All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
48:29
NATION OF SNITCHES Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep576
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, new information on how the Department of Homeland Security is trying to create a nation of snitches.
I'll reveal the significant revelations in Representative James Comer's press conference on Biden family corruption.
And I'll consider the implications of the Trump verdict in the E. Gene Carroll case and also of Tucker's migration to Twitter.
If you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please hit the subscribe button.
I'd appreciate it. This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy. In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Well, guys, so much to talk about today.
I'll be talking about the big press conference that I just listened to with Representative James Comer about Biden family corruption.
A lot of details that we didn't know before.
I'll be talking about Tucker's migration to Twitter.
But I want to start with some new information that has been obtained by Through the Freedom of Information documents by America First Legal.
And this shows that the Department of Homeland Security, this is the DHS. Now, we sometimes confuse these different agencies, the FBI, the CIA, but DHS is huge.
DHS, of course, are the people who do all the TSA stuff.
They're charged with maintaining the security of the homeland.
Well, as it turns out, they're doing a lot beyond that, or put it differently.
They're getting involved in normal political debates, and they are trying to educate Americans on ways that we can, well, become spies on each other, become snitches.
They're trying to create a nation of snitches.
And they're doing it under the guise of, quote, de-radicalization.
So supposedly, they're identifying people, again, not Islamic radicals, not Chinese spies, not people who are trying to blow up buildings or blow up airplanes, but rather citizens in the United States who have political views that are supposedly, quote, radical. And they're telling ordinary citizens, here are some things you can do to de-radicalize the situation, de-radicalize these people.
Uh, the kinds of people that they are talking about, it turns out, and this is, I'm getting this from their examples, is suburban moms with pro-life beliefs.
Uh, quote, old high school friends who believe in, quote, conspiracies.
Uh, And they're identifying these people as people to, quote, quote, keep an eye on.
And they even identify specific steps that you can take.
Now, let's recognize that this is on top of efforts that we've seen from the Biden regime to set up a Ministry of Truth, a disinformation board.
They've tried to create a kind of government-private sector censorship partnership.
But this takes things to another level.
Here is a case study that they deal with.
They talk about Anne, who's a middle-aged pro-life advocate.
She's a suburban mom. And they show her with, like, laundry, a minivan.
But supposedly, they claim that she has become, quote, increasingly devout.
Anne has always been religious, but since the death of her mother, she's become increasingly devout.
Apparently, this is a problem.
And so what they say is that if Anne goes to an event like a public ribbon-cutting event at a local bakery and she uses the phrase baby killer, this should set you off.
This should basically give you three choices.
One, calling Anne's husband.
Two, contacting Anne's preacher or stopping by Anne's house.
What?! Now, in this example, Anne is not doing anything illegal.
She's not saying anything illegal.
She's expressing a point of view.
And yet, supposedly, there needs to be de-radicalization that DHS is recommending.
They give another example where Anne, quote, brings up pro-life arguments and rants.
And again, they say you can call the sheriff, you can talk about Anne to her co-workers, or you can research the groups that Anne refers to.
Second example, Courtney, a, quote, old high school friend.
They say she's becoming, quote, a budding conspiracy theorist.
Let's remember, these are scenarios that are being developed by DHS. And they say that ever since her divorce, quote, she has become fixated on conspiracy theories regarding government connections to child abuse and trafficking.
So what?
Whether or not Courtney is right, whether these conspiracy theories are right or wrong, Where is the need for any kind of government involvement here?
And yet, the DHS says, hey, you've got three choices to the bystanders.
One, monitor Courtney's other posts and conversations.
Two, check in with her ex-husband.
Or basically try to message her to find out more information about what's going on in her life.
Again, this is utterly outrageous.
I want to emphasize that this goes beyond...
The FBI is not allowed to do this.
Why? Because the FBI is limited in tracking potentially criminal behavior.
It's quite obvious from these examples that no criminal activity is involved at all.
They give a third example about a guy named Pete...
Who triggers the DHS intervention by the fact that, quote, he has seen him post on some radical sites with violent tendencies.
First of all, I don't know how a site can have a, quote, violent tendency.
But second of all, there's no implication that this guy, Pete, is violent.
He's not posting any violent content.
He's posting on a site that, quote, has these violent tendencies.
And again, they tell people you have three options.
You can contact Pete's wife.
You can interrogate Pete by it at a softball game.
Or you can, quote, keep closer tabs on Pete's online activity.
I think what's going on here is the Biden regime is trying to create, let's call it a comprehensive system of monitoring and censorship in which family members spy on family members, neighbors spy on neighbors.
By the way, this is the This is a standard feature of repressive regimes around the world.
They try to create this kind of atmosphere of distrust and even hate between citizens.
And it's extremely scary that these kinds of things once confined to reports on the Soviet Union and China are now seeping their way into our own United States.
Former President Trump recently issued a warning from Mar-a-Lago, quote, Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years, end quote.
Some experts believe there are serious threats to the future value of the U.S. dollar because of inflation, deficit spending, and our increasing national debt.
One asset that has withstood famine, wars, and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times is gold.
And you can own it in a tax-sheltered retirement account with the help of Birch Gold.
Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold.
And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
Get the process started.
Text Dinesh to 989898 to get a free information kit on gold.
Think about this. In the March of this year, when the banks faltered, stock market faltered, gold surged.
Birch Gold can help you find out how to protect your savings with gold.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers.
So text Dinesh to 989898.
Get your free information kit on gold and get started.
Again, text Dinesh to 989898.
Debbie and I watched this morning the press conference at 9 a.m.
Eastern with Representative James Comer and a bunch of people from the Oversight Committee.
Andy Biggs was there, Nancy Mace was there, and others.
And they laid out for the first time some new information about the Biden family corruption.
And there are several points that need to be highlighted.
I don't know what's going to happen with all this because it's very disturbing.
It is powerful evidence.
It is bank records.
It's transfers. And so it's indisputable as far as I can see.
In fact, no one has really questioned it.
The only objections that we've heard so far to the initial release of this kind of information is, well, this is troubling, but it didn't occur when Joe Biden was vice president.
As it turns out, it did.
In one case, Representative Comer outlines 17 payments from a Romanian entity, bribery payments, clearly, for Hunter Biden, for Joe Biden, for other members of the Biden family, and 16 of the 17 payments occur while Biden is vice president.
So that blows out of the water, this idea that it didn't happen during Biden's tenure at office.
Short answer, it did.
A second point that the left raises in regard to these transactions is the idea that, well, Trump and his organization and his entity also had business relationships abroad during Trump's tenure.
So the idea here is let's cover for the Bidens by a kind of whataboutism.
What about Trump? But the problem here is that the two situations are not similar.
Trump has an international business.
He has golf courses.
He has resorts.
He, of course, was a television star, and he made television deals.
So the Trump Organization is an organization that set up a billion-dollar-plus franchise, and it has legitimate business dealings.
And those business operations continue, of course, not with Trump himself, but Eric Trump running the company.
And so this is not the same.
What is the Biden family's international business?
There is none. What is their domestic business?
There is none. So this is a point that Comer and company made today that Biden's only business is politics.
And so the only thing that he has to sell is influence.
And you find this influence, well, today's press conference focused really on transactions coming from Romania and transactions coming from China.
Both of them extremely disturbing.
The Romanian guy is a Romanian tycoon who was subsequently convicted of obstruction of justice and was being investigated for corruption.
And this guy is funneling money to the Bidens.
Now, the way this is done is itself very revealing because the money typically goes to some Biden associate, not to Biden himself, some Biden associate, a guy like Rob Walker, they collect the money and then in a predictable way, this money is then dispersed To a series of shell accounts.
These are LLCs, limited liability corporations, that are ways of paying the Bidens, and then the money ends up in the Biden family's own account.
And not just Hunter Biden.
One of the first things that James Comer said at the outset, he said, this isn't just about Hunter Biden.
Comer had previously said, don't go ahead and indict Hunter Biden as if you're acting like he was the kingpin.
He's not the kingpin. He's the bag man.
Nine Bidens at least are involved, and there could be more.
So Halle Biden is involved, and the president's brother, James Biden, is involved, and Frank Biden is involved, and Joe Biden himself gets a direct portion of the cut.
So think of what habitual liars these are.
Joe Biden don't know anything about my family's business.
I don't know anything about Hunter's business.
Yes, he does. In fact, he's had personal meetings with these business associates.
He knows all about it.
I wouldn't be surprised if he devised the scheme.
And then, of course... He's the boss.
He's Don Corleone. I mean, you might have a consigliere.
I mean, to me, Hunter Biden, if you're applying the kind of godfather now, is basically Fredo.
Remember the weirdo son who basically was kind of a misfit and didn't really know what's going on, was kind of a creep?
Well, Fredo was the guy.
Fredo is Hunter. But then there are many other Biden family members involved.
And you not only have this Romanian guy pouring money into the Bidens.
And by the way, this is at a time when Joe Biden goes to Romania, is lecturing them about the need to avoid corruption.
I mean, the irony is just so powerful.
Joe Biden, you read me, fighting corruption is the key to a democracy.
Meanwhile, money is flowing under the table into the Biden family from Romanian business entities.
And then China. You've got people closely connected with the Chinese Communist Party, people who actually have a supervisory role in Chinese intelligence, people who are close to Premier Xi.
And these are people sending money to the Biden family, again, through intermediaries and through these shell corporations.
At one point, it might have been Andy Biggs, I don't remember if it was Byron Donalds.
In any event, they lay out all these entities set up by the Bidens.
There's Rosemont Seneca, there's Rosemont Seneca Alpha, there's Rosemont Seneca this and Rosemont Seneca that.
And the point is the only reason you do all these 27 Rosemont Senecas is you want to hide money.
You don't want the IRS to know about it.
More importantly, you don't want the American people to find out about it.
I should also say you don't want the press to know about it, but of course the press is in on it.
They've been covering Biden family corruption.
Essentially, the press is the PR agents for the Biden.
It's almost like the mafia has hired its own PR company, except this PR company happens to be the Washington Post, the New York Times, and so on.
So a frightening scheme.
And as Debbie and I watch it, first we go, this is impeachment material.
And then after a little while we go, this is treason.
Just when you thought things couldn't get better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched My Mattress Topper 2.0. It's going to change the way you sleep. The new three-inch MyPillow mattress topper is made up of three unique layers. Layer one, MyPillow patented foam, which provides superior support and durability. Layer two, transitional foam, which provides optimal comfort, evenly distributes body weight and helps relieve pressure points.
And layer three, the cover made from a special material to keep your body temperature regulated through the night. This MyPillow mattress topper is washable and dryable. It's made in the USA, comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee. The incredible three-inch mattress topper is as low as $219.59 with promo code Dinesh.
So go ahead.
Call 1-800-876-0227.
Again, the number... 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com, but make sure to use the promo code DINESHDINESH. I want to tell you more about the deep veins of corruption that involve the Bidens.
And now I'm turning to The letter that was signed by 51 prominent intelligence agencies, heads of the CIA, heads of the FBI, and other intelligence agencies, all affirming that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation operation.
Now, we learned quite recently the origins of this letter.
The origins of this letter was that ex-CIA chief Mike Morrell Is the guy who was approached by Anthony Blinken.
Anthony Blinken was then with the Biden campaign and he was asked if he could generate this sort of a letter and he did.
And now we find out that Morell was shopping the letter around to other intelligence chiefs and using CIA agents and CIA resources to do that.
So let's Stop for a moment.
The CIA is supposed to be concerned with foreign involvement, foreign dangers to our country.
And yet here is the CIA. Existing CIA agents were circulating the letter and encouraging other people to sign it.
I think this is disturbing.
It's shocking. It shows inappropriate intervention by the CIA. And this is something that needs to be not only investigated, but punished.
Here's ex-CIA Chief Mike Morrell.
He emails ex-CIA Chief Brennan, and he's basically asking him, can I add you to the letter to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story?
He even says, I'm drafting it as, quote, a talking point for Joe Biden to use in the debate with Trump.
So let's follow this now.
Here's CIA boss Mike Morrell telling another CIA boss, listen, let's sign the letter.
We want to give some talking points to Biden that he can use against Trump.
And notice, by the way, at the debate that Joe Biden acted like the letter was just organic.
It just developed. The CIA guys became very convinced that this was a disinformation operation.
And nowhere does Joe Biden reveal that his own campaign launched the process.
Anthony Blinken got it started.
Mike Morell then took the ball.
Mike Morell then went to Brennan and other people.
And so what you have here is internal emails and testimony now by Morell, where he basically says, yeah, I realize that I want to go out there and collect as many signatures as I can.
And he says, and now quoting him, he goes, the more former intelligence officers, the better.
And then, to me, the telling line, campaign will be thrilled.
Campaign will be thrilled.
So you have these guys, they're working at the behest of the campaign.
They're like, we're doing the campaign's work, the Joe Biden campaign, that is.
We're supplying info that Biden can use in the debate, and the campaign is going to be very pleased with the work we are doing, which is to say there might be some rewards for us down the road.
Joe Biden's campaign chair calls Michael Morell after the letter to thank him for the letter and thank him for, quote, his public service.
Here is Mike Morell talking to the We're good to go.
So the Biden campaign initiates the letter.
Morell carries it out.
The CIA is involved in rounding up these intelligence experts.
And then the campaign goes, a job well done.
We want to thank you for the work that you did.
Now, this is very devastating stuff, and so this leftist, Mark Zaid, tries to undercut it by saying, wait a minute, let me show you evidence that the CIA approved this letter as declassified information, and therefore Mike Morrell was authorized to put it out.
But this is not the point, because as Miranda Devine points out, this is Miranda Devine of the New York Post.
She goes, Mike Morrell drafts this letter and submits it for CIA clearance, and he is given that clearance in five and a half hours.
So let's think about this.
Normally you submit a letter.
It can be weeks, even months before it's approved.
But this is a five and a half hour process.
He submits the letter. They clear it.
So what this really shows you is that the CIA is institutionally working actively on behalf of the Biden campaign.
So, this far from defending Biden actually goes on to enhance the point that we've got a corrupt CIA. So, we know we have a corrupt FBI. We now have a corrupt CIA. And by corrupt here, I mean partisan.
The CIA is not supposed to be involved in...
It's not supposed to be involved in saying, listen, let's put our resources.
And in this case, false resources.
Let's remember, it's not like the CIA is putting out any legitimate information.
Oh, we have intelligence that's warning us about a foreign attack.
Nothing like that. What they're doing is participating in a disinformation campaign.
And we're told so often we need to worry about misinformation and disinformation on the Internet.
Misinformation put out by QAnon.
Disinformation put out by some Yahoo here and there.
We're talking about disinformation being coordinated at the highest levels of government.
Disinformation that is then dishonestly packaged and transmitted by the press.
Disinformation that has the impact of...
Moving, perhaps even decisively altering election outcomes.
And it is troubling to say the least that all of this is going on and that the person on behalf of who it was going on is now sitting in the White House.
Aches and pains have definitely met their match.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor two years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are totally gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Now, how does it work? Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor become regular customers.
They order more. Because it works for them.
Debbie is a true believer.
She can finally do the exercises.
For a long time, she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a big game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and for many other people.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
Order the 3-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
The number again, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
I want to say a few words about this remarkable development.
Tucker Carlson is migrating to Twitter.
Now, what this means is that Tucker is developing a show.
Apparently, it's his old show, but with modifications.
So there'll be a kind of new thrust to it, perhaps.
And Tucker also says, quote, But this is now going to be featured on Twitter.
Now, some weeks ago, I think it was some weeks ago, Elon Musk introduced a feature on Twitter, which was essentially the ability now to create podcasts and upload content on Twitter itself.
And this clearly means that Elon Musk sees Twitter as bigger than Twitter.
It's not just about Twitter.
It's basically Twitter with a YouTube feature, and I think he's thinking, with a meta and Facebook feature.
So Elon Musk is out to compete with those platforms, which, honey, I think is a really good thing.
Because if he can blow YouTube out of the water, that would actually be very good news for the country.
That would be amazing. And I say good news for the country not because I have a corporate interest in Twitter over YouTube, but I have an ideological interest in free speech over systematic censorship.
So Tucker says we're back.
And apparently what he means is that he's going to start pretty soon.
Now, Fox has a contract with Tucker, a contract that apparently goes through next year.
And Fox maybe was hoping that they would continue to pay Tucker and Tucker would not create anything that would be somehow competitive with Fox.
But... You know, I think if Tucker does his show, just imagine if he were to upload his show, let's just say at 8 p.m.
and then replay it at 9 p.m.
in primetime on Twitter as an alternative to Fox, this would be a serious threat to Fox's entire primetime business model, which is the driving force of Fox's economic base and Fox's profitability.
So, Tucker seems to basically be here to teach Fox a lesson and do it in kind of the best way that he knows how.
At first, I thought that Tucker had made kind of a big, probably very lucrative deal with Elon Musk.
And I say lucrative deal because there were other people who had stepped, had come forward.
One of them, Patrick Bet-David, whose podcast I did some months ago.
Patrick Bet-David is a very successful entrepreneur.
And he put out there, he goes, listen, I'm willing to make like a $100 million deal with Tucker over five years, offer him the presidency of my company.
He can do all kinds of things within valuetainment.
And when I first heard about Tucker's moving to Twitter, I thought, well, maybe Tucker got an even more lucrative deal from someone who can easily afford it, Elon Musk.
But then Elon Musk put out a statement basically saying, no, I didn't make any deal.
I am offering Tucker the same thing I'm offering any content creator, which is that you can create a subscriber base here on Twitter and you can put out free content, but you can also put on subscription content behind a paywall.
And if you put on subscription content, frankly, you can keep most of the, or maybe all initially, of the revenue from that.
So what I like about this is it shows a certain kind of boldness on Tucker's part.
He's not actually going with something that is a secure deal, but he's going with the market.
And he's also going with free speech.
Tucker, in a video, specifically goes, he goes, listen, there's one big free speech platform out there, and that's Twitter.
And he goes, we need free speech.
And so I think he's explicitly allying himself with the free speech platform.
I think he has discussed all of this, by the way, with Elon Musk.
In fact, he had Elon Musk on his program not all that long ago.
So what does all this mean?
Well, first of all, a lot of other people are running scared.
I saw this quite amusing clip involving Brian Stelter.
Brian Stelter was booted, of course, off of CNN, but he's still out there making videos.
And here he's interviewing this guy, and they start talking about this troubling phenomenon of Tucker putting out, now having a platform on Twitter to put out disinformation.
And I want to highlight this quotation that comes out of the discussion, quote, Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says?
Or is this the point?
Is it just a free-for-all?
Free speech is a free-for-all.
Free speech means that people get to say what they think and as long as it's within the bounds of legality, as long as you're not in some explicit way inciting violence.
And the standard, by the way, for inciting violence is very strong.
It has to be the imminent threat of unlawful violence.
And there's obviously nothing here at issue that even covers or even gets close to that.
But these are guys. And look at the tyrannical mentality.
Who's going to be policing Tucker Carlson?
I guess the assumption is that if you work for a TV network, and this is true, you are being policed, right?
You are under the control of your bosses.
They're telling you what to say.
And this is, you know, even though a lot of TV hosts, I mean, these guys tend to be somewhat egotists.
And they hate to admit that they're being told in their ear, don't say that, do say this, you're not allowed to do this, it's policy that you can't do that.
The simple fact is that that does go on at Fox.
The difference is that it's now been made more obvious, more explicit.
We know that when it comes to 2,000 mules on January 6th, basically someone put kind of a brown paper bag over Tucker's head and said, you can't go there.
And so, Tucker is now free to go there and to go anywhere and to say what he thinks.
And this, I think, on the balance is a victory for Tucker and a victory for free speech.
Also very good for Twitter.
Debbie and I have been eating better this year.
We've lost weight. But foods we can't seem to eat enough of, and it's a requirement, are veggies and fiber.
Now, what better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature?
Here's Balance of Nature Fiber and Spice.
It's a proprietary blend of 12 spices for digestive health.
The intense flavors and deep colors of the spices are the most condensed whole food source of phytonutrition available.
It's recommended to be paired with this product, the star product, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy, select the Whole Health System for the best price.
Start your journey to better health right now.
Take advantage of Balance of Nature's great offer, $25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies.
when you use discount code AMERICA.
The offer can end at any time, so act now.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA. I gotta say this verdict in the E. Gene Carroll case.
A rape claim, a defamation claim, and Trump is ordered to pay.
He's liable. He supposedly committed a battery on E. Jean Carroll.
He owes her now a total of some $5 million, a combination of actual damages and punitive damages.
Well, what can I say except this is absurd and this is New York and this is a highly biased jury all over again, not to mention a judge who seemed almost fanatically opposed to Trump.
This is Judge Lewis Kaplan, Clinton appointee.
And this guy, by the way, blocked all kinds of evidence from even going to the jury.
For example, E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit was funded by a leftist billionaire.
This is Reid Hoffman, a guy, one of the founders, I believe, of LinkedIn.
And you think this would be relevant for the jury to know.
This is a woman not paying for this case.
She's being bankrolled by leftist and democratic interests.
The judge goes, no, it's not relevant.
I'm not going to allow it. So this creates the basis for Trump to appeal.
Now I saw... This morning that Eric Swalwell was basically saying, Trump has been convicted.
Trump has been convicted.
But this is false.
A conviction is only relevant in a criminal case.
If you have a civil case, you're not convicted, a judge may find you liable, and you're talking ultimately about money damages.
You might be ordered to pay, but that's not a conviction because no criminality is being alleged or involved.
And so what was cool was that Community Notes pops up right under Swaldsville tweet, basically just saying, this is false.
This is misleading because it's using criminal language to refer to a non-criminal case.
And so here we find the fact checkers finally.
We finally have fact checkers not on our side because these aren't fact checkers that are making some right wing point.
They're doing actual fact checking.
They're familiar with the law.
And they're making, they're correcting Swalwell on something where Swalwell is wrong.
Happily, they're not banning Swalwell.
They're not saying that Swalwell can't tweet false information.
He can, but the false information is just exposed and highlighted.
Now, what makes this case so crazy is that the jury found Trump not liable, or you may say not.
Not to have committed any kind of rape.
He was exonerated on the rape accusation, but somehow still found liable on the charge that he committed battery.
Now, how would you know any of this?
We're talking about an incident in the 1990s.
First of all, it's alleged to have occurred in the Bergdorf-Goodman department store dressing room.
So when I heard this, the very idea that Trump raped this woman in a dressing room, like the Nordstrom dressing room, it's preposterous.
The idea that Trump committed battery on her is preposterous.
The whole thing is completely made up, quite obviously.
And the woman is a weirdo.
She went on Anderson Cooper's show on CNN and basically talked about how rape is sexy.
Her quote, rape is sexy, end quote.
And so you're dealing with a freak, but a freak who is willingly used as a pawn by these Democrats to go after Trump.
And the jury is like, here's an opportunity to get this guy.
And so, sure enough, they do.
Because, I mean, think about this.
How can Trump be guilty of defamation when E. Gene Carroll accuses him of rape?
The jury goes, we believe Trump.
There was no rape. But you know what?
It's defamation because Trump shouldn't have said that.
This is incoherent.
Trump has every right to defend himself against a false accusation of rape.
The jury goes, we don't believe the accusation, but they still find that Trump committed defamation.
So, Trump is going to appeal this for sure.
But, of course, it gives the left ammunition.
And it also gives the never-Trumpers ammunition.
I mean, here's an interesting article.
NBC, of course, this is a fascinating exercise in how the media operates.
Senate Republicans suggest Carol Verdick could imperil Trump's 2024 chances.
And they run to the five guys that they can count on.
So, let's look at the people quoted.
Senator John Cornyn of Texas.
Electability to me is the sole criterion.
Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota.
I would have a tough time supporting Trump.
Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.
He says the verdict is concerning.
He has been found to be civilly liable.
How could it do anything but create concern?
John Thune of South Dakota and Mitt Romney of Utah.
So this is like rounding up the usual suspects.
They, of course, supply the obliging quotations.
And then... The misleading headline is immediately tagged or not.
We rounded up the Republican never Trumpers, but rather Senate Republicans.
As if to say, we're now going to give you five examples of people who reflect the sentiment of the Senate.
But no, they obviously are not going to senators who are going to tell them what they don't wanna hear.
It seems to me that the Republican base and pretty much any Republican with a brain knows that this was a hit job.
This is an absurd situation.
Obviously, it's a situation Trump has to deal with.
He has to go to the expense of fighting an appeal.
Hopefully, the whole thing will be overturned and tossed out.
But in the meantime, the verdict serves its purpose, which is to give ammunition to the other side to basically say Trump is unelectable, Trump should step out, and the Republican should nominate someone else.
I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
I post lots of exclusive content there, including content that is censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I do a weekly Q&A every Tuesday, 8pm Eastern, and no topic is I've also uploaded a whole bunch of I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
I've been talking a good deal, well, the full time on the podcast about domestic politics, want to take notice of something on the international front.
I was watching a video on social media and it shows a bunch of nurses in South Africa and they're kind of dancing around and chanting and singing and you have to pay a little bit of close attention to realize that their song is called Kill the Boar.
Now, who are the Boers? The Boers are the Dutch people who migrated to South Africa.
This is going back to the 19th century.
And the Boers are the whites of South Africa.
Now, there are also some whites of English descent, so there are the Boers and the English, but many of the English have already left South Africa.
And the Boers have stayed because it is their country.
They've been there for, well, well over 100 years.
And so they've assimilated into South Africa.
But now it's a new South Africa.
Frankly, it's a black South Africa.
And it's a black South Africa that wants vengeance on the whites.
Now, some of this is, I have to say, understandable.
You had this apartheid system, which was only abolished in the 1990s.
And so those feelings have not subsided.
Hey, here in this country, slavery ended in 1865, and some of those feelings haven't subsided.
But all this being said, the Boers are a very successful group in South Africa.
And even now, when they're no longer, they don't have political power, arguably they were successful under apartheid because they were the ruling class and so rigged the system politically to benefit them.
But now the system is rigged politically against them.
And nevertheless, they are thriving.
And so what's happening is that you find black activists raiding these boar farms.
There have been some brutal massacres of boars.
And so the boars have come up with a solution.
It's called, get the heck, let's create our own country inside of South Africa.
Let's create, let's call it boar country.
There is an example of this, a town called Orania, created by the boars.
And Orania has only 3,000 people, and it's based on a principle that is called self-work-sam-haid, which essentially means doing your own work.
And what have the Boers done?
They've basically decided everything on this piece of land...
Is going to be built by us.
So nobody can say we took it from somebody else.
Nobody can say it's the result of any kind of appropriation.
It's not the result of apartheid.
We will construct every building.
We will build every road.
Every brick is going to be laid by an Afrikaner.
And no non-Boer can live here.
So they're basically saying, this is our kind of country within a country.
We've bought the land. We're only going to buy and sell to Boers.
This is a kind of almost extreme response, but it's an extreme response to the dangers the Boers have been subjected to.
I mean, it was not very long ago that the former prime minister of South Africa, this is the black guy Julius Malema, he was asked about whether he supported slaughtering white people. And I'm quoting him, we are not calling for the slaughtering of white people at least for now.
End quote. So this is the atmosphere in which these people are living.
And so people who go to Orania say, look, this is the cleanest town we've ever seen.
The whole place is litter-free.
It's like one massive construction site.
Buildings are going up and so on.
And this is another interesting twist.
They've created their own currency.
It's called the Ora from Orania.
And so the idea is you could only pay in this currency.
So needless to say, what happens with these black activists who are all in the mood for equity and reparations, they hate this kind of independent wealth creation because then they go, we can't produce anything ourselves.
Let's go take those people's stuff.
And so I would not be surprised if Orania is not allowed to exist on its own, is somehow encircled or threatened or politically intimidated.
And this really means that probably for these Boers at the end, much as they might hate to do it, Leaving might be the only option.
There are times in a country where things get so bad that you like to stay, you try to devise solutions, you try to figure out ways to protect minority rights and then you discover that that's impossible.
That's never going to happen.
That ultimately, your basic livelihood, your life, your property is going to be in danger.
And then what are you going to do?
Well, your two options are to defend it.
But if you're not strong enough to defend it, remember, you're up against the full force of the South African government, then you might have...
No choice but to skip town and take off.
I don't know if they can go back to Holland.
I don't know if they can go to other places in Europe.
Here's Wanjiri Najoya, a very sensible South African woman.
She goes, those who wish to flee should be given refuge, but those who wish to stand their ground should be supported.
Why should they have to run away?
Everyone has the right to defend their lives, their homes, and their property.
So this is the voice of common sense.
This is actually what South Africa would do if it wanted to build a kind of a multiracial society based upon a kind of mutual respect and genuine democracy, by which I mean democracy with protections for minority rights.
But clearly it's a gang mentality in South Africa.
Democracy for them means gang rule.
Now again, I emphasize that they would say, yes, if it's gang rule, it's response to the gang rule that came before.
But sometimes gang rule is not the best solution to previous gang rule because all you get is more gang rule.
I'm continuing my discussion from What's So Great About Christianity, a chapter called Natural Law and Divine Law, The Objective Foundations of Morality.
And I want to talk more about, is morality universal?
Is it objective?
And what about the objections of relativism, moral relativism and cultural relativism?
Well, Anthropologists have been studying the norms and practices of cultures around the world for several decades now, and they've made two findings.
One is that morality, the existence of morality, is universal.
Scholars know of no culture, past or present, that doesn't have some Elaborated system of morality.
Now moral standards may seem to vary from one culture to another or even within a particular culture, but every culture distinguishes what is from what ought to be.
So it's impossible for culture to kind of rise above morality or get out from under it.
Morality is in that sense fixed.
Second, the moral diversity we often hear about is in fact vastly exaggerated.
Let's start with the major religions of the world.
They disagree quite a bit about God, but they agree quite a bit about morality.
All the major religions have some form of the golden rule, basically do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Going back to the 1990s, the theologian Hans Kung assembled what he called a parliament of leading religions, representatives of the world's religions, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and they issued a declaration of common beliefs, the point of which is, hey, listen, there's a wide range of moral values that are held across religious boundaries and across the world.
Now, this moral unanimity Not confined even to monotheistic or even religious cultures.
Think about the Greeks and Romans.
I'm talking about pre-Christian Rome.
They shared many of the moral teachings of Judaism and Christianity, even though Athens and Rome were once polytheistic empires.
Confucius, in his Analects, outlines what seems to be kind of a secular system of morality, doesn't have any substantial theology.
But when you look at it, you find that he covers precepts that are very familiar to us.
Anthropologists have found Sometimes you will find diversity of moral practice, but when you probe a little closer, you notice that there's not really a diversity of moral standards.
So one group may permit one wife, another group may allow four wives or even more wives, but all groups agree on the indispensability of the family and its moral obligation to provide for the young.
James Q. Wilson, a longtime Harvard professor, wrote a book called The Moral Sense, which makes the case for a universal grammar of morality, which is rooted in our human instincts.
In other words, what James Q. Wilson is arguing is morality comes out of human nature itself.
Some years ago, an anthropologist named Donald Brown did a study which was published in a book called Human Universals.
And he's looking to see if there are universal norms across cultures that all people seem to share.
And he identifies not 1, not 2, not 10, but 300 unvarying patterns of behavior, including a host of moral beliefs that are shared by all known cultures.
So he gives, to take a couple of examples, he goes, listen...
In every culture, there might be a debate in a particular situation.
Is it okay, for example, to lie when you're confronted with some kind of an extreme dilemma?
But no culture thinks that lying or cowardice is an admirable thing to be.
What do we make of relativism, the influential doctrine that says that morality is relative?
Now, I think relativism has something going for it in that people, well, even in our own society, disagree about the content of morality.
A lot of times what we think of as relativism is nothing more than the debate over the priority of one moral principle over another.
In other words, when two moral principles clash, which should be given the greatest importance?
It's not that you don't recognize the principle, you're just not sure which should take precedence in a given situation.
So that doesn't mean that people disagree about the moral standards.
They're disagreeing only about the application in a particular circumstance.
So relativism of moral belief and practice does not invalidate the claim that morality is absolute.
In fact, I claim that not only is morality absolute, but everyone, including the self-proclaimed relativist, knows it is absolute.
Relativism in the pure sense simply doesn't exist.
Here's my proof. If you're confronted by someone who claims to be a relativist, just do this.
Well, maybe do this as a thought experiment.
Just go ahead and punch him in the face.
Now, if he doesn't respond, just do it again.
At some point, the guy's gonna say, that's not right, you shouldn't have done that.
And then you can say, wait a minute, You were just doing it for educational purposes.
You're simply proving to him that he doesn't believe his relativist doctrine.
Think about it. He's not saying, I don't like being punched.
It causes me pain.
He's saying, you should not have done it.
And that's a normative, that's a moral claim.
And he's actually appealing to a shared morality.
He doesn't just think that this is his morality, because then you could say, well, I like punching people.
I like seeing the expression when I surprise them with a punch in the face.
No, he's saying you shouldn't have done it, and both of us agree that this kind of thing is wrong.
He's appealing to an unwavering standard, which he expects you to share that what you are doing is wrong.
You can also prove the point by finding values that people cherish, whether it's anti-racism or the belief in gay rights, and that you find that when you criticize that doctrine, They immediately become absolutists.
Oh no, racial discrimination is always wrong.
Oh no, gay bashing is wrong.
And you could always say, why? Why isn't it up to me?
Why can't I choose? Why can't a culture decide it doesn't like gays?
And the answer is, these relativists quickly become absolutists when their own cherished principles are challenged.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection