All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2022 - The Dan Bongino Show
53:46
A Huge 2nd Amendment Win, And An Explosive Dinesh D’Souza Interview (Ep 1797)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right.
I don't do interviews very often anymore on the podcast, but I wanted to do this one today because it's so important.
It involves election integrity, free and fair elections.
It should be easy to vote in and hard to cheat in.
And there's a movie out there, 2000 Mules, we've covered extensively on the show that is driving the left absolutely bat guano crazy.
So Dinesh D'Souza, the producer of that movie is going to be back today at the end of today's show to address the controversy, his air quotes here, about the film and why the left is losing their minds.
When the left is losing their minds on something, it usually means it's something we should pay attention to.
If you're looking for a firearm, I wholeheartedly recommend Henry Repeating Arms.
They make 200 models of rifles, shotguns, and revolvers in a wide variety of calibers and finishes.
Plus, they have new releases throughout the year.
And trust me, folks, you just can't beat their quality.
The best way to learn about Henry Firearms is to order their free catalog to check out their line at home.
Plus, you'll get two free decals, a list of dealers in your area, and a great newsletter.
Just go to HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
Henry Repeating Arms uses old-world craftsmanship combined with cutting-edge technology to deliver reliability and accuracy you can trust.
They're easy to use and maintain, making them an excellent choice for personal and property defense, hunting and the shooting sports, and beginners.
And they're made in America, or they won't be made at all.
Remember to order their free catalog and decals at HenryUSA.com.
Just go to HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
That's HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
You're going to love this company.
If you're in the market for a rifle, shotgun, or revolver, you want to go with the best in the business, and as far as I'm concerned, that's Henry Repeating Arms.
You'll be amazed by their quality craftsmanship and buttery smooth action that makes them a pleasure to shoot.
Mine were accurate right out of the box and they've been reliable ever since.
The best way to learn about Henry Repeating Arms 200 models is to go to HenryUSA.com and order their free catalog.
The catalog is a great guide to showcasing their Made in America firearms, plus you'll get free decals, a list of dealers in your area, and a great newsletter.
Henry's are backed with a lifetime warranty for 100% satisfaction.
They're made in America or they won't be made at all.
And if you have questions, you can call the reward winning customer service department to speak with an expert who can help you.
Make sure you go to henryusa.com to order their free catalog and decals.
The best way to learn about Henry Repeating Arms 200 models is to go to henryusa.com and order their free catalog.
That's henryusa.com to order a free catalog and decals and to learn more about this great American company.
All right, Joe.
It's Friday, so let's go.
It's Friday!
Joe is very excited about this Friday for reasons beyond the scope of this conversation.
Everybody's going to get a little breather this weekend.
Yeah.
Except for me.
Working tomorrow night.
Don't miss the Fox Show Saturday night at nine.
We'll be live in studio in New York first.
Big ruling yesterday out of Supreme Court on the Second Amendment.
Washington Examiner Supreme Court rules New York's strict concealed carry gun law is unconstitutional.
Of course it was.
You can't declare a constitutional right and then put 72,000 restrictions around it making sure nobody actually exercises it.
Imagine you had the right to free speech and they said You can't speak in living rooms.
You can't speak in churches.
You can't speak in movie theaters.
You can't speak using a megaphone.
You can't speak using the internet.
But by the way, the right to free speech is absolutely enshrined in that constitution.
That wouldn't be a right now, would it?
That wouldn't be a right.
It'd be a suggestion of a right.
Now folks, it wasn't but minutes after this Second Amendment defense case out of the Supreme Court, before the ruling was announced, that liberal stupidity was all out in the open for us all to see.
Now, the Second Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution.
That right is not a second-class right.
It is on par with your right to practice your religion, your right to assemble, petition your government, your right to speak.
It's not a second-class right, and thank God for people like Clarence Thomas who understand that, and Alito as well.
Well, it wasn't but moments after this.
And just to be clear what it was, it was a case about the distinction between shall issue and may issue states.
This is one of those things that I don't want to get too wonky into it, but if you're ever going to run for office or you're going to be a conservative host or whatever, you're going to I have to understand the distinction.
There are states out there that have shall issue, meaning you apply for a concealed weapons permit and you shall be issued that permit unless you're a prohibited possessor.
Unless you meet one of these criteria that don't enable you to get a firearm, right?
In a may issue state, they don't have to give you the concealed weapons permit.
Just so you know, I'm a constitutional carry guy.
The Constitution is your carry permit.
That's where I stand.
But some states do have these laws.
They have it in Florida here.
If I had my wallet, I'd show you.
I have a concealed carry permit down here in Florida.
You have to go through a process.
I don't agree with that.
I wish it was constitutional carry.
It's not.
Having said that, New York has this may-issue status.
And the may-issue status is important.
May-issue means they may issue it or they may not issue it.
Which doesn't make it much of a big R God-given right if New York may decide to flip you the double-barreled middle finger.
That got tossed yesterday.
It is going to be very difficult moving forward for states like California, Illinois, and New York.
It is going to be extremely difficult for them moving forward to push these may-issue status things.
This is why this is such a big deal.
Having said that, again, it wasn't but moments after the decision was released that the dreadful New York governor, just a clown of the highest order, Kathy Hochul, put out this comment about muskets.
Check this out.
I'm sorry this dark day has come.
They were supposed to go back to what was in place since 1788 when the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified.
And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at that time were muskets.
I'm prepared to go back to muskets.
I don't think they envision the high-capacity assault weapon magazines intended for battlefields as being cover for it, but I guess we're just going to have to disagree.
Now, I'm just going to throw this out to the crew.
I have the Constitution app, but in case I'm reading the Second Amendment wrong in the Constitution app, Joe, can you show me someplace where you see muskets in the Second Amendment?
Take some time if you need it.
Gee, Justin.
Justin, you're in school right now.
You're like a big, smart Constitutionalist.
Can I make a phone call, man?
Can I use my lifeline?
Can I use my lifeline?
Wait, wait, Guy's phone's ringing.
You can't call Guy.
That destroys the whole process.
So you don't see it.
Guy doesn't see it.
Justin doesn't see it.
It's weird that the Founding Fathers, who I think on a serious note, Joe and I can both agree, were very smart people.
The best governing documents we've ever seen in the history of humankind, our Constitution.
Yeah, Amen is right.
If they wanted to use the word muskets, they would have said muskets.
Instead, they used the word arms.
They didn't put cannons.
They didn't put nunchucks, samurai swords, butterfly knives, pocket knives, rocks.
They put arms.
They specifically didn't mention muskets because the founding fathers were not as dumb as Kathy Hochul.
And they understood that technological developments would mean arms would mean very different things in the future.
Strange.
You notice how Kathy Hochul, by the way, who says, oh, let's go back to muskets.
How about your security detail first, Kath?
How do you feel about that?
How about the New York state police detail protecting Kathy Hochul goes back to musket?
Oh, no, no, no.
You don't want that.
You don't want that, right?
You know what's strange?
When Kathy Hochul and others argue that Twitter should have the right via free speech and the First Amendment to censor conservatives, they should have that right.
Do you notice they don't say about Twitter, because Twitter's using technology to do it, that Twitter should do it only if conservatives write with a feather and an inkwell?
It's weird how they take into account technological developments with the other constitutional rights, but just not the Second Amendment.
You have the right to free speech on a phone that didn't exist when the founding fathers wrote this document, on a computer that didn't exist, or using fancy pens and paper, this specific kind of which didn't exist either.
They may have had the quills and inkwells, but speech was free.
The right to arm and protect yourself was free.
The technology they knew would evolve.
Kathy Hochul knows this.
She's just being an idiot.
She went on, of course, humiliating herself out in public, trying to look like the tough guy.
Here's Kathy Hochul again, repeating If I hear this one more time, I'm going to lose my mind.
I'm going to go one flew over the cuckoo's nest style, Joe.
I'm really, I'm going to lose it.
Jack Nicholson, they're going to have Nurse Ratched in here.
I'm going to lose my marbles.
Kathy Hochul repeating again, the laziest talking point in politics these days, that we can regulate the second amendment.
I mean, we regulate the first amendment.
You can't yell fire at a movie theater.
Here we go.
Check this out.
Shocking.
Absolutely shocking.
That they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.
We can have restrictions on speech.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
But somehow there's no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment.
This is New York.
There's no restrictions allowed in the Second Amendment.
I'll get to the fire in a movie theater thing in a second, which is so beyond dumb.
And we have discredited and debunked that stupid talking point in this show no less than probably five or ten times.
Doesn't matter.
Liberals will continue to lie to you.
There is no fire in a movie theater restriction on free speech.
You understand?
To the lefties listening, do you understand?
You're repeating a stupid, debunked, discredited lie over and over, making an ass out of yourself.
The second part of that, though, there's no restrictions on the Second Amendment.
There aren't?
I buy firearms all the time.
I go to an FFL, Federal Firearms Licensee, and I have to fill out a form.
And on that form are a bunch of restrictions on the Second Amendment.
You've been dishonorably discharged.
You've been convicted of a felony.
Domestic violence.
Those are called, Joe, restrictions.
Now, Kathy Hochul knows that.
She's just a discredited buffoon and a liar trying to whip up her dopey liberal father.
No restrictions.
Idiots.
By the way, I don't know if she realized, but we didn't have a federal firearms law.
First one, you know, when did the first federal firearms law came about fellas?
I know when?
1776?
Nope.
1934.
We did pretty darn okay till 1934.
We didn't have any federal firearms laws.
So Kathy Hochul's making that part up too.
But Hochul's fire in a movie theater line is one you'll hear often.
I'm going to put this article in the newsletter, the show notes, and please read it.
It's in the Atlantic, which is a left-leaning outlet.
Bongino.com slash newsletter if you want to access the article.
I'm begging you to please read this.
This is a left-leaning outlet, folks.
Headline, it's time to stop using the fire in a crowded theater quote.
It's not real.
The quote's real.
It's not real law.
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned the Schenk case in the authority the case still carried.
The court held that inflammatory speech and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan is pretended under the First Amendment unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
That is, that is the standard.
It's been in effect for 40 years.
The Atlantic piece goes on.
Today, despite the crowded theater quotes, legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final world on the lawful limits of the First Amendment.
As this guy Rotman notes, it's worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech when used metaphorically.
It can be deployed against any unpopular speech.
That is not the standard.
The standard for restricting free speech, I'll repeat again, is this.
It is not fire in a crowded movie theater.
The speech has to be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
And, not or, is likely to incite or produce such action.
Oliver Wendell Holmes used the fire in a movie theater.
It's been gone and done and wiped away as a legal standard for 40 years.
It's not real.
Here's another point on that.
Even if the fire in a crowded theater were accurate, it isn't.
It is not the legal standard for restriction on speech for the 10th time.
Nobody stops you walking into a movie theater and puts duct tape over your mouth so you don't speak because you may say fire in a crowded movie theater.
That's what New York's gun restrictions Kathy Hochul disgraced in the governor of New York is celebrating.
A may-issue status which stops you from exercising your right before you've even had the chance to own a firearm.
You scream fire in a crowded theater and someone gets hurt, the legal system will take care of you.
People can sue you.
You may very well be accused of some crime.
But no one puts tape over your mouth beforehand.
We already have firearm laws.
Preventing menacing with a weapon and criminal possession of a weapon and murder with a weapon and assault with a weapon.
We already have that.
We don't put tape over your mouth before you go in the movie theater.
Notice one other thing.
Jim pointed this out yesterday in the radio show.
Kathy Hochul says they're getting involved in our rights.
She's talking about government rights.
The government doesn't have rights.
You have rights.
The government has negative rights in the constitution.
The Bill of Rights describes what the government can't do to you.
Shall not infringe.
Shall not infringe.
That doesn't sound like a right for the government.
That sounds like a right for you.
Kathy Hochul thinks it's a right for government.
Now, folks, you can restrict a constitutional right.
You can do it if there's a compelling government interest, and it's done via the least restrictive means.
Constitutional rights are restricted all the time.
You have freedom of speech.
You can't threaten the President of the United States.
They have a compelling government interest in keeping the President alive.
The least restrictive means is to say, don't directly threaten the President of the United States.
It only affects people who would threaten him.
They have restrictions on practice of religion.
If your religion engages in ritual animal sacrifice in public streets, there's a compelling government interest.
You don't want animals dying in the middle of the streets.
You don't want them tortured.
And second, the least restrictive means would be to just ban that specific practice, not ban all religion.
How the hell was this law ever going to pass that muster?
You're telling me the least restrictive means was to say, no, the government can tell you if you can or can't exercise your own constitutional rights.
I think that's a hard fail.
Folks, the footnotes in this case are genius.
You should read them.
One of them by Clarence Thomas is great.
I'll throw it up on the screen here, but he makes the case very simply.
And Margo Cleveland noted this on her Twitter feed.
It's just, he's just a genius, Clarence Thomas.
We owe him so much.
Thomas notes that this whole public safety thing, that the government has the right to overly regulate the Second Amendment in the interest of public safety, that doesn't apply to any other amendment to the Constitution.
I mean, imagine your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure.
Imagine if the government, just every time they wanted to break into your house without a warrant, they said, public safety, public safety.
We had a feeling you were going to use a ham radio to do like an Orson Welles World War III type thing and scare people.
We thought that might happen.
So we just broke into your house for that public safety.
You notice how those constitutional rights don't get trampled on?
It's always the gun thing.
Clarence Thomas notes that.
How these other amendments, they don't seem to have as many restrictions as the Second Amendment.
It's kind of odd that the left ignores that.
All right, I'm going to get to Dinesh D'Souza in a little bit.
Let me get to my second sponsor.
I want to get to something else that happened yesterday with the Biden administration.
The language police getting even worse.
I don't want to leave you the weekend without this.
Free speech, religious liberty, the second amendment across the country.
Your constitutional rights are under constant attack and it's only getting worse by the day, which is why I'm proud to support our friends at Patriot Mobile.
They're not just America's only Christian conservative cell phone provider, they're one of the few companies fighting back.
They offer the same nationwide coverage as the major carriers.
So you get the same great service, plus the peace of mind that your money is combating the left's attempts to silence you.
Patriot Mobile has plans to fit any budget, and their 100% U.S.-based customer support team provides exceptional customer support.
Patriot Mobile shares your values and supports organizations fighting for religious freedom, constitutional rights, the sanctity of life, and our veteran and first responder heroes.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Dan or call 972-PATRIOT.
Get free activation with the offer code Dan.
Veterans and first responders, you save even more, so make that switch today.
Between the left, the media, and the rhinos, we have to stick together.
Patriotmobile.com slash Dan, patriotmobile.com slash Dan, or call 972-PATRIOT.
Thanks, Patriot Mobile.
Okay, that's a pretty exhaustive account of the Second Amendment ruling and what it means for you and all the liberal hysteria.
I just want to get a few takeaways from that.
Don't let your liberal friends get away with it.
What do you want?
No restrictions?
We already have restrictions.
Second, the restrictions are a two-pronged test.
Compelling government interests, least restrictive means.
That's not what happened with this law.
Third, there is no fire in a movie theater.
That case has been, was tossed 40 years ago.
The new standard is that incitement to violence calling for direct action.
Brandenburg versus Ohio.
There is no such thing.
That is made up.
Fourth, public safety is not a reason without using the least restrictive means to throw out constitutional rights.
You could say that about anything, including search and seizure.
I'm gonna read your email.
Public safety It's why we have processes in the court to prevent those violations of constitutional rights.
Let's move on.
I want to get to this too.
It's been a busy news week.
Washington Examiner, I want to leave the story behind.
The education department released their long expected rollback of Betsy DeVos here.
She was our education secretary.
Their title nine regulation.
Folks, this is a disaster.
This is the Biden language police at it again.
Noah Pollack noted this.
He went through these regulations, and this is really critical.
The language police have been at work, hard at work, trying to restrict your free speech in addition to trying to restrict your Second Amendment rights.
And one of the ways to do that is, again, if you're going to restrict speech, you can do it, but you have to show a compelling government interest via the least restrictive means.
Noah Pollack notes that, among other things, Biden's new Title IX rule, which applies to all public schools and most universities, It says that using the wrong gender pronouns is sexual harassment.
Wokeism will now be mandatory, unless you want to be expelled.
Again, I don't know in what universe they think this is going to pass constitutional muster.
Folks, if it does, you're finished.
If you have to call a man a woman under the threat of being expelled, the threat of having federal funds pulled from an institution that allows it, it's over, folks.
It's over.
There's nothing left.
It's finished.
You see what they're doing here?
Chipping away at each and every constitutional right.
Donald Trump's right to be free from a lawful search and seizure by spying on him.
Taking away your Second Amendment rights.
Thank God the courts got in the way here.
Taking away your First Amendment rights to speak by chipping around the edges.
Words are violence now.
You know, the other side, of course, fails to understand us.
They never seem to grasp and get their arms around what we're thinking either.
I find this part hilarious.
I have not followed this account and shame on me.
It's at political math on Twitter.
I saw this yesterday as I was doing my radio show.
Remember that I told you the left never understands us, but we understand them.
Jonah Goldberg, who I'm not a huge fan of.
He's not a huge fan of me, whatever.
He wrote a good piece.
If it's a good piece, it's a good piece a while ago.
And he was talking about how the left never gets us.
It's the reason they always fail on gun control, and they failed badly yesterday in the courts.
They don't understand gun owners.
They don't know how to talk to gun owners.
They think we're all murderers.
We want school shootings.
We're racists.
We're fascists.
We're Nazis.
Of course, it's not only ridiculously offensive.
It's absurd.
It's ridiculous.
But because they don't understand us, they constantly lose the issue.
And he contrasts that, Goldberg, in this piece he wrote a while ago with the successful war on smoking.
I've referenced the piece a few times because it's important.
It was kind of a non-political, bipartisan effort to get people to stop smoking.
Bad for your lungs, bad for your health, obviously.
But everybody knew how to talk to a smoker.
So once people got the information... My mom was a smoker.
Sons knew how to talk to moms.
Daughters knew how to talk to dads.
Dad, you really need to stop this.
Here's why.
The left makes no effort.
They think screaming that you're a child murderer and a racist, fascist, homophobic, transphobic, isthophobic, phobophobic is going to get you to give up your guts.
They don't understand us at all.
They never did.
So we had three big rulings this week in the Supreme Court.
One on school choice, one on the Second Amendment, and one on abortion.
I hope it comes out today.
We'll see what happens.
Those went down, and these have been the responses.
Political math notes this.
Notes, listen, you want to see how bad they don't understand this?
I'll just send my kid to a Muslim school with my taxpayer money.
Yeah, okay.
Great.
That's your response to school choice?
This is what the lefties have... I'm not sure who it was.
Was it that guy Ali on Twitter?
I'm not sure who it was, but wrote something like that.
Okay.
You conservatives believe in school choice.
I'm sending my kid to a Muslim school.
Great.
Great.
That's not a critique.
That's not a glitch.
That's a feature.
Then he notes, what do you think about black people loading arsenals of guns?
Remember Joy Behar?
Great.
Terrific.
That's not a criticism of us!
That's a criticism of you for being a racist buffoon!
What's wrong with a black person owning a gun?
Oh, all of a sudden the liberals jump back and recoil in horror realizing what they said.
On the abortion ruling about to come down.
If we can't get abortions, we'll make men take care of their pregnant partners.
Excellent.
We love that.
We're all about responsibility.
This is how little political math has beautiful.
It's a critique of love.
They don't understand us at all.
These are not critiques of us.
They're critiques of you, but this is how dumb you are.
You don't understand it.
All right.
It was questions time too.
So I want to, you know what?
Um, I hate to pack these in, but, uh, I really appreciate your patience.
The sponsors pay to be here with you, but I don't want to interrupt the Dinesh D'Souza interview, so I'm going to get the sponsors up front.
Again, I really appreciate your patience.
Today's show also brought to you, and I'll get some questions afterwards, Public SQ.
Americans are discovering that if we want to change this nation, we have to change the way the marketplace works.
While corporations are seeking to divide us, big banks are freezing the accounts of people who disagree with their political views.
And our supply chain is dependent upon countries that actively work against their values.
It's time for a change.
And that change starts with you and your wallet.
That's why I'm proud to partner with PublicSQ, the largest network of patriotic, freedom-loving businesses and consumers this nation's ever seen.
PublicSQ is the first app to connect freedom-loving Americans with their local community and the businesses that share their values.
Whether you want to support a restaurant that only buys from local farms, a coffee shop that took a stand against COVID mandates, or a bank that would never cancel you for your political views, PublicSQ, they're your guide.
They're also interactive, sensor-free.
They have community groups there where you can connect with other local members.
It's important.
And here's the best part.
It's absolutely free to join.
PublicSQ.
Just download the PublicSQ app from the App Store, the Apple App Store or Google Play.
Create an account.
Begin your search.
You can also list your businesses for free so your local community can support you too.
Download the app today.
PublicSQ.
That's PublicSQ.
PublicSQ.
It's time for questions for Dan.
Hey Dan, you do your show in the mornings and radio spots in the afternoon.
My question is, is it the same subject matter on both shows or are they totally different together?
Holly, Jay, Wiley.
Uh, it depends.
Today's show, obviously I got to guess it was later.
It's going to be a little different.
Yesterday's show was a little different because the Supreme Court stuff broke.
So it's not always the same, but, uh, you can listen to both.
Sometimes the content's, uh, similar, so check it out.
But no, I'd say like 50% of the time shows I get thrown a curve ball.
Hey Dan, at Lord Mayor, I was hoping you could ask Dinesh D'Souza, he's coming up next, to make a documentary on what should be the rebuttal of the laughable January 6th trial.
Good idea, maybe we'll ask him, take a note.
Rebuttal, hold on, I'm actually doing this right now.
So there you go, you changed the content of my interview.
Rebuttal to January 6th, all right?
Hey Dan, at Pepe Le Cuomo, Which blue states do you foresee are the most likely to flip red come November?
Do you think there are any red states in jeopardy of flipping blue?
Um, I think Colorado, we have a really good chance of taking what's becoming a very blue state to flip that Senate seat back to red.
I think we stand a really good shot.
Are there any red states in jeopardy of flipping blue?
Yeah.
Uh, they made a really hard run at Texas.
Texas has been getting bluer, so that is a threat and we can't, uh, we can't ignore that.
But I think Colorado and Nevada are probably a best chance of turning blue, light blue states to red.
Hey Dan, at DJ Vickers, I need you to settle a dispute.
This is a critical question.
I don't want to get myself in trouble here.
Folks, in advance, please don't send me death threats after I answer this question, okay?
I'm just going to tell you the truth.
You may not agree, but this may be the most important question we ever got.
I need to settle a dispute with my teenage boys.
Which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars?
Okay, this is going to get me in trouble.
I made Louis half my audience here.
Star Wars.
Hands down.
Not even close.
Not even close.
Listen, I love Star Trek.
I loved Captain Kirk.
He was great.
I watched all the initial episodes of Star Trek.
I loved the Rathacon.
The first Star Trek movie?
Eh, not so much.
Star Trek 3, I loved it.
I even liked the new Star Trek, but it's so Star Wars, man.
I'm sorry.
Your boys, I don't know what side they're on, but there's nothing like Star Wars.
What's damping down my Star Wars energy, even though I grew up on Star Wars, is the, here we go.
The sequel should all be wiped clean.
They should start over, Star Wars Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, even though that was terrible too, and just pretend nothing else happened after that.
The Hayden Christensen, all the series, just scrap it and start over, just from the beginning.
And Mark Hamill is turned into a total liberal lunatic, but Star Wars is better.
These guys are like, this is their, you should have had them answer the question.
Justin and Guy, they sit here all day talking about Star Wars.
It's a trap.
Hey Dan, thank you, at Aaron Von Grom.
Very funny.
What was the best part of working in the White House and the worst?
I mean, without sounding overly sentimental or like sanctimonious too at the same time, you know, on midnights at the White House, when you're working at midnight, obviously the president's 24 hour security.
So, you know, midnights are tough.
It's tough to stay out, but.
It's empty.
And you'd be walking through the White House, and I can't tell you how many times I would go up to push this post near the residence, and you'd be walking through the East Wing on the state floor, and you'd be like, my gosh, you know how many people walk down this very specific pathway to give a speech, or a Lincoln-laden state right there, or the president's daughter was married there, You know, the Dolly Madison, George Washington picture is there, and Nixon probably thought about his pending impeachment walking down this very same path.
It was crazy.
What was the worst part?
The parking.
If you want me to be honest with you, the parking was the freaking worst.
It was so bad.
That parking, you'd have to, when it was a 90 degree day, you'd walk like a mile into the White House.
By the time you got in there with your body armor on or something like that, getting ready to push, you'd be in a full goat.
Full goat.
Goat sweat.
You'd be sweating like a goat.
It was the worst.
The parking was terrible.
And all the protocol and stuff.
Besides, you only had to go there in a suit, which I always thought was stupid.
Hey Dan, at Texas Tony 85, do you call it sauce or gravy?
Listen, this is a tough one too.
It's up there with the Star Wars question.
I call it sauce.
My grandmother called it gravy.
I know I have to... Your grandmother called it gravy?
They call it gravy?
See, Justin, you're Italian, right?
Obviously.
It's, I know I'm going to have to turn in my Italian card, but it's okay.
I call it sauce.
My grandmother was adamant though.
It's great.
They don't call it, you call it sauce.
She'll throw you right out of there.
God rest her soul.
Hey Dan, Bimarje, what is a place you've not visited that you'd like to?
Italy!
I'm Italian.
I still haven't been to the Colosseum.
You believe that?
36 countries.
I've never been to Italy.
That's an embarrassment.
Turn the Italian card in right now.
Best place I've ever visited, though, that I can highly recommend.
If you want to take a little risk.
Go to the Lost City of Petra in Jordan.
You'll never see anything like it.
You've seen an Indiana Jones movie?
The Last Crusade?
That's the Hosni, the treasury in the Lost City of Petra.
Of course, there's nothing really inside that's a part of the movie, but the outside is taken in the Lost City and the Sikh.
Amazing.
We'll see it at night with the candles down the Sikh.
It's the most incredible thing you'll ever see.
Dickie Drake!
Hey, Dan, what's your opinion on all the food production plants catching fire or otherwise being shut down?
Do you feel that there are people behind the scenes making this happen?
I don't know.
I mean, it's very suspicious, but a very learned friend of mine who has been ahead of just about every one of these stories says, listen, here's the problem.
Food industry is a very complicated job filled with a lot of flammable materials and mistakes happen all the time.
He thinks the lockdowns had a lot to do with it, that these people came back and their skills atrophied.
I don't know.
It's getting to me.
The point is it's getting beyond coincidence at this point, all these food things.
But I don't like to speculate on what I don't know.
All right.
All right.
Coming up next, Dinesh D'Souza.
All right.
I'm really excited about this next interview.
I want to welcome this show.
We haven't done a podcast interview in a long time.
I wanted to wait till it was worth your time.
And Dinesh D'Souza is always worth your time.
Dinesh, welcome back to the show.
We really appreciate it.
Dan, always a pleasure.
Thanks for having me.
Of course.
So, Dinesh, you put out this transformative movie, 2000 Mules.
Folks, you can check it out at 2000mules.com.
That's the number, 2000mules.com.
Dinesh, the movie is incited a firestorm on the left, which probably means you're right over the target.
The movie in a nutshell shows what I believe to be an extensive and illegal ballot harvesting operation.
The left has lost their minds.
NPR, the Washington Post, Philip Bump had a meltdown over it.
Let's go through some of the criticisms of the film if you don't mind.
Unlike the left, we're not afraid of a good debate and argument.
So one of the things they claim in the film is that the geo-tracking you use to track the cell phones of these mules as they went to ballot harvesting centers and then to ballot boxes, they say, Dinesh, that stuff's not accurate.
That could just be cars driving by ballot boxes.
Well, what do you say?
How do you respond to that?
Well, this is a point that very surprisingly Bill Maher made.
Bill Maher basically said that if you're in Atlanta, you have tens of thousands of people going by, driving, Uber, jogging, walking, and there's bound to be a bunch of people near these drop boxes.
And so his implication was that you cannot identify particular mules.
But look, Apply that same logic to January 6th.
There are hundreds of thousands of people who live in Washington, D.C.
Lots of people driving, walking, jogging, Uber.
How is it that the FBI is able to say that Mr. X was approximately 30 feet outside the front door of the Capitol or Mr. Y was approximately 20 feet inside the front door?
The answer is that geotracking is accurate and precise enough to be able to make these distinctions.
It can tell the difference between a moving dot and a dot that moves to a stationary point, a drop box, then comes back to say a car and goes on to the next drop box.
So, it's a little surprising that this technology, which is used by the FBI, used by law enforcement, used by the CDC, considered reliable in all those domains, And now when Truth-O-Vote applies it to the new area of ballot trafficking, suddenly the technology is extremely unreliable.
Dinesh, one of the things you brought up that I think is important here, and again folks, the website is 2000mules.com, watch the movie, it is, to call it an eye-opener is an understatement.
One of the things you bring up that's critical here is it can make the distinction between stopping and driving by.
So yeah, if it couldn't make a distinction, I would agree with the critics that that would be a real problem.
If a ballot box is in a well-trafficked street and you drive by it five or six times, you could be picking up your kid at school and then going to the deli down the block.
But that's not what the geo-tracking does.
If you stopped in front of the drop box, You're not driving by.
You stop there for a very specific reason to likely interact with the Dropbox.
So, I'm not very familiar with the technology, but is that an accurate statement that it can determine the difference?
Well, not only that, but once True the Vote identifies these mules, they build a pattern of life around them.
In other words, it's not just a matter of, I've got a snapshot of you, let's just say a few feet from a Dropbox, end of story.
No, I now want to see where you came from.
I want to see, for example, where you got the ballots that you brought to the drop boxes.
And so I'm going to be looking to see if the initiation point of your journey was a left-wing kind of voter's stash house.
That's where you got the backpack that you then brought with you to the various drop boxes.
True The Vote even ran a comparison of the mules.
Outside of the election period.
In other words, it could be that for some weird reason, someone constantly goes to those locations, just happens to do that all the time, and he does that in normal life, election or no election.
So they ran a comparison to see if these mules followed those same patterns at non-election time, and they found out that they absolutely did not.
In other words, this was a unique pattern that they followed from early voting, October 1 through election day.
Now, Dinesh, in the movie 2000 Mules, you're very clear that there's criteria here.
To eliminate any possible false positives on what could be potential illegal voting activity, you made the criteria very stringent.
It wasn't one trip to a ballot box, it wasn't even two, and it wasn't a trip to a ballot harvesting center where they could be engaged in potential ballot harvesting.
You had very strict criteria.
What were the criteria?
Well, I'll get to the next part.
What were the criteria first?
Well, the criteria are very consistent.
You have to go to 10 or more drop boxes and five or more of the vote stash houses, the left-wing non-profit organizations.
And so here's the point.
Let's remember that these are ballot drop boxes.
This is not the U.S.
Post Office So you can't give the explanation, well, you know, some guy was mailing his utility bill on day one and his mortgage on day two, and he wrote his mom on day three, because this is not a box for letters.
This is a box only for ballots.
And so by setting the high bar of 10 drop boxes, you know, it eliminates a lot of the nonsense that people say, someone is dropping off ballots of family members.
Why would you need to go to 10 or more Dropboxes?
B. Why are you doing it in the middle of the night?
C. Why are you wearing latex gloves?
D. Why are you taking photos of the ballots as they go in the box?
So when you see the totality of the picture that is represented not just by the geotracking but supplemented by the video, a lot of these criticisms fall by the wayside.
I'm glad you brought up the gloves.
That was actually part two of my question.
So in some of the video you obtained, you see some of these mules approaching the ballot boxes with gloves on and taking the gloves off.
And some of your critics have said, I think ridiculously so, but let's put it out there.
We're not afraid to respond here.
They said, oh, well, you know, it was cold.
People wear gloves at the nest.
He's crazy.
But last time we spoke, you brought up an interesting point that some information had surfaced that they got their hands on, which changed their activity about the gloves right afterwards.
If you could expound on that, this is really fascinating folks.
Well, whenever you have two rival theories to explain something, you always have to see which one makes more sense of the data.
So number one, the mules that you see wearing gloves, they're not wearing leather gloves or woolen gloves.
And so when the AP fact checker Ali Swenson says this, you know, let's remember it was really cold in Georgia that winter.
Well, the point is they're wearing latex gloves.
So that's the first point.
And then, you know, Philip bump was a little smarter than Ali Swenson.
He goes, well, no, no, no, it's not the cold.
It's COVID.
All right.
Let's say it's COVID and you've got all these COVID sensitive meals.
Well, number one, every single one of them, the moment they put the ballots in the box, they remove the gloves and throw them into a nearby trash can.
So if you're really all that concerned about getting COVID, I mean, you don't like to touch door handles.
You don't like to, you can get COVID many different ways.
And so why would you immediately remove the gloves?
Number two, We don't see the gloves in the early voting or even on election day.
They begin to appear in mid-December.
Now, they actually appear just a day or so after an arrest in Arizona in which the FBI was able to bust some ballot traffickers.
by finding their fingerprints on multiple ballots.
So again, you apply the sort of hypothesis to the data, and you realize no gloves before, then there's a bust.
Then the word goes out to the mules, let's all start wearing gloves.
Sure enough, the gloves show up.
I think that's a better explanation for why we see these latex gloves than the silly explanation about it's cold, or even the somewhat more sophisticated, but still unconvincing explanation that this is all explained by COVID.
2000mules.com, folks.
2000mules.com, check it out.
Dinesh, another criticism I've heard, this one I find to be the most ridiculous, is, well, they're just family members, you know, taking ballots, legally voting for people in their household.
There's nothing unethical or untoward here at all.
How do you address that absurdity?
Well, first of all, this is where video comes in and it's helpful because, you know, you have to set the scene.
And when you see the movie, you begin to realize that you're looking at something surreptitious.
A guy pulls up a car, usually at something like 1.15 or 2 a.m.
in the morning, parks in the middle of the street because there's no traffic, looks left and right to make sure no one's watching him.
Then you see that he's got a backpack full of ballots.
He approaches the dropbox.
He begins to take out a sheaf of them.
Now, he's not going to put all the ballots in one dropbox because there'll be a major spike It'll be noticed the next morning.
His job is a few ballots in every Dropbox.
And so he puts in the ballots.
You can see him doing it.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Now, if the geotracking shows that he then turns around and goes home, he could then say, well, look, it may be odd for me to be, quote, voting at 2 a.m.
in the morning, but that's just my weird habit.
But no, he then goes to the next Dropbox, does exactly the same thing.
So when your phone is showing you going from Dropbox to Dropbox to Dropbox, It becomes unconvincing to say I'm merely, even if you have a large family, I mean if I have a large family and I've got 17 ballots, I'm still gonna go drop them all off in one box.
Dinesh, one of the other critiques I've heard is the lack of video.
I've heard this actually quite a bit, even some folks I'm going to get to in a minute who never gave you the chance to respond, don't have the guts to debate you.
But they said, well, you know, the videos of the same guy going back over and over.
If you'd show me some video, then we'd believe it.
We don't trust the geotracking.
How do you address that?
Yeah, and this was also, by the way, a point that was made by Bill Barr.
Yeah, that's who I was referring to.
The only criticism that appears, and I emphasize the word appears, to have some validity.
Now, it's important to realize that most of these places did not take video.
There's no video in the whole state of Wisconsin.
There was some video supposedly in Philadelphia, but through the vote has not been able to obtain it.
Very little video from Michigan.
In Maricopa County, a number of the video cameras were inexplicably turned off.
There are other video cameras that are on, but they're not even aimed at the Dropbox.
They're aimed at, like, a tree.
So you have to realize what you're dealing with here.
And as a filmmaker, this was a problem for me.
Now, there's video in Fulton County, but out of every 10 Dropboxes, there's video on approximately one of them.
So, you know, here's my point.
You know, if you had a burglar or a serial killer going from home to home to home, and let's say they went to 10 homes.
But only one of those 10 homes has video.
So you can tell by their physical DNA or their fingerprints or even their cell phone digital DNA that they were at all those 10 homes.
And you also know from the digital DNA that the robber or the murderer appeared at this particular house at 4 a.m.
in the morning.
You look on that day at that exact time on the video and sure enough, there he is.
It seems to me that that is enough to prove the case.
Now, obviously, if there was surveillance video at all the homes, you'd see him at all of them.
You know by his phone that he was there.
But if you only have video in one in ten homes, and then I show the video in the movie and someone goes, I demand to see video at the other homes, I'm like, listen, if the states had done their job and installed the video cameras, I could meet your demand.
So your problem is not with me.
It's not even really with the evidence.
It's with the failure of the states to do their job, do what's in the election rules, and have 24-7 surveillance on all the drop boxes.
You know, it's a good point you make, Dinesh.
Having been a federal agent and a state New York City police officer myself, very few cases do you have dispositive video of the subject committing the crime.
I mean, it's just, it's rare.
You may have some video evidence of him on the street that a bank was on, but you don't necessarily always have video of the actual bank robbery with the guy's face in the bank.
It's just strange that they created this kind of new category of evidence necessity in your case, because they just don't want to accept the narrative may be true, yet when it came to the collusion hoax, they were willing to accept the foreign spy being paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign, who completely fabricated the existence of a pee-pee tape.
I mean, don't you find that kind of odd that people like Philip Bump... Again, I got no personal beef against the guy, I just find him to be kind of buffoonish as a journalist.
He was promoting the whole peepee tape collusion hoax with zero evidence at all, and yet your case, where you have pretty good evidence, you just openly acknowledge there are some limitations of it, you're not hiding from it, but you have great evidence this could be real, and Belm's willing to accept the fact that this is a big conspiracy theory and just throw it out.
Kind of strange, isn't it?
The thing that's really the giveaway is that in many of these cases there is a way to say who's right.
You know, many years ago, the guy who made the movie that told me that he made the claim that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's real dad, you know, and he showed me the movie and I said, you know, you made an interesting movie of a lot of comparisons of photographs, but I can tell you how to get the DNA of Obama's own family and you'll be able to verify 100% if you're right.
Would you be interested in doing that?
And he was like, nah, I'm not sure I want to do that.
And I was like, well, that tells me you don't have enough confidence in your own thesis.
So similarly here, I would say to Bill Barr, you're a chief law enforcement officer.
All you have to do is go and talk to some of the mules.
And find out who paid you, who put you up to this, who gave you the ballots.
Go raid the non-profits and ask them the exact same questions.
And then you'll find out who's right.
Because it's not so difficult to get these people to talk if they're being paid $10 a ballot.
They don't want to go to prison and commit felonies.
They'll be happy to turn in the people who put them up to it.
So it's the fact that these people don't want to take the logical next step, which, by the way, would refute me if they went and talked to all the mules and all the mules went, listen, let me give you a list of all our family members.
I've got 18 members in my family.
They all sent me to all these different drop boxes.
I'll be like, you know, wow, this is very odd, but you've explained the anomaly.
They don't dare to do that because they're scared of proving me right.
That's perfectly stated.
I mean, guys like you and me are hated.
You, me, Levin, you name it.
Charlie Kirk, anyone with a following on our side is hated.
They could make a fool out of you, Dinesh.
You'd be done forever.
Your credibility be finished.
Just go interview the mules.
If Dinesh D'Souza's wrong, get them in a sworn affidavit to say, this was the ballot for my mom, Jessica Jones, or whatever.
They won't do it, which says to me, they've got something to hide.
That brings up one more question I wanted to, one more critique.
I just thought of it.
The True The Vote and Greg Phillips and Katherine Engelbrecht have just come under, you know, relentless attack.
It's just, it's been ugly.
I really feel for them.
I've known Katherine a long time, a wonderful woman, and the attacks have just been, I mean, personal attacks, their families.
It's just, you're used to it.
You've been involved in this forever, I'm sure.
It still stings, but you know, whatever, it goes over your head.
But one of the accusations there is that, oh, you know, they're ridiculous.
They brought this information to GBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigations, and they found nothing.
Therefore, there's nothing there.
And this is all one big hoax.
They have no credibility.
How do you guys address that?
Well, here's the thing.
There is a bitter feud that has been going on very public, so we all know it's true, between Trump and the Georgia kind of Republican establishment, by which we mean Brian Kemp and, of course, Secretary of State Raffensperger.
So that's the first background.
The second thing is Raffensperger and Kemp publicly went out right after the election and declared to the applause of the media that the Georgia election was secure.
So, right away, these guys are in an awkward position.
Number one, do they want to say that they were the sheriff and the whole town was robbed under their nose?
They had no idea it was going on, and now an independent group out of Texas has provided all the evidence that they had the resources to discover, but never bothered to do it?
They don't want to admit that.
Number two, do they want to admit that Trump was right?
That even though Trump himself may not have had the evidence in November of 2020, Maybe he was operating by wishful thinking or intuition, but it so happens that there is in fact powerful evidence a year and a half later that Trump did win Georgia as he won Arizona, as he won Pennsylvania, as he won the election.
So these guys are in a very odd position.
I think the GBI in Georgia is politicized.
It's very clear.
Even their so-called investigation into ballot trafficking is taking a very strange turn.
They don't want to interview the mules.
What they want True the Vote to do is to give up the name of a confidential whistleblower that came to True the Vote and said, I don't want to give my name.
I'll tell you all about the operation.
You can check it out for yourself.
That's why True the Vote did the geo-tracking.
And the Georgia guys are like, we won't start the investigation unless you turn over this guy's name.
Dinesh, what do we do moving forward?
I mean, I've watched the movie multiple times.
I mean, there are pieces of it that just grab you and you can't turn away.
I think that's why it was such a success.
If you haven't seen it, by the way, folks, 2000mules.com.
Get the DVD, watch it, stream it.
It is amazing.
What do we do going forward?
I mean, it's extremely compelling the case that this may not be misfeasance, this was malfeasance.
How do we stop this from happening again?
Is it as simple as dumping these ballot drop boxes or is it going to require some more, some deeper institutional change?
I think it's really important to get the truth out about what happened in 2020, regardless of what you can do about it.
It's kind of like, you know, some guy does a rape, the statute of limitations may have passed, but if you have DNA that shows he did it, it's important to know, just to know.
And so I find it odd that we haven't heard one word about 2,000 meals from McCarthy, not one word out of McConnell, not one word out of Rona McDaniel.
So the point being here, if I was a Democrat, you know, if I made this exact same movie, if I'm Michael Moore, I made it in 2016 about how the Trumpsters stole the election.
You know as well as I do, Dan, what a volcano there would be.
Chuck Schumer would be going berserk.
Pelosi would be foaming at the mouth.
I mean, they'd go into the Oval Office and drag Trump out of there.
That the number one thing we can do is wake up our own side.
I mean, hey, if we get the House and the Senate in the midterm election, why not have hearings on the issue of election fraud?
2,000 mules would be a part of that picture.
Put this evidence before the American people.
This is what a normal, mature, fighting spirit Republican Party would do.
And that's my biggest question.
Is the Republican Party ready to fight?
Or like the wildebeest, do they want to sort of move to a different part of the pasture just so the lion eats the blast?
Last question, Dinesh.
The movie, again, is 2000 Mules, available at 2000mules.com.
I was very disappointed in Bill Barr.
I thought he was terrific during the Spygate Russian collusion cases, indicating that this was an enormous scandal, that he wasn't going to put it away.
He really let me down here.
I think amateur hours, scoffing at the film, saying things about the film that aren't even accurate.
I question if he even saw it sometimes, probably just saw chunks of it.
It's a serious thing here, potential election malfeasance.
It's not a joke.
How do you respond to him?
I mean, really a disappointment in the end.
I mean, I offered to have a public dialogue or debate with him, which I think a responsible person would be happy to do, particularly if he genuinely thought I didn't know what I was talking about.
He kept referring to photographs.
He's like, I was looking for photographs.
More than once he uses the word photographs.
Now, there are no photographs in the film.
I mean, there's only surveillance video.
So it was going through my mind.
Did he see the film or did he just read a series of left-wing fact checks?
So when Bill Barr first came in, I heaved a huge sigh of relief.
I thought, wow, you know, Jeff Sessions has been kind of, you know, out of commission.
And so here we have a guy, he's not maybe a raging Trumpster, no problem.
He's going to be an honest broker.
He's going to do his job.
And so, yeah, I was a little bit shocked at the kind of irresponsible, kind of guffawing, And it's almost like, you know, the nervous kind of fat boy, you know, before playing to the theatrics of the committee instead of taking the issue with the gravity that it genuinely deserves.
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, a voice like his could have gone a long way.
It seems now that he's involved with the January 6th committee, the left all of a sudden takes him seriously again, despite attacking him brutally.
We need that.
Dinesh D'Souza, the film's amazing.
2000mules.com.
I think you've done the public an enormous service.
And I tell you what, you're making a difference.
I saw a poll that a lot of people who saw it were pretty convinced that this needed to be looked into.
So great job on the movie.
Thanks for coming on today.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you, Dan.
You got it.
I hope you enjoyed that interview.
Real eye-opener.
Dinesh has done the country a real service, exposing what could be this massive fraud in our voting system.
Easy to vote, hard to cheat.
Folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Don't miss my Fox show tomorrow night.
Saturday night, 9 p.m., unfiltered, live in studio.
Gonna be a great show.
Got a loaded lineup, including Gina Carano from The Daily Wire about her new movie, Terror on the Prairie, and being canceled by Disney, which was a disgrace.
Don't miss that, and I'll see you all on Monday.
Good day, sir!
▲
Export Selection