Latest / Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags / Tucker Carlson's Radical Shift, Candace Owens' Implosion & the 2020 Truth — Dinesh D'Souza

Transcript

Tucker Carlson's Radical Shift, Candace Owens' Implosion & the 2020 Truth — Dinesh D'Souza · Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags

0:00
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson went from must watch monologues to America, first
0:04
Speaker 1: to hamas is and so bad, and then defending Islam
0:07
Speaker 1: while attacking the president as potentially the Antichrist the next
0:11
Speaker 1: to Susan has been watching this change, this metamorphosis and
0:15
Speaker 1: outlines it for us right now. I'm not friends with
0:17
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, though he's been on the show once when
0:19
Speaker 1: he was starting his Fox show. Marjorie Taylor Green, you
0:22
Speaker 1: and I both know her. Lauren Bobert, you and I
0:25
Speaker 1: both know her. In fact, we hung out with both
0:26
Speaker 1: of them at more A Lago, Danish. What is going on?
0:29
Speaker 1: Is there something happening under the surface on our side
0:32
Speaker 1: of the aisle that I just didn't see coming. I
0:34
Speaker 1: don't get it.
0:36
Speaker 2: It's it's very complex because all these people are very different.
0:41
Speaker 2: Tucker is different than Candace. Candas is different than Megan Kelly.
0:47
Speaker 2: You've got something weird going on with Bobert and Marjorie
0:51
Speaker 2: Taylor Green, right, and you know to some degree, I
0:55
Speaker 2: suppose the most disturbing element of all this is when
1:00
Speaker 2: the fight becomes so acrimonious that you have people on
1:05
Speaker 2: the right who end up overtly supporting the left, they
1:09
Speaker 2: end up there on the side of the Muslims and Shariah,
1:13
Speaker 2: or they end up on the side of the Democrats.
1:16
Speaker 2: And so this is doing nothing more than helping the
1:20
Speaker 2: other side. And so it's one thing to disagree on
1:23
Speaker 2: the right. Usually, by the way, these disagreements are more
1:26
Speaker 2: normal when the right has already won. You know, think
1:30
Speaker 2: about for example, historically, you know, once the Jefferson Democrats
1:34
Speaker 2: completely annihilated the Federalists and the Federalist Party went out
1:37
Speaker 2: of existence. Then the Jeffersonian Party split into two, and
1:42
Speaker 2: there were a lot of fights going on. But that's
1:44
Speaker 2: because they had a kind of monopoly, a domination of
1:47
Speaker 2: American politics. What's odd here is that the right is
1:50
Speaker 2: still fighting a very tight and difficult battle against the left,
1:55
Speaker 2: with an uphill battle in the midterms, difficulties ahead in
2:00
Speaker 2: eight So it's far too early to be rejoicing and
2:04
Speaker 2: fighting with our own side.
2:05
Speaker 1: As human beings, we want to know the motive. As
2:08
Speaker 1: human beings, you want to know the why. I'm having
2:10
Speaker 1: a hard time finding the why. You had Tucker Carlson,
2:12
Speaker 1: who was at Bedminster laughing it up with President Trump,
2:15
Speaker 1: supported Trump's reelection. Megan Kelly actually campaigned with him, and
2:19
Speaker 1: then you got Candace who's completely off the reservation. But
2:21
Speaker 1: let's focus on Tucker and Canvas a little bit because
2:24
Speaker 1: the way they do it is different. I'm just asking questions.
2:28
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it seems weird. I'm just saying tomorrow,
2:31
Speaker 1: I'll have more of that story. You got to make
2:34
Speaker 1: sure you tune in because we're really going to reveal
2:36
Speaker 1: it all tomorrow. To me, it seems like they're only
2:39
Speaker 1: doing it for clicks. I think Megan's more of a journalist,
2:41
Speaker 1: although I disagree with it some of the stances she's
2:43
Speaker 1: taken recently. But Tucker can look at a camera and say,
2:47
Speaker 1: is Trump the Antichrist? Literally asked that question on his podcast,
2:51
Speaker 1: then deny it three days later when he's interviewed by
2:53
Speaker 1: The New York Times?
2:54
Speaker 2: What is that?
2:56
Speaker 1: Do you notice that style of how they're doing it,
2:58
Speaker 1: like I did?
3:00
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think with Candace it is a parody of
3:05
Speaker 2: investigative journalism. You know, as somebody who has done that,
3:08
Speaker 2: who's in that field and knows the type of work
3:11
Speaker 2: you have to do to validate facts, to raise legitimate questions.
3:17
Speaker 2: But Candace is it's almost a kind of a comic
3:23
Speaker 2: sort of mockery of the investigative style, because it's things
3:26
Speaker 2: like I've got a bombshell I'm going to reveal next week,
3:30
Speaker 2: tune into my show. I mean, ask yourself this question,
3:33
Speaker 2: all these weeks and months later, what is a single
3:37
Speaker 2: important and relevant fact that Candace Owens has uncovered herself
3:43
Speaker 2: that is relevant to any investigation whatsoever, whether it be
3:47
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk, whether it be the macrons. Can you peg
3:51
Speaker 2: a single significant fact not known before that she has
3:55
Speaker 2: brought out?
3:56
Speaker 1: Answer?
3:56
Speaker 2: No, No, Right, So I think we can just this
4:00
Speaker 2: aside as a certain bizarre type of political pornography that
4:05
Speaker 2: evidently people have a magnetic interest in. And there's certain
4:09
Speaker 2: group of people that are going to follow this and
4:11
Speaker 2: somehow think she's a trailblazer. To me, she's a pied
4:14
Speaker 2: piper of pure idiocy.
4:16
Speaker 1: You know what. Let me stop you there, because I
4:19
Speaker 1: want to a couple of things. When I was a
4:20
Speaker 1: news director at a TV news station, I never would
4:22
Speaker 1: have hired Candas ow And she brings nothing to the table.
4:24
Speaker 1: There's no resume there. But Denash, you and I both know,
4:27
Speaker 1: because we're in the world of YouTube, we know that
4:29
Speaker 1: she's making fifty to sixty thousand dollars every day that
4:31
Speaker 1: she does that, she's got one or two million views
4:34
Speaker 1: on it, if not more views than that. And that's
4:36
Speaker 1: just counting the cash. And I'm not against somebody making money.
4:39
Speaker 1: You and I want to make as much as we
4:40
Speaker 1: can and doing what we do, but I want her
4:42
Speaker 1: to be righteous about it. So is this only about
4:44
Speaker 1: the greenbacks? In your opinion, that she had some psychiatric
4:47
Speaker 1: break that we don't know about, because this is a
4:50
Speaker 1: woman who called my show once instead of Charlie Kirk.
4:53
Speaker 1: Charlie couldn't make it. He said, hey, I'll have Candess
4:55
Speaker 1: call you. And I talked to her. She seemed normal.
4:57
Speaker 1: There's something very different now, Is this about the money?
5:00
Speaker 1: Is there something else going on? Do you think?
5:02
Speaker 2: Which is clearly not the same person. We can start
5:04
Speaker 2: with that, and the same is true of Tucker, you know,
5:06
Speaker 2: And this is causing people a lot of confusion. When
5:09
Speaker 2: you When I see people just mainstream ordinary GOP types,
5:13
Speaker 2: i'd say a Lincoln Reagan dinner, their attitude is something
5:17
Speaker 2: like this, whatever happened to Tucker and Candace? Really, what
5:22
Speaker 2: they're saying is that they used to follow them based
5:25
Speaker 2: upon kind of their old PERSONA yes, and now they
5:28
Speaker 2: realize that something is off and something is different, and
5:32
Speaker 2: they feel kind of bad because they don't want to
5:34
Speaker 2: get off the Tucker bus or the Candace bus. But
5:36
Speaker 2: at the same time, they don't want to ride with
5:38
Speaker 2: those guys, and they don't have a good knowledge of
5:41
Speaker 2: what exactly they're talking about, but they know that it
5:44
Speaker 2: sounds kind of off. It's a it's a new key
5:47
Speaker 2: in which they're kind of playing sheet music, if you will.
5:50
Speaker 1: Let's get into Dela. Let's get into Tucker because he
5:52
Speaker 1: has done the job for a while and I think
5:54
Speaker 1: you and Debbie agree with me on this. His monologue
5:56
Speaker 1: on Fox was a must watch every night. What he said,
5:59
Speaker 1: what he did was really amazing. I mean, people who
6:02
Speaker 1: don't follow, like my wife has not into the news
6:04
Speaker 1: like I am, but she we got to watch Tucker tonight.
6:07
Speaker 1: Something happened there to where he's not only I'm okay
6:10
Speaker 1: with him interviewing putin Denesh, somebody should. I'm fine with that.
6:13
Speaker 1: I'm okay with you interviewing the guy from Cutter if
6:15
Speaker 1: you want, that's fine, ask hard questions, really go after it.
6:18
Speaker 1: But when you bring Nick Fuentes on and you do
6:21
Speaker 1: this really, you know, glad handing softball interview and you
6:24
Speaker 1: tell us how he's the next rising star in the movement.
6:27
Speaker 1: Something has gone wrong here, So what do you surmise
6:30
Speaker 1: is happening with Tucker?
6:32
Speaker 2: So with Tucker, I mean I've known Tucker for twenty
6:36
Speaker 2: five years. He came to Policy Review when I was
6:40
Speaker 2: leaving Policy Review and joining the Reagan White House. This
6:43
Speaker 2: goes back to nineteen eighty seven, so I've known Tucker
6:47
Speaker 2: since he was just like a fresh out of college.
6:50
Speaker 2: And not only that, but about a year ago, a
6:55
Speaker 2: year and a half ago, Tucker and I did a
6:57
Speaker 2: nine day tour of Australia together, was sponsored by an
7:00
Speaker 2: Australian billionaire. We traveled to I think eight cities, from
7:05
Speaker 2: Perth to Brisbane, Sydney, the works. And very interestingly, none
7:13
Speaker 2: of this stuff came up. None of the topics that
7:16
Speaker 2: Tucker talks about today came up at all. I don't
7:18
Speaker 2: recall him mentioning Israel for example one time. Now, if
7:22
Speaker 2: you watch his show today, first of all, notice very
7:25
Speaker 2: significantly the monologue is gone. Tucker doesn't do any more monologues.
7:29
Speaker 2: He only does these interviews. And if you notice the interviews.
7:32
Speaker 2: And again, I don't mind him interviewing, you know, strange
7:37
Speaker 2: and oddball characters, because maybe he finds them interesting. But
7:41
Speaker 2: here's the thing. Have you noticed, Let's say, in the
7:44
Speaker 2: last year Tucker interviewing people. He did the one sort
7:48
Speaker 2: of ambush on Ted Cruz, and then he did the
7:51
Speaker 2: interview with Huckabee. But by and large, most of his
7:55
Speaker 2: sources tend to be people you and I have never
7:57
Speaker 2: heard of very obscure characters who agree with Tucker. And
8:01
Speaker 2: Tucker stick is to ask them questions to which he
8:05
Speaker 2: already knows the answers because the answers are what he believes,
8:09
Speaker 2: and so the source will then say that, and Tucker
8:12
Speaker 2: will pretend to be blown away, like, oh my god,
8:14
Speaker 2: what a revelation. And so there's this kind of game
8:19
Speaker 2: going on. I call it ventriloquist journalism, almost as if
8:22
Speaker 2: he had his sources are puppets, and he's projecting onto
8:26
Speaker 2: them what he wants them to say. And then he
8:30
Speaker 2: presents this charade as a form of like asking the
8:34
Speaker 2: tough questions, But he never asked tough questions about what
8:38
Speaker 2: he himself believes. He never interrogates his own sort of
8:41
Speaker 2: spin on things. And I think what I've seen in
8:45
Speaker 2: Tucker is a sort of, I think, very perverse progression.
8:49
Speaker 2: So it's not that he started out full blown the
8:51
Speaker 2: way he is now. He started out kind of Netan
8:54
Speaker 2: Yahoo bad, and then he went from that to Israel bad,
8:59
Speaker 2: and then he from that to the Jews are bad,
9:02
Speaker 2: and then he went from that to Islam good. And
9:06
Speaker 2: then he went from that to Shariah not so bad,
9:09
Speaker 2: bin Laden not so bad. Maybe we should apologize to him,
9:13
Speaker 2: Hammas not so bad. Maybe they're just a political group
9:16
Speaker 2: like the Labor Party. And then he's defending Iran. So
9:20
Speaker 2: this is like it's almost as if the poison of
9:24
Speaker 2: being anti Jewish and anti Israel infected him so badly
9:29
Speaker 2: that he now had to sort of go to the
9:31
Speaker 2: other side. I mean, it's a little bit like this.
9:32
Speaker 2: The Nazis hated the Jews, and so Hitler made a
9:36
Speaker 2: pact with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. I'm sure Hitler
9:38
Speaker 2: doesn't like some Muslim guy, you know, coming out of Jerusalem,
9:42
Speaker 2: but he was willing to do business with him because
9:45
Speaker 2: that guy was also anti Jewish. And so I can't
9:47
Speaker 2: think of a better explanation for Tucker's bizarre endorsement not
9:52
Speaker 2: just of Islam, but his support for even radical Islam,
9:56
Speaker 2: other than it's all coming out of this primordial hate
10:00
Speaker 2: for Israel and the Jews.
10:02
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you nailed it. And when he
10:04
Speaker 1: complained about Trump's Easter message, and by the way, I
10:07
Speaker 1: wasn't for Trump's Easter message. I thought it was over
10:09
Speaker 1: the top. But when he complained about his mention of
10:12
Speaker 1: Allah or whatever, that made me say, well, what's going on?
10:15
Speaker 1: And when I knew that I had to be done
10:17
Speaker 1: with even investigating why Tucker was doing this is when
10:19
Speaker 1: he sat down with his brother Buckley and they had
10:22
Speaker 1: this conversation where he apologized for everything he's believed in
10:25
Speaker 1: for the past thirty years. He basically said, I'm sorry
10:28
Speaker 1: for being me, I'm sorry for being Christian, I'm sorry
10:30
Speaker 1: for supporting Trump. I misled you on all of that,
10:33
Speaker 1: as he's actively, as you just very wisely said, misleading
10:36
Speaker 1: us now with these people that he's bringing on, so
10:39
Speaker 1: I'm kind of done with them. You know who, I
10:41
Speaker 1: think handled this whole thing pretty well, Denesh, And I
10:43
Speaker 1: wonder what your thoughts are, Lauren Bobert. I thought handled
10:46
Speaker 1: this pretty well. And here's why I say that she
10:48
Speaker 1: supports Massy for some reason. I don't support Massie because
10:52
Speaker 1: he was against the one big, beautiful Bill. I thought
10:54
Speaker 1: reconciliation made sense, and Republicans used their might to utilize
10:58
Speaker 1: things to get done that you and I want to
10:59
Speaker 1: get Did they spend too much? Yes? Do you vote
11:02
Speaker 1: against it as a Republican? I don't think so. So
11:04
Speaker 1: Massy going doesn't bother me, and her support of Massy
11:07
Speaker 1: doesn't really bother me either, although there are allegations about
11:10
Speaker 1: why she's doing it. But Trump went after her big time,
11:13
Speaker 1: and Trump has always liked her and she's always liked him.
11:15
Speaker 1: Her answer was appropriate. I'm still America first, I'm still Maga.
11:19
Speaker 1: I still support President Trump. Nuff said everybody. Marjorie Taylor Green,
11:24
Speaker 1: who you and I have spoken with, I think she
11:26
Speaker 1: was on my shoe ten times something like that. She
11:29
Speaker 1: just hates the guy now, like it's a white hot hate,
11:32
Speaker 1: and she's trying to get a job on the view.
11:34
Speaker 1: What about those on the right that not only break
11:37
Speaker 1: with whatever the majority of the right wants, they break
11:39
Speaker 1: so much that the left is actively endorsing Thomas Massey
11:43
Speaker 1: they want him to win. Denesh So you know what
11:45
Speaker 1: I mean, Bobert, I think does it right? Trump is
11:48
Speaker 1: going to attack you, then he'll shake hands with you
11:50
Speaker 1: like you did with Mark Cuban yesterday at the White House,
11:53
Speaker 1: and then you move on Marjorie Taylor Green not so much,
11:56
Speaker 1: you know, Thomas Massey not so much. Bill Cassidy not
11:58
Speaker 1: so much. About that split, d you say, well, I.
12:02
Speaker 2: Think that the split. One way to look at it
12:07
Speaker 2: is that there is a view on the right and
12:11
Speaker 2: I think this is widely shared in the Republican base
12:14
Speaker 2: that American politics is fought in teams. You know. It's
12:18
Speaker 2: it's a little bit like, you know, the Civil War.
12:21
Speaker 2: You're either on the Union side or you're on the
12:23
Speaker 2: side of the Confederates. If you're going to say, I'm
12:27
Speaker 2: a Union guy, but because of my high principles, I'm
12:31
Speaker 2: going to oppose Abraham Lincoln, then you're on the Confederate side. Yes,
12:36
Speaker 2: that's just no other way to sort of look at it.
12:38
Speaker 2: And there were, you know, there were, by the way, Northerners,
12:43
Speaker 2: generally Northern Democrats, who would for example, imply that you know,
12:47
Speaker 2: soldiers on the Union army should desert and Lincoln was
12:50
Speaker 2: too fanatical, and Lincoln and violated habeas corpus uh and
12:55
Speaker 2: uh and and maybe at some philosophical level they had
12:59
Speaker 2: a point, but the point didn't really matter because of
13:02
Speaker 2: the urgency of the situation at hand. And I think
13:05
Speaker 2: that's what's going on here. It's not that Republicans don't
13:08
Speaker 2: tolerate a wide range of views. In fact, when I
13:11
Speaker 2: think back to the Reagan years, we didn't even have
13:13
Speaker 2: the term rhino because our view was that if you
13:16
Speaker 2: had somebody on the Republican side, we don't want to
13:18
Speaker 2: push him into the Democrat. We're not going to call
13:20
Speaker 2: him a Republican in name only. It was a yeah,
13:23
Speaker 2: Reagan's going to try to win their votes for his
13:25
Speaker 2: tax bill, and he's going to try to win their
13:27
Speaker 2: votes for the MX missile and so on. But I
13:30
Speaker 2: think in today's environment where the left has become so
13:34
Speaker 2: radicalized that they announce in advance that they're going to
13:37
Speaker 2: stack the court and they're going to get rid of
13:39
Speaker 2: the filibuster if they have to, and you get the
13:41
Speaker 2: impression that they would suspend elections if they could. And
13:45
Speaker 2: the redistricting fight is also very illuminating the way that
13:49
Speaker 2: they have gone about it. They're like, maybe we should
13:51
Speaker 2: throw out the entire Virginia Supreme Court. And yeah, they
13:56
Speaker 2: thought about it at least. So I think in this
13:59
Speaker 2: environment there's a very low tolerance for defections from the
14:03
Speaker 2: Trump coalition. It's either like Trump is the sort of
14:07
Speaker 2: the leader of the mega movement, and even if he
14:10
Speaker 2: actually makes some blunders, and even if he's sometimes on
14:13
Speaker 2: the wrong side of an issue, in the end, Trump
14:16
Speaker 2: is doing the right thing. He is moving the country
14:18
Speaker 2: in the right direction. And what's the alternative. So I
14:21
Speaker 2: think this is what the masses and even the Boberts
14:24
Speaker 2: of the world, and in some ways the John Cornyn's
14:26
Speaker 2: of the world. I would say, even the John Thuns
14:29
Speaker 2: of the world don't understand. And the and that is
14:33
Speaker 2: that the Republican base has become very suspicious of this
14:38
Speaker 2: so called principled resistance. I'll tell you a little thing
14:42
Speaker 2: that pertains to my son in law, Brandon Gill, whom
14:45
Speaker 2: we've had on recently on your show. Well, Brandon is
14:49
Speaker 2: often approached by fellow congressman who say to him this.
14:52
Speaker 2: They say, and Brandon, you're just so good at messaging.
14:56
Speaker 2: We really admire the way that you know how to
14:59
Speaker 2: message to the and Brandon's view is, you know, you
15:03
Speaker 2: have it all wrong. I'm not messaging to the base
15:06
Speaker 2: like I am the base. The base. Things that the
15:09
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election was stolen, I do too. The base.
15:13
Speaker 2: Things that the Democrats have become gangsterized, I do too.
15:17
Speaker 2: So I don't have to engage in a certain type
15:19
Speaker 2: of propaganda or message control. I simply say what I
15:24
Speaker 2: think because I happen to agree with all the grassroots
15:27
Speaker 2: people who put me in office. And this, I think
15:30
Speaker 2: is a serious problem with the Republican Party. We have
15:33
Speaker 2: all these so called representatives who think that they are
15:36
Speaker 2: up here and the base is down there, and it's
15:39
Speaker 2: their job to sort of message to the base, which
15:42
Speaker 2: is to say, to regulate the emotions of their voters
15:46
Speaker 2: so as to kind of keep them in line. I
15:48
Speaker 2: think this is, for example, been by and large the
15:50
Speaker 2: John Cornyn philosophy that in representative government, you elected me,
15:54
Speaker 2: I've got to, now, you know, use my conscience. But
15:58
Speaker 2: when they talk about using their conscience, what they really
16:01
Speaker 2: mean is their right to go against their own voters.
16:06
Speaker 2: This is really what they mean. It's not even about
16:08
Speaker 2: going against Trump, because the power of Trump is that
16:11
Speaker 2: Trump is a kind of spokesman for a widespread grievance
16:17
Speaker 2: in the country. If Trump did not articulate that grievance,
16:19
Speaker 2: people would not support Trump.
16:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly right. It's denial sus dinestion to sues it
16:24
Speaker 1: at substack dot com and go get all his books,
16:26
Speaker 1: in his movies, anything he's doing, if he's involved, go
16:28
Speaker 1: check it out. I love what you just said about
16:30
Speaker 1: Brandon that it is such an important point. That's who
16:33
Speaker 1: he is, it's what he believes, it's why he says it,
16:36
Speaker 1: it's why he does it. It's why he does it
16:38
Speaker 1: the way he does it instead of the messaging came second. Okay,
16:41
Speaker 1: the messaging is so good because he really believes in it.
16:43
Speaker 1: And I don't think that A Cornyn knows that, and
16:45
Speaker 1: I don't think that Bill Cassidy knows that. Let's talk
16:47
Speaker 1: about the implications of President Trump going against these Rhino
16:51
Speaker 1: Republicans some would call them. With so many months before
16:54
Speaker 1: the election, and it's gonna be next January before you
16:57
Speaker 1: get a new Congress. Cassidy's now going to be against
17:00
Speaker 1: everything he does. You know, Tom Tillis is against everything
17:02
Speaker 1: he does. He just supported Packston over corn Corn's going
17:05
Speaker 1: to be against everything he does.
17:06
Speaker 2: Now.
17:06
Speaker 1: Of course, look, these guys all made their own bed.
17:08
Speaker 1: Cassidy wanted him in Peach, you voted to him Peach Trump.
17:11
Speaker 1: You've got Cornyn who literally said the Republican Party needs
17:14
Speaker 1: to necessarily move past Donald Trump. And he also supported
17:18
Speaker 1: the crazy spending in Ukraine. But you've got people that
17:21
Speaker 1: are on his side, and he would expect them to
17:23
Speaker 1: vote with him, who are now going to have a
17:25
Speaker 1: reason not to. Is this problematic that he's doing it
17:28
Speaker 1: so soon, or does this make sense? He wants the
17:30
Speaker 1: party to be a party that's loyal to him and
17:33
Speaker 1: loyal to America. First, back to the interview in a moment.
17:35
Speaker 1: But I've got to tell you about Hillsdale College's new
17:37
Speaker 1: movie called Revolutionary America. I'm partnering with them because I
17:41
Speaker 1: watched the movie and it's unbelievable. I went to school
17:44
Speaker 1: like you did, and we learned something about the American Revolution.
17:47
Speaker 1: But as generations continue to go by, we're seeing more
17:51
Speaker 1: and more people talk about how bad things were, and
17:53
Speaker 1: how bad America is for being founded, and how bad
17:56
Speaker 1: colonialism was. Well, what if I told you the thirteen
17:59
Speaker 1: original colonies existed and had self rule? For one hundred
18:04
Speaker 1: and fifty years until Great Britain said, now we're gonna
18:08
Speaker 1: reel that back in. We're gonna stop you from doing
18:10
Speaker 1: what it is that you think you're doing, and we're
18:12
Speaker 1: gonna show our control over exactly who you are and
18:15
Speaker 1: what we want you to be, and imagine deciding on
18:19
Speaker 1: your own. I'm gonna put my life on the line,
18:21
Speaker 1: my freedom on the line, my family on the line,
18:23
Speaker 1: my wealth on the line, and the future of this
18:26
Speaker 1: nation on the line, to stand up to the king,
18:30
Speaker 1: to stand up to Great Britain and the British Empire.
18:33
Speaker 1: Well that's exactly what they did. And in this movie
18:37
Speaker 1: you get an education like I didn't know that I
18:39
Speaker 1: didn't get and I mean that again. We learn about it.
18:42
Speaker 1: George Washington and the founding Fathers and the colonies are
18:46
Speaker 1: started in the thirteen and then it turned into states
18:48
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah, But we don't really get the
18:50
Speaker 1: full picture of what it was these people sacrificed so
18:54
Speaker 1: I could sit here and say what I want to say,
18:56
Speaker 1: and you could sit there and say what you want
18:58
Speaker 1: to say, and we could have gained the end dependants
19:00
Speaker 1: that we gained two hundred and fifty years ago. I
19:03
Speaker 1: urge you to go and see this movie because ordinary
19:05
Speaker 1: people had to make extraordinary choices and risk their lives,
19:09
Speaker 1: their fortunes and everything. And many of these were very
19:11
Speaker 1: young people. Many of them ended their lives without a
19:14
Speaker 1: whole lot of anything other than the satisfaction to know
19:18
Speaker 1: that what they were a part of was much bigger
19:20
Speaker 1: than them. This is coming out very soon, in fact,
19:24
Speaker 1: at about a week and a half, and I want
19:26
Speaker 1: you to make sure you go and get tickets. I'll
19:27
Speaker 1: tell you how to do that in a second. But
19:29
Speaker 1: watch just a small sampling of what you get from
19:31
Speaker 1: Revolutionary America. Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence
19:43
Speaker 1: when we were called up, one after another to the
19:47
Speaker 1: table of the President of Congress.
19:52
Speaker 2: To subscribe what was.
19:53
Speaker 1: Believed by many at that time to be our death warrants.
20:04
Speaker 2: One of the features of the American Revolution was the
20:07
Speaker 2: Americans wereviting the biggest world power in existence.
20:10
Speaker 1: At that time.
20:12
Speaker 2: It was an attempt to prove that human beings are
20:15
Speaker 2: not condemned to be governed by force an accident. The
20:18
Speaker 2: story of America is a unique story. Something happened that
20:22
Speaker 2: can actually never happen again.
20:27
Speaker 1: A number of the founders were marked nanny.
20:30
Speaker 2: These were the leaders of a rebellion.
20:34
Speaker 1: They're putting at risk their lives.
20:35
Speaker 2: Orgs, and sacred honor. They would have all been hanged
20:39
Speaker 2: by the British. It's not simply the matter of having
20:46
Speaker 2: the right law. You have to have the experience of
20:49
Speaker 2: liberty a republic if you can keep it. They had
20:53
Speaker 2: no other choice. This was life or death. If we
20:57
Speaker 2: win freedom, it's always just one from extinction.
21:04
Speaker 1: They mean to have a wall if it begin here.
21:13
Speaker 1: Revolutionary America only in theaters May thirty first through June second,
21:17
Speaker 1: Get your tickets right now. Hillsdale dot Edu slash Revolution,
21:21
Speaker 1: Hillsdale dot Edu slash Revolution, going at it because right
21:26
Speaker 1: now we're living in a time and you know this
21:27
Speaker 1: just as well as I do, where American history is
21:30
Speaker 1: being distorted to make us somehow look like we were
21:33
Speaker 1: bad and we were created in the wrong way. Well,
21:36
Speaker 1: this movie will give you the facts exactly how it happened,
21:39
Speaker 1: and you'll see the bravery, you'll see the foundation of
21:43
Speaker 1: what it is that we take for granted many times again.
21:45
Speaker 1: Revolutionary America is the movie. Hillsdale dot Edu slash Revolution
21:49
Speaker 1: is where you get the tickets. I urge you to
21:51
Speaker 1: do so right now. Now back to the interview.
21:54
Speaker 2: Well, I think that trump starting point is this that
21:58
Speaker 2: the only thing that he's really gotten through legislatively is
22:01
Speaker 2: the big beautiful Bill. And I think Trump thinks that
22:04
Speaker 2: the reason for this is that even though he has
22:06
Speaker 2: a de facto even though he has a de jure majority,
22:11
Speaker 2: he doesn't have a de facto majority. So, in other words,
22:14
Speaker 2: he has a technical majority if you were to look
22:16
Speaker 2: at the number of ours versus the number of these,
22:19
Speaker 2: but you don't have an actual majority because when critical
22:22
Speaker 2: votes come up, a handful of Republicans defect in the
22:25
Speaker 2: Senate and same same way in the House, and so
22:27
Speaker 2: your majority collapses. You don't have the votes to get
22:30
Speaker 2: anything done. So Trump's view is, if I have, you know,
22:34
Speaker 2: corn In for the rest of my term, I'm going
22:36
Speaker 2: to face this exact same problem all the way to
22:39
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight. So why don't I face this problem,
22:42
Speaker 2: you know, for the next five months, so the next
22:44
Speaker 2: eight months. So what if I can replace some of
22:48
Speaker 2: these rhinos as we call them, with solid Republicans. And
22:52
Speaker 2: there's some risk in doing it that way, but nevertheless,
22:56
Speaker 2: if we can atually get that result, then we have
22:58
Speaker 2: a real majority. Then we have a majority that is
23:02
Speaker 2: de facto and de jure both, and you can get
23:05
Speaker 2: things accomplished. So I think Trump is making a gamble,
23:08
Speaker 2: but it's a shrewd gamble. Essentially, what he's gambling is
23:11
Speaker 2: that even though Cornyan, for example, does vote the majority
23:15
Speaker 2: of the time with Trump, and so does Massy, by
23:17
Speaker 2: the way, but what it is is that on critical
23:20
Speaker 2: and defining issues, they go the other way. I mean,
23:23
Speaker 2: what's the critical and defining issue Trump impeachment. What's a
23:26
Speaker 2: critical and defining issue January sixth, What's a critical or
23:30
Speaker 2: defining issue, the Save America Act? I mean, if you
23:34
Speaker 2: go along with the left and impeaching Trump, if you
23:37
Speaker 2: don't even see the grievance of those guys in January
23:41
Speaker 2: sixth who took enormous personal risk to go to Washington
23:44
Speaker 2: to complain about a stolen election, risking censorship, risking being
23:49
Speaker 2: thrown off of social media, or risking losing their jobs,
23:52
Speaker 2: if you don't see the importance of producing an ID
23:55
Speaker 2: when you vote, I mean, these are such basic issues
23:59
Speaker 2: that I do. I don't think there's a whole lot
24:01
Speaker 2: of forgiveness on the Republican side for being on the
24:03
Speaker 2: wrong side of those issues.
24:05
Speaker 1: Well, he knows he's not gonna have McConnell, not gonna
24:07
Speaker 1: have Collins, maybe not Murkowski on just about any vote
24:10
Speaker 1: that makes it fifty to fifty. Jend events would have
24:12
Speaker 1: to split the tie if Tom tell Us goes against them,
24:14
Speaker 1: if Bill Cassidy goes against them, if Corny goes against him.
24:17
Speaker 1: Danesh is he prepared to for the rest of this
24:19
Speaker 1: year not get anything done, because that's probably what's going
24:22
Speaker 1: to happen legislatively.
24:25
Speaker 2: My view of this is a little broader. The midterms
24:29
Speaker 2: is going to be what it is. I don't think
24:32
Speaker 2: it's going to be a bloodbath against our side, particularly
24:37
Speaker 2: and wrap things up in Iran, which is important that
24:39
Speaker 2: needs to be done, I think fairly quickly. I've been
24:42
Speaker 2: actually calling for it now for about four weeks. But
24:46
Speaker 2: I think more importantly, we are on the cusp of
24:48
Speaker 2: this huge economic revolution that's going to come through AI
24:53
Speaker 2: and through robotics, and I think it's going to do
24:56
Speaker 2: remarkable things to our economy. It's going to produce growth
24:59
Speaker 2: rate that are going to be in the six to
25:01
Speaker 2: eight percent range. We've had two percent growth rates for
25:04
Speaker 2: the country going back to almost the aftermath of World
25:07
Speaker 2: War Two. We've averaged about two and a half percent
25:11
Speaker 2: since the nineteen fifties, and so six percent growth rates
25:15
Speaker 2: or something we're not even accustomed to. And all of
25:18
Speaker 2: that means that some of our old problems, like the
25:20
Speaker 2: deficit and so on will begin to wither. And I
25:23
Speaker 2: think all of this is going to happen quite rapidly.
25:25
Speaker 2: So Trump actually doesn't have to do a lot. He
25:27
Speaker 2: just has to hang in there, and he will see
25:30
Speaker 2: these dividends start kicking in between now and twenty twenty eight.
25:33
Speaker 2: Trump probably knows that, and so Trump is not too
25:37
Speaker 2: worried about having his hands tied. Obviously in some ways
25:40
Speaker 2: he's focused on areas where he does have power, but
25:44
Speaker 2: legislatively were you know, in order to make real change
25:47
Speaker 2: of a legislative type in this country, you really do
25:51
Speaker 2: need not only a fairly comfortable or decisive majority in
25:55
Speaker 2: the Congress maybe twenty seats, maybe thirty seats, and you
25:58
Speaker 2: need about sixty votes in the Senate. So we're not
26:02
Speaker 2: close to having that. Trump knows that, so he has
26:05
Speaker 2: to operate as Reagan did, by the way, within those constraints.
26:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Reagan did a master fully and I think
26:11
Speaker 1: he probably can learn a lesson from that. The problem is,
26:13
Speaker 1: you've got John Thune as the leader in the Senate,
26:15
Speaker 1: and with John Thune as the leader in the Senate,
26:17
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a problem getting the Save America Act
26:19
Speaker 1: done through reconciliation, which is what they're trying to say
26:22
Speaker 1: they can do. All right, we don't get it done now,
26:24
Speaker 1: that's fine. We can do it through reconciliation like we
26:26
Speaker 1: did the One Big Beautiful Bill. I don't think you
26:28
Speaker 1: can get it done because even in a practice vote,
26:30
Speaker 1: even in just a roll call, he lost four Republicans
26:33
Speaker 1: and it was fifty one forty nine the opposite way.
26:37
Speaker 1: So I mean, hopefully we can get something done. Todash
26:39
Speaker 1: I truly believe this, and you and I have been
26:40
Speaker 1: talking about elections for a long time now. I truly
26:43
Speaker 1: believe this. If we don't get the Save America Act done,
26:45
Speaker 1: we have to show an ID and be a citizen
26:47
Speaker 1: to vote. I don't trust the outcome of this upcoming election.
26:51
Speaker 1: It's that vital to me. So that's I guess that's
26:53
Speaker 1: why I'm wondering if alienating these people now is the
26:56
Speaker 1: right move before you can do reconciliation and try to
26:59
Speaker 1: do something with this Save America Act.
27:03
Speaker 2: I think our problem is more fundamental than that. Let
27:06
Speaker 2: me frame it this way. If John Thune were on
27:11
Speaker 2: the Democratic side, he would be a moderate Democrat who
27:17
Speaker 2: had been elected because of his moderate credentials, because he
27:21
Speaker 2: would then use those credentials to convince moderate Democrats to
27:26
Speaker 2: vote with the left, which always controls the agenda on
27:29
Speaker 2: the Democratic side. Notice, for example, that people like Abigail's Bandberger,
27:34
Speaker 2: but many others Democrats elected as moderates in Michigan will
27:39
Speaker 2: vote with the left whenever they need it. And it's
27:42
Speaker 2: exactly the opposite. On the right, our moderates are always defecting.
27:46
Speaker 2: They're always throwing in their lot with the Democrats. And
27:50
Speaker 2: the broader problem isn't just with the fact that this
27:53
Speaker 2: is the composition of the Congress. It is also the
27:57
Speaker 2: fact that in Texas, where you and I live, we
28:00
Speaker 2: know all kinds of bright red districts that have moderates
28:05
Speaker 2: representing them. And so that is a more fundamental problem
28:10
Speaker 2: of democracy, if you will, which is, how do these
28:13
Speaker 2: so called you know, rhinos or moderates or squishes or whatever,
28:17
Speaker 2: how do they happen to win in districts that are
28:20
Speaker 2: far to the right of their own convictions, and then
28:24
Speaker 2: they end up, in a sense, watering down the vote
28:27
Speaker 2: of their own district and of their own constituents, and
28:29
Speaker 2: then they get re elected. So I think that this
28:34
Speaker 2: is the problem that the Republicans have to deal with
28:36
Speaker 2: to figure out a way that red districts produce red congressmen.
28:42
Speaker 2: You know, I understand if you're getting a purple congressman
28:45
Speaker 2: out of a purple district, if you're getting a Susan
28:47
Speaker 2: Collins out of Maine. We all know why that happens,
28:50
Speaker 2: and we're willing to live with that. But what we're
28:52
Speaker 2: not willing to live with is a John Cornyn who
28:55
Speaker 2: is produced by a much more conservative state than Cornyn
28:59
Speaker 2: himself has proven to be.
29:01
Speaker 1: It is Denisia Siuza. Go to Denshisuza dot substact dot com,
29:05
Speaker 1: follow them everywhere, and see every movie, and go read
29:07
Speaker 1: every book. How delicious is it to you that the
29:10
Speaker 1: left is complaining about redistricting because New England doesn't have
29:14
Speaker 1: one representative that's a Republican, not one. We know that
29:16
Speaker 1: Massachusetts itself is either thirty five or forty percent Republican
29:20
Speaker 1: by the general election votes they have zero. There's no
29:23
Speaker 1: representation whatsoever when the House of Representatives until you get
29:25
Speaker 1: into the Middle Atlantic states, and still it's not that
29:27
Speaker 1: much they're complaining when you've got Illinois has one district Danish.
29:32
Speaker 1: If you look at at the district map, it looks
29:33
Speaker 1: like an anaconda that goes through the middle of the
29:35
Speaker 1: entire state, just to make sure you've got a blue district.
29:39
Speaker 1: So how delicious is it to you that they're complaining
29:41
Speaker 1: about redistricting that actually is going to represent the people.
29:44
Speaker 1: I just find it to be amazing and completely hypocritical.
29:49
Speaker 2: It is all of that, and yet at a different level,
29:52
Speaker 2: it is also gratifying because it's the first time that
29:55
Speaker 2: Republicans of fighting the Democrats with the same types of
29:58
Speaker 2: weapons of the Democrats once again. Republicans of the old
30:02
Speaker 2: stripe would be like, well, the Democrats are drawing all
30:05
Speaker 2: these ridiculous districts. We're not going to be party to
30:07
Speaker 2: that kind of nonsense. We're going to draw geometric districts
30:10
Speaker 2: and let the chips fall where they may. Now I
30:12
Speaker 2: realize there is gerrymandering on both sides, but the Democrats
30:15
Speaker 2: were far more blatant about it, not to mention that
30:18
Speaker 2: they had the added leg up of these minority voting districts,
30:22
Speaker 2: which were a way of forcing additional seats into the
30:26
Speaker 2: camp of the Democratic Party by judges ordering places like
30:31
Speaker 2: Louisiana make another black district, which basically means elect another Democrat.
30:35
Speaker 2: So the Democrats had a great cozy arrangement in which
30:38
Speaker 2: the playing field was unleveled, it was in their favor,
30:43
Speaker 2: and then Republicans basically said, all right, well, we're going
30:45
Speaker 2: to fight you tooth and nail. We're going to take
30:47
Speaker 2: this to the Supreme Court. We're going to knock out
30:49
Speaker 2: the race coded districts, and then we're going to Jerrymander
30:52
Speaker 2: as blatantly as you do. That is what has the
30:55
Speaker 2: Democrats freaked out because they are accustomed to the Republicans
31:00
Speaker 2: by the Marquee of Queensbury rules while they do a
31:03
Speaker 2: gang fight, and that's they've been doing this for seventy
31:06
Speaker 2: years and they've probably gotten twenty or thirty seed advantage
31:10
Speaker 2: just out of that alone. So the idea that this
31:12
Speaker 2: advantage will go away, that is what's causing them the
31:16
Speaker 2: palpitations that we see and that are actually quite delicious
31:19
Speaker 2: to behold.
31:20
Speaker 1: I love it. I think it is delicious exactly right
31:23
Speaker 1: when it comes to that fight, we're finally bringing the
31:26
Speaker 1: same weaponry and that's freaking them out. I mean so
31:29
Speaker 1: much so that Spanberger tried to push through this ten
31:32
Speaker 1: to one redistricting in Virginia after early voting started. That
31:36
Speaker 1: goes against procedure. You can't do that, her Supreme Court,
31:39
Speaker 1: and as you said, they were considering getting rid of
31:41
Speaker 1: it by lowering the retirement age. Her Supreme Court said no.
31:44
Speaker 1: The US Supreme Court said no. You know, as soon
31:46
Speaker 1: as this election cycles done, they're going to redistrict that.
31:49
Speaker 1: So is this going to be a massive move for
31:51
Speaker 1: the next four years plus to redistrict and try to
31:54
Speaker 1: get as much representation as we can? I mean, can
31:56
Speaker 1: we not fix the New England problem? Can we not
31:59
Speaker 1: fix the California problem that's now about ten or eleven
32:02
Speaker 1: percent representation for Republicans in a state that votes forty
32:05
Speaker 1: percent Republican? Is this just going to go on and
32:07
Speaker 1: on and on and on? Do you think.
32:09
Speaker 2: I think it is?
32:10
Speaker 1: Now?
32:10
Speaker 2: Interestingly, there was a guy who put into one of
32:13
Speaker 2: these AI engines, like Grock, you know, ignore the two parties.
32:17
Speaker 2: Just go ahead and draw the most natural, contiguous, normal
32:22
Speaker 2: districts in America as you can, uh, And that's divide
32:27
Speaker 2: the country that way. And so when GROC does this
32:30
Speaker 2: sort of objectively, paying no attention to whether there it's
32:33
Speaker 2: red or blue, none of that, what happens is you
32:36
Speaker 2: get a huge Republican advantage. It's something like Republicans two
32:39
Speaker 2: seventy Democrats one forty five, something close to that. Right,
32:43
Speaker 2: So the Democrats know that that normally drawn districts are
32:47
Speaker 2: very bad for them. Their strategy by and large has
32:51
Speaker 2: been an urban based strategy. I just came back from
32:54
Speaker 2: California where I gave a lecture. So the Democrats took
32:57
Speaker 2: over California essentially by taking over two La and San Francisco,
33:03
Speaker 2: and not only by the fact that there's a population
33:05
Speaker 2: density in those cities, but what they really do is
33:08
Speaker 2: that they use the cities as the kind of nucleus
33:12
Speaker 2: of drawing districts throughout the state. So they will take
33:15
Speaker 2: a rural district and they will find just enough city
33:19
Speaker 2: voters to give them a fifty five or fifty four
33:22
Speaker 2: percent advantage, and then they will elongate a district coming
33:26
Speaker 2: out of the city, which has enough city voters to
33:29
Speaker 2: tip over to the Democratic side and wipe out all
33:32
Speaker 2: the rural voters who might vote to the right, or
33:35
Speaker 2: even suburban voters. And this is their gerrymandering strategy. It's
33:39
Speaker 2: key to their success, and so they're not going to
33:42
Speaker 2: give it up. But the good news is that if
33:44
Speaker 2: Republicans start playing the same game, we have more to
33:47
Speaker 2: gain than they do, for the simple reason that all
33:51
Speaker 2: their voters are closely bunched together. Right, If you look
33:55
Speaker 2: at a map of the whole country and you make
33:57
Speaker 2: a kind of lightmap of the where's blue and where
34:03
Speaker 2: is red? The cool country looks kind of red. The
34:06
Speaker 2: blue voters are all in little pockets. So Republicans have
34:09
Speaker 2: much more geometric freedom to draw gerrymander districts than Democrats do.
34:15
Speaker 2: It's simply in the nature of the geography of the
34:18
Speaker 2: country and where the voters are. So I say, if
34:20
Speaker 2: they want to play this game, bring it on. I
34:23
Speaker 2: don't like the game. I wish we didn't have to
34:24
Speaker 2: play it. I would like to see neutral districts throughout
34:27
Speaker 2: the country, but that's not the America we live in now,
34:30
Speaker 2: And so we've got again, it's a little bit like
34:32
Speaker 2: you know, voter harvesting. If you're allowed to harvest ballots
34:35
Speaker 2: in California, well Republicans have got to get really good
34:38
Speaker 2: at harvesting. And same here. If the Democrats want to
34:41
Speaker 2: play the Gerrymandarin game, let's just beat them at it.
34:44
Speaker 1: It's a dinish Susan denish. I always appreciate the time
34:47
Speaker 1: and the access. Let me finish with this, and I
34:50
Speaker 1: know that you know a lot about this. We now
34:52
Speaker 1: have the acting Attorney General admitting that the twenty twenty
34:55
Speaker 1: election was rigged. He said it yesterday on television did
34:57
Speaker 1: Todd Blinch, who I've met. He's a great guy, and
35:00
Speaker 1: he told me before he even became the acting Attorney
35:02
Speaker 1: General there is more to come when it comes to
35:04
Speaker 1: Kami and Brennan and the Russia, you know, the scandal,
35:08
Speaker 1: that fake you know, Russia hoax. And now he's talking
35:11
Speaker 1: openly on like broadcast television. Yes, it was rigged, and
35:15
Speaker 1: we're going to show you how it was rigged. How
35:17
Speaker 1: satisfying would that be for the American people that we
35:20
Speaker 1: a are allowed to say I'm questioning the results of
35:23
Speaker 1: that election. My First Amendment allows me to say that
35:25
Speaker 1: for some reason we were told that we couldn't. We
35:26
Speaker 1: were squelched everywhere if we did that. But how satisfying
35:30
Speaker 1: is it knowing that the Department of Justice literally is
35:32
Speaker 1: now doing an investigation to find out what the hell
35:35
Speaker 1: happened in Fulton County, Georgia, what happened to Americopa County, Arizona,
35:38
Speaker 1: what happened in Wayne County, Michigan. I mean, that's pretty good,
35:41
Speaker 1: isn't it.
35:42
Speaker 2: I really hope that they can nail this one down
35:45
Speaker 2: because this is the kind of ful crumb of the
35:48
Speaker 2: whole Democratic narrative. If there's one thing that will send
35:51
Speaker 2: that party into complete tailspin, it is the demonstration that
35:56
Speaker 2: there was massive and significant and maybe even decisive of
36:00
Speaker 2: fraud in the twenty twenty election. I mean, we have
36:03
Speaker 2: all these indications. Let's even leave aside two thousand mules.
36:06
Speaker 2: Let's just focus on two things that we know. One,
36:09
Speaker 2: the counting in the five critical states all stopped simultaneously.
36:13
Speaker 2: We do not to this day know how that's possible.
36:16
Speaker 2: Oh who gave the order for that to happen? But
36:18
Speaker 2: it did happen. We all saw it. Number Two, we
36:21
Speaker 2: know that Barack Obama in his first term got something
36:24
Speaker 2: like sixty eight million votes. In twenty twelve, we got
36:27
Speaker 2: something like sixty five or sixty six million votes Joe Biden.
36:32
Speaker 2: Then in twenty twenty, Hillary, by the way, also got
36:35
Speaker 2: in the sixties and then Joe Biden gets eighty one
36:38
Speaker 2: million votes. And then we fast forward to twenty twenty
36:41
Speaker 2: four and Kamala Harris, even with the expansion of the
36:45
Speaker 2: country's population and voter base, gets seventy four seventy five
36:49
Speaker 2: million votes. So at the minimum, Joe Biden gets six
36:53
Speaker 2: to ten million votes which magically show up for him
36:56
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty. They weren't there before, and they disappear
37:00
Speaker 2: right after. Yeah, now, who has ever given a sane
37:03
Speaker 2: explanation of why that is? Nobody. It makes no sense whatsoever.
37:08
Speaker 2: So these two facts alone are strong indicators that something's up,
37:14
Speaker 2: something went very wrong in twenty twenty, and it's just
37:17
Speaker 2: great to see that they're trying to sort of nail
37:20
Speaker 2: it all down and bring it all out in a
37:22
Speaker 2: way that can't be denied. That's so critical. I know
37:25
Speaker 2: there was a camp and the Trump administrator was like,
37:27
Speaker 2: you know, don't look in the rear view mirror twenty
37:29
Speaker 2: twenties behind us we got a lot to do. It's critical,
37:33
Speaker 2: I think to resolve twenty twenty, if only to prevent
37:36
Speaker 2: that kind of fraud from happening again.
37:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. What's interesting about
37:40
Speaker 1: the whole thing is that these lefty loons are still
37:42
Speaker 1: every time they've got somebody at a hearing, like if
37:44
Speaker 1: you were to be if you were called to go
37:46
Speaker 1: speak in front of Congress, or if I were, the
37:48
Speaker 1: first thing they would ask us is who won the
37:49
Speaker 1: election in twenty twenty? And they think that's some sort
37:52
Speaker 1: of a gotcha question because they're still going on this
37:54
Speaker 1: ruse that it was the freest and fairest, most significant
37:58
Speaker 1: and well run election ever in our history. And my
38:01
Speaker 1: question for them denish is always very simple, how do
38:03
Speaker 1: you know that? And they never really have an answer.
38:05
Speaker 1: Who proved that it was the fairest and freest and
38:08
Speaker 1: best election ever other than your flapping gums. How would
38:11
Speaker 1: you suggest people respond to that question who won the
38:13
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election?
38:16
Speaker 2: Well, you gave it a very good starting point, which
38:18
Speaker 2: is all right, you're making a factual claim twenty twenty
38:22
Speaker 2: was the most secure election in US history. Now to
38:25
Speaker 2: defend that, you would expect that the left could point
38:29
Speaker 2: to a study that shows that there was less fraud
38:35
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty than there was in twenty sixteen, twenty twelve,
38:39
Speaker 2: two thousand and eight, two thousand and four, and going
38:41
Speaker 2: all the way back seemingly to the founding right now,
38:45
Speaker 2: not only has no such study ever been produced to
38:49
Speaker 2: my knowledge, it has never even been attempted. So this
38:53
Speaker 2: statement presented as a fact this was the most secure election,
38:57
Speaker 2: is on the face of it, idiotic. It has absolutely
39:01
Speaker 2: no support. It's full of hot air. Requires pure dogmatism
39:05
Speaker 2: to believe it. There's no empirical grounding for it at all.
39:09
Speaker 2: In fact, when you suddenly change the rules, you suddenly
39:13
Speaker 2: introduce legions of mail in dropboxes, you create conditions in
39:17
Speaker 2: which signature of verification is impossible. You know that the
39:21
Speaker 2: voter rolls are full of duplicate names, people move from
39:24
Speaker 2: one place to another, they are now on two or
39:26
Speaker 2: three voter rolls. So knowing all of that, what are
39:30
Speaker 2: the probability that, under those unique circumstances of COVID, this
39:35
Speaker 2: would be the best election. It's preposterous. And yet this
39:40
Speaker 2: was so mind numbingly repeated and regurgitated by every media
39:44
Speaker 2: jackass across the country that it has become, like you say,
39:49
Speaker 2: an article of faith on the left. But rational people
39:52
Speaker 2: like us are not compelled to go along and nod
39:55
Speaker 2: along as if we don't have a brain or were born.
39:58
Speaker 1: Yesterday question, because they want to immediately say, look, how
40:02
Speaker 1: unreliable this witness is. We can't believe anything that Desuza says.
40:06
Speaker 1: Guss he's still, you know, a denier from the twenty
40:08
Speaker 1: twenty election. I think that it's a dumb playbook because
40:11
Speaker 1: if they're in on it, and I think a lot
40:12
Speaker 1: of them are, they know eventually, even if long after
40:15
Speaker 1: we're dead, eventually this country will find out that the
40:18
Speaker 1: election in twenty twenty had massive problems and we didn't
40:20
Speaker 1: get the real result. Because you mentioned five different elections
40:23
Speaker 1: shut down at ten o'clock at night. How did they
40:25
Speaker 1: know to do that in coordination? And who was winning
40:28
Speaker 1: in those states when they went to bed, and who
40:30
Speaker 1: was winning when we all woke up, and we're not
40:32
Speaker 1: allowed to ask that question. I think it's it's such
40:34
Speaker 1: a dumb ruse and it's their attempt to shut us up,
40:36
Speaker 1: which actually guys like you and me just talk more.
40:39
Speaker 1: At that point it's Denis SUSAGODNISHESUSA dot substack dot com.
40:42
Speaker 1: Follow everything that he does, see every movie, you read
40:45
Speaker 1: every book, and I can't wait to have you on again.
40:47
Speaker 1: Thanks for your friendship. I appreciate it, my pleasure. It's
40:50
Speaker 1: a that's it for Unshaken It, un Afraid with Joe
40:52
Speaker 1: PAGs for this time. Do be fair of subscribe for
40:54
Speaker 1: another great one next time.