All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:16
REVIEWING THE INDICTMENT Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep635
| 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.
A special episode today.
I'm going to do an in-depth review of the allegations in the new Trump indictment.
I'll evaluate the merits of each charge.
I'll offer potential rebuttals and counterpoints.
Also want to examine the larger context for the indictment, showing it's part of a larger scheme on the part of Biden and the Democrats to disable political opposition and establish a one-party state.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to the podcast.
If you're listening on Rumble, do subscribe.
There's also a join button.
And if you click that, it'll take you to my Locals channel, which you can explore.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
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.
This is a special episode of the podcast in which I'm going to review somewhat in depth the new indictment against Donald Trump.
This is, as you know, the third indictment, the New York case, number one, classified documents, number two.
This is the third, and I said yesterday or the day before, in my view, the most serious of the indictments, in part because of where it is being filed, Washington, D.C., the judge that has been assigned to the case, and Obama appointing M. Chutkin, a very left-wing and bad judge from Trump's point of view, And of course, the heavily stacked or biased D.C. jury, 93%, some number like that, voted for Joe Biden.
So this is Trump being judged not by his peers, but he's being judged by his political adversaries.
That's what makes all of this so chilling.
And so while I'm going to be, I'll go through the indictment, look at the merits of various claims being made.
And let's remember that these are claims being made by the prosecution.
So as I go through these claims, and kind of interesting in media reports, Debbie was telling me, she's watching, you know, Adam Kinzinger and so on.
They go through the indictment like everything in here has already been proven.
No, it hasn't been proven.
This is what is being alleged.
This is what has to be proved.
So we're going to look at what the other side is saying, and I'm going to go look at it in some detail, but don't take it at face value.
Trump is going to have counterpoints.
He's going to have a defense. He's going to challenge a lot of these claims and accusations.
And where is this all going?
It's worth thinking for a moment about where this is headed, because it could be that the Trump team is able to mount a very effective defense, overthrow all these accusations, and yet, guess what?
You get a guilty verdict.
Why? Because of the judge, because of the jury.
And so it could be that the jury doesn't really care about Trump's refutations.
They're like, well, yeah, you know, he's a bad guy.
He tried to overthrow the election.
Look at January 6th.
And so this kind of reasoning doesn't parse out, well, what did Trump himself do?
You can't just look at pictures of people fighting with the cops on January 6th and say, well, Trump's obviously to blame.
He's not obviously to blame.
So I think what we have to look is look kind of in the big sense of where this is all going.
Here's where I think it's going.
I think there is a high likelihood, regardless of the merits of the case, of Trump getting a guilty verdict in a D.C. jury.
And that's because you're going to have 9 out of 10 people against him, and they're going to browbeat the one guy who has questions or has a holdout, as in he's got to be guilty of something.
And so people have a desire to conform.
Juries have a desire to conform.
It's often the case that a A loud, outspoken, and ideologically determined majority can overwhelm a minority in a jury into sort of succumbing, going, well, okay, well, perhaps I'll give you this, and so on.
So I'm expecting, particularly on multiple charges, that Trump will be found guilty of something.
And then what? Well, then it's going to be appealed, and presumably to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court.
In my view, there is no way the Supreme Court is going to uphold this kind of a conviction.
Not because the Supreme Court is conservative, not because, hey, listen, it's all good Republicans and there being Republicans.
It's because the Supreme Court will see that at the bottom here, these are claims that are...
They're not only unproven, they're not only, in a way, false, but they also raise deep and profound constitutional concerns.
Let me put my cards on the table here because Because I think Trump has here a three-part defense that any one of these three parts would knock out the whole case.
The first part was the 2020 election was stolen.
Litigate the 2020 election.
And I think that they should do this.
And in fact, I saw a Trump attorney on TV saying that they intend to do exactly this.
All you have to do is show that the prosecution's baseline claim that this was a safe and secure election, the most secure election in history, is not only untrue but nonsensical.
Defense number two is that even if the election was secure, Trump believed that the election was stolen.
And that alone would knock out the entire case because the whole case, as we will see in a moment, depends on the idea that Trump knew that his claims were false.
Trump knew. So they're talking about Trump's state of mind.
Inside his mind, Trump had knowledge.
Not just some people told him that, this guy said that, that guy said something else.
He knew that they were false.
And the third claim, which I think is the most forceful of all, is that even if you assume, you know, arguendo, arguendo is legalese for the sake of argument, that the election was secure, and let's say also that Trump knew that his claims were false, guess what?
He has a free speech right to say whatever he wants.
He has a free speech right to make false claims in public.
And to say otherwise is to claim that every politician who believes one thing and says another needs to be indicted.
What's the dividing line between what Trump did and what they're doing?
What's the dividing line between Trump and Biden making claims in public that he knows to be false?
So I think here that the three-part defense is going to be sufficient in the end.
To vindicate Trump.
Debbie and I had a New Year's resolution to lose weight, and thankfully, PHD weight loss came to our rescue.
Debbie's already lost 24 pounds, I've lost 27, and we are both now on maintenance.
The program is based on science and nutrition.
No injections, no pills, no long hours in the gym, no severe calorie restriction, just good, sound, scientifically proven nutrition.
It's so simple, they make it easy by providing 80% of your food at no additional cost.
They tell you when and what to eat, and guess what?
You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder, Dr. Ashley Lucas, has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition.
She's also a registered dietitian.
She helps people lose weight and, most important, maintain that weight loss for life.
So if you're ready to take the step of losing weight like Debbie and I have, call PHD Weight Loss and Nutrition.
Here's the number, 864-644-1900.
You can also find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
The number again to call, 864-644-1900.
So I'm going to go through this Trump indictment, and before we start, it's important to notice what Trump is not charged with.
He's not charged with insurrection, and he's not charged with seditious conspiracy.
Let's remember that the seditious conspiracy charge has been used against some of the Proud Boys and against some of the other January 6th defendants, but it's not being used here against Trump.
Now, this doesn't mean that Jack Smith cannot add it later.
He is able to add charges.
In fact, you know that in the classified documents case, he added a couple of charges to the original list of charges, and it's possible that he will change his mind or he will decide that there's some additional evidence that justifies the further charges, but there's no such charge in the current indictment.
There are four charges.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
The defraud element here comes in the he knew that his election claims were false.
And the idea here is that he is violating a U.S. code by claiming it's 18 U.S. code 371.
So, the first one is conspiracy to defraud.
Second, count...
Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
So this is the obstruction of an official proceeding charge.
We've seen this in a lot of the January 6th cases.
The idea is that the proceeding was delayed.
Now it was delayed, what, for an hour and a half?
But nevertheless, arguably, it was obstructed for that short time.
But the claim here is that Trump did it.
Trump is responsible for the obstruction.
Number three is obstruction of an official proceeding.
So the second one is a conspiracy to do it.
And the third is the actual obstruction of an official proceeding.
And the final one is conspiracy against rights.
Now, what is a conspiracy against rights?
Well, according to the indictment, it's a conspiracy against the right to vote and have one's vote counted.
Now, right here, we have to pause and chuckle a little bit because this is what Trump was demanding occur.
Trump was demanding that every vote is counted, and part of his claim was that there were votes that were not counted, that should have been counted.
But nevertheless, the claim here is that by challenging the results of the election, Trump was denying Americans a right not just to vote, but for their vote to be counted.
And this is a...
This is a civil rights violation against rights.
So the indictment begins like this.
The defendant Donald Trump was the 45th president of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020.
The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.
Pause. That is a statement that admits of two separate meanings.
Did he lose the election in the sense that he vacated office?
Biden is in? Yeah.
In that sense, Trump lost.
But did he lose in the sense that did he...
What is the actual result of the 2020 election?
These two meanings are kind of slided together.
And the fact that Biden is in office, the implication is basically Biden is legitimately in office.
That can be contested.
And it's worth noting that this is right up in the beginning of the indictment.
Despite having lost, so having made this blanket statement, they're now sort of coasting on it.
So this is what lawyers do.
They create a foundation.
The foundation itself may be shaky, but they try quickly to close the foundation so that no one questions the foundation.
There was an election. Trump lost.
Biden's in office.
Despite having lost, well, of course, that's the issue, isn't it?
Did Trump, in fact, lose?
Not what was adjudicated to be the case.
Not what was ultimately decided.
Not whether Trump, for prudential reasons or whatever, decided to vacate.
Not whether core challenges succeeded.
But whether or not there was fraud and cheating in the election that meant, of a margin sufficient, that Trump, in fact, would have This, of course, by the way, is the claim of my film, 2000 Mules, and I was reading through the indictment to see if even in a footnote or in some place the movie would be referred to.
No mention of the film.
Why? Because it is the most comprehensive and crushing presentation of the case that Trump won that election.
And that's why they cannot afford to touch it.
They've got to pretend like it doesn't exist.
I think this is going to be their strategy.
But think about this.
This means that Trump has a defense.
And what's his defense? 2,000 mules.
In other words, Trump can say, I suspected, I had every confidence that the election was stolen.
I was looking at this.
I was looking at that. I didn't have the evidence that came to light today.
With 2,000 mules, now we have that evidence.
Put the evidence in court.
Let the jury watch the film.
Let them make up their minds.
By the way, we have a clue here from the Rasmussen surveys.
People who see that movie find it to be overwhelmingly persuasive.
Even Democrats are persuaded when they watch the film.
So, all of this is a way of saying, and I don't want to give legal advice to the Trump team, but I'm simply noting as the guy who made the film...
That here is a weapon and a resource that Trump can use.
Going into the courtroom, even with an Obama judge, even with a left-wing jury, 2,000 mules may very well help his case.
Have you heard of the Durban Accords, the greatest threat to the U.S. dollar's global dominance in the past 80 years?
On August 22nd, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa are expected to launch a new international super currency fully backed by gold or other commodities.
Now, part of a long-term plan to supplant the U.S. and the dollar as cornerstones of the global financial system.
Well, how can you protect your IRA or 401 from the fallout from this landmark change?
You can diversify with gold from Birch Gold Group.
Historically, gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty.
And that, of course, is right now.
Get a free information kit on gold IRAs.
Decide for yourself if a tax-sheltered retirement account backed by physical precious metals is right for you.
Text the word Dinesh to 989898.
There's a monumental shift happening among nations that control one-third of the world's GDP starting August 22nd.
So protect your retirement savings.
Text Dinesh to the number 989898.
Claim your free information kit on gold from Birch Gold.
The new Trump indictment is an opportunity for the Trump campaign to put the 2020 election on trial.
So this is what you can do in a case and in fact it gives you an opportunity to do something that Trump has not really had an opportunity to do.
Think about it. Has the 2020 trial been litigated in any court?
No. The left likes to say, well, there were multiple cases that were dismissed.
Those were all dismissed on procedural grounds.
Oh, the state of Texas doesn't have standing to make a challenge.
That was the Supreme Court.
There were cases in Pennsylvania, in Arizona, in Michigan, and elsewhere where, oh, you filed this claim.
You should have filed this claim before the election if you thought that there were election improprieties or that the structure was biased against Trump.
Or, when you do file it before, Oh, you filed it too early.
The election hasn't even happened.
How can you allege that bad things are going to happen when they haven't happened yet?
So this is a case where the unwillingness of judges to face the merits of the issue.
Well, now Trump not only has a chance to put the election on trial, but to subpoena witnesses.
He has subpoena power, which he otherwise wouldn't have.
And this is a whole new tool that the Trump lawyers not only can use, but there was a Trump lawyer who was on TV saying that they are going to use it.
They're going to do this. So this is all, in some ways, very encouraging.
And it's the right way to fight back.
The right way to fight back is not to concede anything.
Not to concede, oh, yeah, well, you know, I guess the election wasn't.
No, it is to fight on the very premise that is set forward in this indictment.
Let's go through the indictment.
Count one. We're talking now about the conspiracy to defraud the United States, and it lists six co-conspirators.
None of them are named. It just says, this was an attorney.
This was a Justice Department official.
This was a political consultant who helped implement a plan.
And in the first part of the indictment, they're talking about Fraudulent electors.
Fraudulent electors.
They keep calling them fraudulent or fake electors, but really a neutral term for them is alternate electors.
In other words, let's look at it.
You take a state like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and the Trump campaign believes, and Trump believes, that he won Georgia, he won Arizona, he won Michigan.
So, Nevertheless, the state of Michigan is pulling together, generally with a Democratic establishment, a group of electors.
So Trump goes, well, listen, I'm challenging the results in that state.
I've got ongoing lawsuits to do that.
And if that challenge is upheld...
Then there's going to be a different group of electors.
Well, what about if we line that up in advance?
In other words, what if we line up these alternate electors, and in fact, the indictment concedes, it puts it this way, some fraudulent electors, well, Why?
Why? Okay, this means that the Trump people said to the electors, hey, listen, don't worry.
We're going to have you perform the function of an elector, and your vote will be counted if our lawsuits in this state are successful.
If we win the state, we are going to need electors of our own.
You will play the role of those electors.
So, it's hard for me to see, despite the prejudicial and kind of loaded language...
Unless you're just willing on face value to go along with it.
Well, yeah, the whole thing was a trick.
It was a fraud. It was a scheme.
Well, it's not a scheme.
It's an effort here to, in a disputed election, try to create the alternative electoral slate that you would use if you prevailed.
Let's continue. The defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations.
Well... Let's just say Trump goes to Bill Barr and says,"...I need you to investigate fraud in all these states." Where is the abuse of power?
Trump is the president. He's going to someone who's in the executive branch, who is the person who is charged with doing this.
It's the function of the Justice Department to investigate claims of election fraud.
Trump is making a claim of election fraud.
He's not telling them what the results of their investigation should be.
But nevertheless, this is presented as Trump conducting sham election investigations, as if no election investigations were really warranted.
The defendant and his co-conspirators attempted to enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the January 6th certification, proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.
This is something I'll have to pick up in the next segment, but let me just say here, it is an open question whether the Vice President has a merely ceremonial role.
All you have to do is read the Constitution, and the Constitution, the language of it, doesn't say.
It doesn't use the word ceremonial.
It doesn't say that the Vice President is a rubber stamp.
It doesn't say that the Vice President's sole role is, quote, custodial.
None of that. The actual words of the Constitution, which is open, I admit, to multiple readings, say that the Vice President is doing something more than merely sort of taking this list of electors and passing it along to the next guy, kind of like if, you know, someone is passing a food tray.
Oh, yeah, thank you very much.
I pass it along. That is not the Vice President's role.
And yet it's assumed here that it is.
It's assumed here that he had no other role.
It's MyPillow's 20th year anniversary.
They've sold over 80 million MyPillows, and Mike Lindell at MyPillow wants to thank each and every one of you by giving you the lowest price in history on his MyPillows.
Now, you can get a queen-size MyPillow for $19.98, regular price $69.98, and just $10 more for a king size.
You get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products.
They're all on sale. The MyPillow bedsheets, the mattress toppers, the robes, the pet beds, the mattresses, the MySlippers, and so much more.
This is a time to Surf the website, look at all the amazing products, and try out some of the ones you've had your eye on.
Go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Dinesh to receive this amazing offer on the queen-size MyPillow for $19.98, or you can call 800-876-0227.
The offer comes with a 10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee, so it's time to start getting the quality sleep you deserve.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com to get the discounts you need to use the promo code DINESH. I'm continuing my discussion of the Trump indictment, and I want to highlight this phrase, enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role to fraudulently alter the election results.
First of all, nobody asked Mike Pence to alter any election results.
The claim to Mike Pence is, you have the authority under the Constitution to not accept these electors, but for the time being, return the matter to the states.
To review the election results in those states.
Remember, there was a lot of pending turmoil in the swing states.
And the idea was, hey, listen, you haven't been able to truly adjudicate.
You haven't had time to figure out whether or not the votes in these states were fully and accurately counted.
So all that Vice President Pence would be doing is saying, listen, take a second look and then send the results back to us.
And the question is, does Mike Pence have that authority?
Right? Now, there are some judges, Michael Luttig being a good example.
This is an old kind of never-Trumper who consists that Mike Pence does not have that authority.
But there are other people, other jurists, other attorneys, other specialists in constitutional law who believe that Mike Pence did or might have that authority.
Anyway, this is what Mike Pence was being asked to do.
But the idea that he was being told to fraudulently alter the results, as in change the results himself, this is...
As far as I can tell, quite false.
Not true at all. And then the indictment goes on to what I would call the procession of people who notified Trump that they did not think the election was stolen.
Now, we know about these people.
We know they didn't think the election was stolen.
Let's start with Bill Barr.
Bill Barr says the election wasn't stolen.
What evidence has Bill Barr ever produced to show that?
What is the basis for him coming to such a solemn conclusion?
I mean, there are all these anomalies.
There are all these problems.
There was a lot of stuff that was even shown on videotape that was the stopping of the count.
All of this going on.
And yet, here this guy comes up.
This was very similar to me, like Bill Barr saying, I've seen no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
Well... Here's Jeffrey Epstein.
He's sitting in prison. He's supposed to be under guard.
Mysteriously, the guards who are watching him leave.
Mysteriously, Jeffrey Epstein has the means to hang himself.
Mysteriously, the cameras that are supposed to be recording Jeffrey Epstein in his cell don't function.
But Bill Barr just goes, I don't see any reason.
I mean, all you have here is a sort of obese porpoise giving you a kind of nodding assurance But where's the evidence?
What reason is there to believe this oath?
So, what I'm getting at here is that we're now coming to a point in the indictment where it is a sort of presumption of the indictment that because various assorted people, some of them admittedly in Trump's own administration, told him that they didn't believe that the election was stolen, therefore Trump Knew, or perhaps they're going to argue should have known, that the election wasn't stolen.
Now, this is a giant non sequitur.
It's a giant non sequitur because the Trump campaign can produce, and I'm sure will produce, an equally long list of prominent people in all walks of life.
I'll give you a few names.
Here is John Eastman, specialist in constitutional law, regarded as one of the leading constitutional lawyers in the country.
Sidney Powell, who had a pretty stellar reputation as an attorney, won important cases.
Sidney Powell was telling Trump the election is stolen.
There were many other people saying the same thing.
Rudy Giuliani, by the way, here you go.
This is a guy who was America's mayor.
A very prominent attorney in his own right, a nationally recognized prosecutor who had put major, not only mafia bosses, but also financial crime figures behind bars.
Here's Giuliani saying the same thing.
And so you've got one group of people saying X, and you've got another group of people saying Y. Now, why is it that Trump is compelled to believe one group over the other?
Let's look at the group that's mentioned by...
This is a joke because Mike Pence didn't move his little finger to seek out any evidence.
Mike Pence was just basically a kind of accompanying goofball.
Who declares, I won't see any evidence.
Well, I mean, yeah, if you're sitting in your office and twiddling your thumbs, which is apparently what both Bill Barr and Mike Pence were doing, you didn't see any evidence.
What efforts did you make to seek them out?
And the answer is none.
Senior leaders of the Justice Department.
Now, right away, we have to pause.
This is a Justice Department that was itself relentlessly against Trump.
Think of Rod Rosenstein.
Think of all the people who had been working to stir up the Mueller investigation, to undermine Trump from within his own Justice Department.
Like it or not, Trump had a hostile Justice Department.
Initially, he had an attorney general who did basically nothing.
And then he got Bill Barr, who was...
Who at some points appeared to be sympathetic to Trump, but then turned actively and is now vehemently hostile to Trump.
Certainly, Comey at the FBI has to be counted as an enemy of Trump.
In fact, he tried to set up Trump and the Trumpsters.
He tried to set up Michael Flynn from the very beginning.
SISA, can you believe that they're invoking the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency?
This is an organization thoroughly captive to the left, These are the people who declared the 2020 election, and you have to pause for a guffaw, quote, the most secure election in history.
As we get older, the aches and pains start kicking in, but fortunately there is a remedy and it's called Relief Factor.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
We've seen a huge difference in our joints.
Nothing short of amazing. Aches and pains are totally gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
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. We're good to go.
Order the three-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.
Feel the difference. I'm continuing my review of the Trump indictment and let's consider the phrase the most secure election in history.
I would put that idea on trial and the reason is it can be blown out of the water.
Let's bring out the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency and here's the way my cross-examination would go.
Do you insist that the 2020 election was the most secure election in history?
Yes. Are you saying that it was more secure than the 2018 election?
By definition, yes.
How about the 2010 election?
Yes. How about the 2000 election?
Yes. How about the 1992 election?
Yes. All right.
And you keep going like that.
In fact, go back to the beginning of the Republic.
And then you say, all right, since you're claiming as a matter of fact that this was a more secure election—I mean, think about it.
It's a more secure election under conditions of COVID, under conditions of rules that have been changed at the last minute, very often not even by elected officials— At a time when drop boxes have been scattered all over the country for the first time, at least in this volume and magnitude, at a time when there's no surveillance on the vast majority of these drop boxes, and you're still claiming it was the most secure election in history.
Alright, what comparison have you made between the 2020 election and every previous election to gauge the amount of fraud in each of those elections as compared with this one in order to demonstrate that this one had the most?
Can you produce that study?
Show us the review that you did of all previous elections, and you'll find out that this guy is like blubbering, muttering, oh, well...
We didn't really do any of that.
Exactly. You didn't do any of that.
And therefore, your statement that the 2020 election was the most secure is unsubstantiated, is nonsensical, is based upon no evidence whatsoever.
It's a dogmatic assertion that just because the media cheerleaders all surrounded you and went, Hooray!
Hasana! Yes, it's true.
Therefore, it must be true.
No, it's not true. And in fact, there's no basis for saying it.
All right. Now we go to the claim that Trump should have known or knew that the election wasn't stolen because, quote, state and federal courts rejected every post-election lawsuit.
Well, a lot of times you have a belief.
Let's just say you have a cause.
You go to court and the court dismisses your lawsuit.
Now, they can dismiss your lawsuit by considering the merits.
As I say, this was not done in a single case.
In not a single case were Trump's extensive claims of election fraud considered or adjudicated.
And so they dismiss your lawsuit on some procedural ground, like you're not the right guy to file it, or it's filed in the wrong court, or it wasn't filed in time, or we don't have time to review it by the time that the process is decided.
So all of this is supposed to convince you that your claim has no merit?
Many times people make a claim, it's dismissed for whatever cause, and you're like, oh shoot, it's too bad they didn't consider my claim on the merits because I would have won.
It was dismissed for some other technical or tangential ground.
So this can hardly be provided as real evidence that Donald Trump knew or should have known that his claims were false.
And it goes on and on like this.
And again, I don't mean to really treat this as risible because it is a serious matter.
The Nevada Secretary of State had previously rebutted the defendant's fraud claims by publicly posting a Facts vs.
They're actually talking about a Democrat, a Democratic Secretary of State in Nevada, who decides to fight back and push back against the Trump claims by posting a document, Facts vs. Myths.
How do we know he's right?
Why should we accept his claims at face value?
You think Donald Trump is going to read his claims and go, I stand corrected.
The Nevada Secretary of State, this is a guy who used to sell real estate.
He's now this, he's now that.
He's a very credible guy, folks.
This is absurd.
The Speaker of the Arizona House, a noted never-Trumper, issued a public statement that there was no evidence of substantial fraud.
The defendant asserted that voting machines in various contested states had switched votes.
And then goes on, many people told him this wasn't true.
Well, look, there were people who told him it wasn't true.
There were other people who performed studies.
There's a prominent computer scientist in Massachusetts, an Indian guy, Dr.
Shiva. He did a detailed study of these machines.
He said that there is no way, it is statistically virtually impossible for these results to have come out of those machines.
Now, he could be wrong. But again, my point is Trump is listening to arguments and evidence and claims on different sides, and the idea that because, you know, Mr.
X notified him, it doesn't follow that Mr.
X is himself right. Mr.
X may be a credible person, may be in a position of power, but there are other credible people saying the exact opposite.
So based on all this, you can see that at least up to this point, and we've gone through really the guts of these claims, we're going to go through what's left, but there's not a whole lot that would convince anybody but somebody who is already a kind of professional Trump hater or inveterate or kind of habitual Trump hater.
Trump is always wrong. He's evil.
And therefore, if Trump says it, it has to be false.
And if somebody says something hostile to Trump, it has to be true.
Guys, I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you've got Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
Every week I do a live Q&A. It's every Tuesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern. No topic is off-limits.
I've also uploaded some very cool films to Locals, documentaries and feature films, my films, and also films by other independent producers.
By the way, if you're on my Locals page, there's a little tab that just goes to Dinesh's movie list.
Click on that and it'll take you straight to my films.
I'm doing a new film this year.
I'll be giving you the inside scoop on Locals, and if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch all these films for free.
So check out my channel at dinesh.locals.com.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble, there's an even easier way, a little red button on the side.
Just click on the top, and it'll take you straight to my Locals channel to check it out.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, the website, dinesh.locals.com.
I'm continuing my discussion of the Trump indictment, and we're now in a section of the indictment Where they're talking about the efforts of Trump and the Trump co-conspirators in the various states.
I'll focus on Georgia in part because there is a Georgia case brewing which would supposedly quite likely go over this exact same material.
So we are... Getting to a sort of double consideration of the Georgia case.
And after talking about a bunch of contacts, you know, the conspirator number one called an attorney in Georgia, conspirator number two did this and called the Georgia elections office, blah, blah, blah.
I'm going to focus here just on Trump.
Well, what did Trump do? Well, Trump had a phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State.
This is Brad Raffensperger.
Well, Anyway, these guys are not named in the indictment.
It's pretty interesting. We know who they are, but their names aren't in the indictment.
And it says, during the call, the defendant lied to the Georgia Secretary of State to induce him to alter Georgia's popular vote count.
So now, as somebody who just recently, for the podcast, re-read the transcript of the Georgia call, I'm like, lied?
Let me see where the lie is.
And then you go on to the lie...
And there are no lies.
There are just Trump claims and counterclaims that are made by Raffensperger and an attorney that was present with Raffensperger.
So what you have is an argument.
Trump goes, the election was stolen.
That guy goes, we don't think so, Mr.
President. Yeah, there was a bunch of votes that you didn't count.
We don't think so, Mr. President.
So these are not lies.
In other words, there's a kind of a An imprecision of language here that's really significant.
If I say X and you say Y, it doesn't mean I'm lying.
For me to be lying, I have to know that the opposite is true.
And just the fact that you're telling me it's true doesn't make what I'm saying a lie.
So consider, for example, 2,000 mules.
2,000 mules proved election fraud.
I'm not saying it proved it in terms of legal sufficiency because there were ongoing investigations that would need to be done.
But 2,000 mules provided credible evidence that there was a coordinated effort to steal the 2020 election carried out with the help of mules whose cell phones were tracked.
Now I say this. You say, well, it hasn't been proven because nobody interviewed the mules.
Well, OK, that's your opinion.
And I agree the mules should be interviewed.
I'm all in favor of interviewing them.
In fact, it's the left that blocked the efforts to interview them because the mules were all in democratic states.
It would have taken the democratic establishments to do it.
But the fact that you have a counterpoint to what I have to say or even take some of the objections made by sometimes, well, meaning people, Ben Shapiro and others, well, you didn't show me the same mule in different locations.
And I'm like, well, I didn't do that because there wasn't surveillance footage in those locations.
How do you expect me to produce footage when no footage existed?
It's like I show you cell phone records of a serial killer in four homes killing people with bodies in all the four homes, and the cell phone shows that he was there, and there's electronic surveillance in one of the homes, and there you go, you can see the guy.
You're like, well, where's the surveillance in the other homes?
Well, do they have cameras?
No. So, this argument can go back and forth, but my point is, and maybe even reasonable people can disagree.
I wouldn't say that Shapiro is not a reasonable guy, but the point I'm trying to make is, I'm not lying.
I'm actually referring to specific evidence, specific claims, specific things that I've either heard or noted or that I've discovered through my own kind of investigation, and here they are.
And so, the idea that Trump lied is, I think, preposterous.
And then he goes on to say, look at the way that this call goes.
The defendant claimed that thousands of out-of-state voters had cast ballots.
Now, this is a simple fact.
Trump is right about this. Thousands of out-of-state people cast ballots.
Now, the defendant's counsel says, quote, that's not accurate.
These are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia.
Well, first of all, on the face of it, that's a little far-fetched, right?
You have a guy who's supposedly voting in Georgia, then he moves and changes his registration to a different state, and then he moves back to Georgia.
So if there are thousands of out-of-state voters, what is the likelihood that every single one of them was, in fact, a Georgia resident who relocated to another state and then relocated back to Georgia?
And second, let's even say that someone did that.
I'm a resident of Georgia.
I can vote in Georgia.
I moved to another state and I changed my registration.
And let's say I voted in Arizona.
And now I moved back to Georgia, but didn't change my registration back to Georgia.
Well, isn't Trump entitled to believe you're not entitled to vote in Georgia?
You should be voting in Arizona.
So the point being, you take an issue that is highly disputed, in which the Georgia...
Secretary of State admits that there are out-of-state people who cast votes, but claims that they were nevertheless legitimate votes because these are Georgians who relocated and then relocated back.
But again, I can see why Trump, I mean, I would be a little skeptical on the face of that kind of a claim, because while that claim might apply, let's say there are thousands of out-of-state people who did this, there might be a There are a few people who followed this kind of move-out, move-back pattern, but what is the likelihood that they all did?
Or even that the vast majority of them did, in my view, extremely low.
So when we come back in the last segment, I'll sum up by looking at the last claim, which has to do with the events around January 6th and the events involving Mike Pence.
I'll finish up my survey or review of the Trump indictment by now looking at January 6th and specifically what Trump's role was, at least the role that is alleged here.
Now, although there's some talk about Trump...
And his involvement in the rally.
This case doesn't really go there in great detail.
It does refer to January 6th and it does imply that Trump instigated January 6th because after Pence refused to do what Trump wanted him to do.
But what is it that Trump wanted him to do?
On December 25th, I'm now reading, when the vice president called the defendant to wish him a Merry Christmas, the defendant quickly turned the conversation to January 6th and his request that the vice president reject electoral votes that day.
The vice president pushed back, quote, you know I don't think I have the authority to change the outcome.
Now, this statement can be read in two ways.
It can be read, number one, you know, I don't have the authority to do anything on January 6th.
Whatever's going to happen is already happened, and I am just a figurehead.
In that sense, Mike Pence is saying, I can't change the outcome at all.
I am merely there for decoration.
I think that was, in fact, Mike Pence's position.
Now what is that role?
That role ultimately is to sort of accept or reject this presentation of the electoral count, and the Vice President, at least Trump thinks, has the power under the Constitution to be able to say, you know what, I want to send this back to the states for a kind of final review.
And no Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has ever decided the question of whether or not Trump is right or Pence is right.
In fact, a bunch of Democrats wanted to pass a law after the election that clearly specified that the vice president would only play a ceremonial role.
And think about it. Why would you need such a law if it was already obvious?
And if courts had already ruled, but it's not obvious, and the language of the Constitution is not clear, and courts have not ruled, and that's why they wanted to pass the law.
So Trump's point of view here is, at the best, legitimate.
Trump is asking Pence to do something, and Pence disagrees.
And I suppose on the balance of force to choose, I would agree with Pence that I don't think that Pence had the authority to send the votes back to the states, right?
But nevertheless, that's my opinion.
And my point of it is, if Trump has a different opinion, that doesn't make Trump a liar, doesn't make him a fraud, as this indictment seems to imply.
To sum up here, what's going on is that the indictment, which is, by the way, a kind of a rehash of the January 6th Committee.
In this way, the January 6th Committee has done insidious work.
It's done insidious work by suppressing facts that were inconvenient or that they didn't want the public to know.
Now, to their bad luck, in a trial, those facts come out because a trial is two-sided.
Remember, when the January 6th had witnesses, the committee had witnesses.
They'd only have witnesses that said what they wanted them to say.
Any witnesses that said the opposite would not be invited to testify.
Yeah, the election was the most secure in history.
But now we're going to invite Dinesh D'Souza to play 2,000 mules and show videos of mules stuffing ballots, and we're going to cross-examine him.
I would have loved that to happen.
I publicly offered to do that.
I never heard from them.
They had no intention of reaching out to me.
Why? It was a propaganda exercise from the outset.
And interestingly, that propaganda has been sort of lifted and now sort of rewritten into legalese for this indictment.
That's really what's going on here.
This is the January 6th committee's case being tried.
And in some ways, I guess we should have a certain sort of, okay, let's try it then.
Let's try it from top to bottom.
Let's examine whether the election was stolen and See, when you make a legal defense, you're allowed to say contradictory things.
And by contradictory things, what I mean is this.
No, I didn't steal the jewels.
Somebody else did. But even if I stole the jewels, I stole the jewels because I had good reason to believe they were mine.
And even if I didn't have good reason to believe they were mine, my stealing of the jewels does not deserve the ultimate penalty of X, but only the lesser penalty of Y. Now, those are three contradictory claims, but you can make them all in court.
So, in court here, Trump can say, and I think he should say, number one, The 2020 election was rigged and stolen.
I actually am the true winner and we need to litigate it because the whole premise of this case is that not only that I lost, but I deserve to lose.
That in fact there was not significant fraud.
So let's put that on trial.
Let's put the 2020 election on trial.
Number two. Even if the 2020 election was not stolen, and reasonable people can, of course, disagree about that, I believed it was stolen.
I believed it at the beginning.
I believed it when I saw 2000 Mules.
I believe it today. And therefore, the idea that I, quote, knew it was false is itself false.
And number three, even if the election wasn't stolen, and even if I wrongly, even if I knew it was false, I'm a politician.
I'm no different than other politicians.
They know one thing. They say another.
This happens all the time in politics.
And it is the actual meaning of free speech that all of this political speech—think of it.
This is not artistic speech.
It's not nude drawings.
We're talking about speech that goes to the heart of the give-and-take of democratic politics.
So Trump can say, even if I knew it was false, I had every right under the First Amendment to say it.
It may not be right to do that.
It may not be polite. It may not be honest to do it.
But do I have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to do it?
▲
Export Selection