figures is based on lived proximity… versus media repetition?

Evan brought up something interesting.

“34 counts.”

It sounds monstrous.

But legally? They stemmed from a single underlying charge structured as multiple counts.

Now here’s the thing.

You can still believe the conviction was justified.

But the number itself? It’s psychological framing.

Thirty-four feels worse than one.

And that’s where the real conversation starts.

Because this episode wasn’t just about Trump.

It was about narrative.

Evan told a story from when he was 17.

A politician got asked a tough question. Instead of answering it, he raised his voice, shamed the kid publicly, and the crowd applauded.

No facts.

Just volume.

And his instructor later explained what happened:

Conviction often beats accuracy.

That hit me harder than anything else in the episode.

Because that dynamic isn’t left or right.

It’s human.

And we see it everywhere.

If you speak loudly enough — and with moral certainty — people assume you’re right.

We got into Net Zero.

We got into ESG.

We got into war spending.

And whether you agree with his conclusions or not, one principle kept resurfacing:

Follow the money.

Who benefits?

Who profits?

Who gets premium financing when something is labeled “green”?

Who receives contracts when policy shifts?

This isn’t conspiracy thinking.

It’s basic incentive analysis.

Power rarely moves for moral reasons alone.

It moves for leverage.

The conversation drifted into Canada — because of course it did.

From DEI policies to energy restrictions to media framing.

Evan sees Canada accelerating into something unfamiliar.

I pushed back.

I said we traded civil liberties for legalized weed in 2015.

And honestly… part of me still believes that.

But what struck me most wasn’t the policy arguments.

It was this:

When did we stop being able to question things without being labeled?

Racist.
Conspiracy theorist.
Extremist.
Bigot.

Those words used to mean something.

Now they’re debate shortcuts.

And once language gets weaponized, nuance dies.

This was the core of his nonprofit’s mission.

Protect speech you disagree with.

Because once speech protection becomes selective… it isn’t protection anymore.

Now here’s where I’ll be blunt.

You don’t have to agree with Trump.
You don’t have to agree with Evan.
You don’t have to agree with me.

But if you can’t question narratives without risking your job or reputation…

That’s not a healthy culture.

That’s fear.

Here’s where I land.

I don’t trust politicians.

Any of them.

Left or right.

I trust incentives.

I trust patterns.

And I trust the fact that power — historically — protects itself.

If that means weaponized justice exists? It’s possible.

If that means some people exaggerate it for political gain? Also possible.

Two things can be true at once.

The bigger issue isn’t Trump.

It’s whether we’ve built a society where debate is replaced by branding.

Where argument is replaced by labeling.

Where disagreement equals moral failure.

That’s the dangerous part.

Argue with me.

But use facts.

Not volume.
Not hashtags.
Not emotional shortcuts.

Facts.

Because once we lose that…

We don’t lose elections.

We lose thinking.

—

If this made you uncomfortable, good.

That means you’re still alive in there.

Hit reply and tell me where you disagree.

I actually want to know.

— Cody