All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:41
TARGET JENNA Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep648
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'm joined by former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis.
We're going to talk about why she's being targeted by the special counsel in the Georgia case, what the implications are for lawyers who represent their clients, and what we can do to help Jenna and other defendants.
I'll review some candid comments by the CEO of Goldman Sachs about fossil fuels and argue that many corporate leaders don't really believe the political nonsense that they publicly go along with.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple or Google or Spotify, please subscribe to my podcast.
Same if you're watching on Rumble.
Also on Rumble at the top left-hand corner, a little red button that says join.
If you click on that, it'll take you to my locals channel, which you can check out.
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.
I want to talk about the psychology of woke corporations because we sometimes think these massive corporations are aligning themselves with some of the craziest ideas of the left.
What's driving this?
Do they really? Do the people who run these companies truly believe?
All this? Because if so, we are in trouble because you've got people who are steering, if you will, the various ships of our corporate society and they are, well, let's just say it, partly nuts. Well...
That's not really what's going on.
And I want to give an example that clarifies the point.
This is the CEO of Goldman Sachs.
His name is David Solomon.
And it turns out he's a smart guy and he knows what's what.
And even though Goldman Sachs is kind of woke, even though they're pushing some woke initiatives here and there, We're going to find out that David Solomon isn't really on board with it and privately.
I mean, this is a small consolation because you go, well, if he privately thinks so, why doesn't he enforce those ideas?
Well, there could be various reasons why he succumbs to all this, but the point is that at least we can take some solace in the fact that this guy is not, let's just say, politically bonkers.
So David Solomon goes back to his alma mater, Hamilton College.
This is in upstate New York.
I've spoken there a bunch of times.
And after he gives a small talk, apparently to a relatively small group of students, and they had come to him to talk about diversity initiatives and climate and so on, and And he had some interesting things to say, and we know that because afterward they wrote an angry letter to the administration saying that he had, quote, belittled them, and that his comments were, quote, patronizing and disrespectful.
Now, when students use this kind of gobbledygook, they don't mean he was actually disrespectful.
They just mean that he said things that they don't agree with, or he rejected their premises, or he basically called them out.
So let's look at what David Solomon said.
Said to these students, and this is the student's point of view, so we're taking their word for what he said.
Apparently, the first thing he said was, I do more in a week to help the climate than you do in your whole life.
And I think what he meant is, I deploy giant amounts of capital And to that degree, I'm in a position to have more impact on society, but also on nature, on the climate, than you do as undergraduates.
You can have sort of heated opinions and indignant points of view, but you're not really doing anything.
And in fact, he goes on to say, hey, listen, are you not driving in a car?
Do you not take airplane flights?
Are you not using fossil fuels every single day?
Kind of exposing the hypocrisy of these students.
Well, because think about it.
If they really thought this is all so bad, they would immediately amend their own lifestyles not to do it.
But they seem to think that, no, it's perfectly okay for us to keep doing it as long as we mount political activism on behalf of our opinions.
And I think David Solomon is right to say there's a little tinge of hypocrisy there.
Apparently, the students also accused David Solomon of being kind of a racist.
Why? Because he said, gee, some of you are on financial aid.
Now, he went on to clarify, I'm not trying to say that you personally are financial aid.
I'm saying that really a large number, in fact, he says up to 80% of students at Hamilton are on some form of financial aid.
And his point is, the reason that the college can afford to do that is they're investing their endowment in In a financially beneficial or profitable way.
If they go around thinking, well, we're not going to invest in this company because they don't support climate change.
We're not going to support this company because they're not diverse enough.
He goes, we're not going to be able to get the financial return to be able to do all the stuff that we do for you.
And the students, of course, were like...
What do you mean? What do you mean?
It's not that the students, what they're saying is untrue.
They didn't go, oh no, we're not on financial aid.
All of us are paying our own way.
They're like, you're insulting us by bringing up the fact that we can't afford to pay our own way and therefore the college is actually helping us out.
And then Solomon makes a third and final point, which is, hey, listen, why don't you visit China?
Why don't you visit India? See how some of the rest of the world gets along and see that the rest of the world, in order to grow, in order to advance, in order to gain some of the same industrial, some of the same strong middle class that we have here in the West, they need fossil fuels.
They even need a lot of coal, a lot of carbon.
And so they don't listen to any of this nonsense.
And his point is that That is a point of view that you're unfamiliar with.
You somehow probably think you know better than them.
Hey, guys, you know, hey, Prakash, you know, on the streets of Calcutta, aren't you familiar with the studies that show that the oceans are rising?
And Prakash is like, well, I'm trying actually to buy a bicycle.
You know, I'm trying to basically move out of my hut into a normal apartment.
So here's David Solomon teaching these kids about life.
And guess what? They don't really like it.
Debbie and I made 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. We're now both 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.
If you're ready to take the step of losing weight like Debbie and I have, call PHD Weight Loss and Nutrition at 864-644-1900.
Or you can find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
The number again to call, write it down, 864-644-1900.
It's time. Guys, I'm really happy to welcome to the podcast my friend Jenna Ellis.
She's a host of the Jenna Ellis Show podcast.
She's also a constitutional law attorney, former senior legal advisor and personal counsel to President Trump.
Her social media, at Jenna Ellis Esquire, at Jenna Ellis Esquire.
And we're also going to talk about her Give, Send, Go.
It's givesandgo.com slash support Jenna.
Jenna, great to have you.
Always fun to chat, but this time not under the best circumstances.
First of all, let me just express not only my sympathy, but my outrage at this kind of madness that you're being subjected to.
Let's walk through that a little bit.
Did you know in advance that you were going to be named in this indictment?
Did you suspect it?
How did you find out?
Just the mechanics of it.
Yeah, well, thank you so much, Dinesh, for your friendship and your support and your consistent fidelity to the principles of this wonderful country of America that we both love and cherish so much.
And we're seeing that being completely torn down from the left.
So thank you for your boldness.
And I always appreciate joining you.
So, yeah, I mean, I saw this indictment come down like everybody else on national news, and that was how I learned that I was being targeted as well, along with President Trump and 17 other alleged co-conspirators.
I guess I need a fedora and some gangster paraphernalia now that I'm an alleged racketeer.
I mean, it's absolutely absurd.
But, you know, this has been persistent since Trump left office.
I mean, I was subpoenaed by the January 6th committee.
I've had, I think it's up to like 50 different bar complaints now from the left trying to take away my ability to practice law.
I've been sued in civil court.
I mean, it's been totally outrageous and ridiculous.
So this is just the next level of attack trying to criminalize the practice of law.
Jenna, we've obviously talked a few times back and forth and texted a little bit back and forth.
You seem to me pretty resilient.
In other words, I would expect at this point someone who's been—I mean, the left is terrifying, right?
Because they have such coordinated power.
You've got highly funded groups that go to the bar and try to get complaints against Trump, attorneys— They're trying to sort of make the kind of thing that you do, I guess, impossible to do.
Or if not impossible, they want people to go, I'm not going to go into that because if I do, look what happened to Jenna.
Right. And they have been trying since I was actively representing Trump while he was in office to intimidate lawyers.
This is something that the lawyers that represented President Trump through the whole Russia collusion hoax had to defend challenges against their bar licenses.
So even before I came on board with the president, which was just in advance of the first sham impeachment, other lawyers had already gone through that.
And people were advising me and saying, don't represent Donald Trump.
And I thought, well, if I won't, then who will?
And that's exactly the point, is that the left is trying to intimidate lawyers and say, we will directly target your livelihood, your credibility, and your reputation.
And we will seek to utterly destroy you if you are willing to stand up for our political opponent.
And if you are willing to even just go with and advocate for the hallmark of what used to be the defense bar, that everyone, regardless of your political affiliation, your faith, what you're accused of, if it's in criminal court or civil court, everyone deserves competent counsel and representation.
They have a constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress to provide a competent defense.
And yet, the left is suggesting that if your name is Donald Trump or anyone associated with him, then you deserve this kind of political retaliation.
And then I said, and I'm saying now, I reject that form of intimidation.
Because if I'm not willing to stand up for the truth, We all have to stand up for the truth and we have to stand up for the principles and the protections of our nation's highest law.
I mean, Jenny, you're making a subtle point here, which I think needs to be highlighted.
And that is that there were lots of people who were sort of in with Trump.
And I guess George was trying to make the case that they were all part of this racketeering conspiracy.
And leaving aside, you know, it seems to me the preposterousness of that can be discussed separately.
But what you're saying that the lawyer is in a little bit of a different position.
In other words, if someone is a lawyer representing a defendant accused of murder, the lawyer didn't do the murder.
The lawyer is actually an advocate for a client, and our legal system wouldn't function if we didn't have that.
So in theory, it's possible for someone to be a lawyer for Trump who's not a Trumpster.
Well, let's take my colleague Alan Dershowitz, who was my colleague on representing Trump for the first impeachment.
He is an outspoken Democrat.
He said contemporaneously with his representation of Trump that he was voting in the next election for Joe Biden.
And he has consistently said that he disagrees politically with Donald Trump.
But that doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in the constitutionally protected right of individuals to have competent counsel and that he doesn't believe in the hallmark of the American adversarial system that lawyers can defend clients, even if they totally disagree with them politically, if they disagree with the alleged conduct, which I'm assuming that most criminal defense lawyers would disagree with the conduct that's being alleged against their clients. What they're doing is advocating for the
process protections. They're advocating that it is the obligation of the prosecutor, whether it's prosecuting it in criminal court, or it is a state prosecutor in criminal court, or if it's someone who's prosecuting a civil case and it's just a private entity against a private person, that you have due process fundamental protections that every American deserves.
This is an attack against violence.
Lawyering and against the Constitution itself and the very adversarial system that enacts and provides meaningful justice to people in all kinds of situations.
So this is much bigger than Donald Trump or disagreeing with him or agreeing with him politically.
But the left is seeking specifically just to target conservatives and their political opposition and silence us.
Let's take a pause when we come back more with Jenna Ellis, host of The Jenna Ellis Show, and her Give, Send, Go, givesendgo.com slash support Jenna.
As central banks and countries like China, India, Australia begin transitioning to a digital currency, the Federal Reserve has been contemplating the same for the US. With the digital currency, the government could track every single purchase you make.
Officials could even prohibit you from purchasing certain products or easily freeze or seize part or all of your money.
These are some of the reasons concerned Americans reach out to Birch Gold Group.
They want to have a physical asset that's independent from the US dollar.
Gold held tax sheltered in a retirement account.
Debbie and I buy gold from Birch Gold, and we're gonna buy some more to make sure that we are protected and diversified.
Learn if gold is right for you too.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
They'll send you a free information kit on gold.
There's no obligation, just information.
With an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold can help you diversify into gold and protect yourself.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
Claim your free information kit on gold because if a central bank digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be really nice to have some gold to depend on.
I'm back with Jenna Ellis and we're talking about political targeting and the Georgia case.
Jenna, you talked about the fact that the left has this kind of scorched earth campaign, not just against Trump, but all the people who they identify to be around Trump or supporting Trump or even legally advocating for Trump.
And the left sometimes tries to give the idea that, you know, it's not a campaign against Republicans and it's not a campaign against conservatives.
This is because Donald Trump is sort of a mini-Hitler that has sort of surfaced in America.
So Hitler circa 1933, let's call it.
Do you think that there's something just personally radioactive about Trump?
And so, let's just say that they get Trump.
Will they be satisfied and go, okay, Republicans, now go about your normal business.
We're perfectly okay now since we got this one bad guy, the bad apple, if you will.
Or do you think that this is really part of an emerging sort of political intolerance in which basically people right of center are now fair game?
It's absolutely political intolerance for anyone who is a conservative or who is a Christian or who is a parent, for example, who wants to know what goes on in their child's school curriculum.
What we've seen is that this isn't just a political targeting against Donald Trump and his allies.
This is against anyone who's willing to stand up against the leftist narrative in any sphere.
We've seen pastors who were targeted like my own client out of Los Angeles, California, Pastor John MacArthur, who opened his church against a regime in Los Angeles County in the state of California that tried to criminalize his actions and threatened him with jail time and severe fines for simply opening his church in the middle of the pandemic narrative that was false when big box stores, marijuana dispensaries, strip clubs were open,
but they were targeting pastors and churches.
And thankfully we won that lawsuit and we have a permanent injunction now against the state of California.
But that was a legal battle that was very expensive And then there were pastors in Canada that were literally jailed for their faith.
We've seen pastors that have been targeted outside of Planned Parenthood for simply standing up for pro-life.
We've seen parents being put on the FBI and domestic terrorism watch list.
This is way beyond just Donald Trump.
This is the left Trying to systematically not only dismantle the institutions of government and what meaningful justice actually represents, what the Constitution's protections actually supply to Americans, but they are targeting their political opponents in every single sphere.
And if we don't stand up and say no, in the United States of America, this cannot, cannot, not just shouldn't, but this cannot happen, then we will cease to be in a country that we once knew.
And I am not... I'm saying this hyperbolically.
I'm saying this literally that the targeting of Americans just for political perspectives and standing up for the truth has been prolific.
If you look at what Jim Jordan's weaponization of government committee is revealing about the coordination from the Biden administration to target conservative speech and censor them against the constitutionally protected right of speech.
I mean, all of this is trying to dismantle the systematic constitutional protections in America.
I mean, what you're saying is that our very status as a free society hangs in the balance, depends upon how we deal with this issue.
And I think you're quite right.
I mean, there are pro-lifers, for example, who are not Trumpsters per se.
In fact, they're focused kind of on that issue.
They've been hauled up.
They've been charged with violating the FACE Act, supposedly obstructing access.
Even though they didn't obstruct anything, they're just protesting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic.
And I can foresee a future in which parents who say, you know, I'm not going to let my son transition from male to female, could be prosecuted, as if they're violating this kid's civil rights.
So, in other words, we can see where this is going if this train is not stopped, right?
Absolutely. And we're seeing that as well with how the left is weaponizing this term insurrection and they're labeling the incident on January 6th and calling it persistently insurrection so that they can weaponize the 14th Amendment and target not only President Trump, but members of Congress. And they already have attempted that with various lawsuits, like in the state of Georgia, where there was a lawsuit targeting Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Thankfully, she won that lawsuit, but I don't see those lawyers that are charged with being a criminal enterprise and racketeering just because they made a legal argument in court and they did not prevail.
But this is the kind of persistent weaponization that the left is attempting.
They're trying to redefine everything in their favor, and they're trying to literally criminalize conservative conduct.
When we come back, Jenna, I want to ask you about an interesting article in The Atlantic, co-authored by this former, he is a judge named Luttig, but also Larry Tribe, the Harvard Law School professor.
And the basic premise of the article is that the Constitution, in fact, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, It prohibits Trump from being president in the future.
In other words, it's not making the case that if he's convicted or if he's jailed, it's that even now, the Constitution, in its clear language, prohibits Trump from being able to run again and, I guess, be elected.
When we come back, I'd like to get your reaction to that and sort of your larger take on that.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your remedy.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of 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.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
A whole bunch of people who try Relief Factor become regular customers.
They order more because it works for them.
Debbie's been able to do exercises now that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor's been a huge 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 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 back with Jenna Ellis.
Jenna, in the last segment, I mentioned the article in The Atlantic by Larry Tribe and this judge named Lessig.
Talk a little bit about that and how interesting it is that this can come from the left.
They're clearly advocating for blocking the leading candidate of the Republican Party, at least as far as polls and surveys go, from being able to achieve office if he's elected.
What is your take on this?
Yeah, well, it's an absurd argument and it's attempting to use a provision in the US Constitution through the 14th Amendment that we all remember is one of the amendments out of the Reconstruction era post-Civil War and so an insurrection and being barred from holding federal office if you participated in an insurrection in context was dealing with the Confederacy that literally seceded from the Union and
dealing with the aftermath of how to reconstruct American society after the Civil War and And so what the left is trying to do and what Larry Tribe and this other judge are attempting to argue is using that provision and labeling what happened on January 6th an insurrection so that they can accuse President Trump of participation in an insurrection and that without any finding, without any adjudication, without any conviction or fact finding at all
by a competent arbiter, that he is now legally and constitutionally prohibited from holding federal office. It is an absolutely patently absurd argument.
But these two lawyers are making this argument in the court of public opinion.
They're making it through the Atlantic.
I don't see them having bar complaints filed that they need to be disbarred because they're misleading the public or they have what all of us should rightly consider a patently absurd argument.
Constitutional argument.
And even if there were legal challenges that were filed according to this premise as a novel concept, that's what lawyers do.
They file arguments. And I would not, as a conservative, ever argue that their bar licenses or their liberty or their freedom should ever be infringed upon simply because they make an argument that I think undermines the The Constitution, and I would even say, undermines democracy.
That wouldn't be election interference.
That wouldn't be anything that is against the adversarial process.
If they want to make a legal argument, we can all reject it, and we should reject it.
But they're allowed to make those types of arguments.
And so the analogy here that I think is really profound is that the left is on purpose to Just brazenly making patently absurd arguments, knowing that they are not going to have the full weight of the government upon them for making these arguments.
Yet, they are trying to intimidate conservatives from making any arguments at all.
I mean, what you're saying, and I think this is a key point, is that these two guys, they have a First Amendment right, and they also have the right as lawyers to make a constitutional argument, however fanciful and perhaps even absurd.
And let's highlight the absurdity of this for a minute, because we've heard so much this phrase, you know, this incantation, the insurrection.
I just want to kind of get to the heart of it.
So you got these guys who go into the Capitol.
Right? Let's say that they met with no resistance at all.
Let's say, for example, that everybody went down on their knees and said, I surrender.
Here's my question. Would these people end up...
Would they have taken over the U.S. government?
Would they be the new legislature?
Would they elect among themselves their own president?
Would they start passing laws?
I mean, nothing could be more absurd.
In other words, if those guys had stayed in the Capitol, let's just say refused to leave, obviously...
Cops and troops would have arrived, they would have encircled the Capitol, there would be bullhorns, everyone please come outside and the whole thing would be over.
So the idea that there was even an intention here to somehow overthrow the government a la Robert E. Lee or split up the country… I mean, there's a kind of laughable quality to all this.
Do you think that the reason the left does this is not just because they get away with it, but because they're like, you know what?
We're making these arguments in friendly territory.
We're making them in democratic cities.
We're making them in Washington, D.C. So however crazy we are, we're kind of hoping we'll get jurors who are just as crazy as we are.
And then we're kind of all of the same mind.
Well, what they're trying to do intentionally is to weaponize language.
And so we've seen what they're doing even through the LGBTQ agenda as well to say that a man can become a woman.
That's patently absurd if you look at the language that they're using compared to reality in fact.
But this is what the left does best.
They are trying purposefully to harness a term, redefine it, misapply it, and then use it And so let's be clear, what happened on January 6 was absolutely reprehensible in terms of going into the Capitol building, trespass, you know, some of those things absolutely are against the law.
And I'm certainly not going to advocate that there was no criminality that day.
But what I'm not going to say is that occupying a public building somehow constitutes an insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government that the left is trying to perpetuate.
And I think we have to be very careful as conservatives not to buy into this false dichotomy that either we have to 100% Support what the left is saying, or we have to totally reject anything and embrace all of the conduct that happened that day.
So I think we need to be very clear in our terms.
We need to be very clear for advocating for the rule of law.
And let's also be clear, there were people that were caught up in that entire day that they didn't even go inside the Capitol.
They were simply there.
And their presence there was basically guilt by association.
And they were targeted.
And they were treated unjustly and unfairly.
And this is why Governor DeSantis' response, I believe, is the correct legal and constitutional one, where he said that if he is president, then anyone who wants a pardon can petition and come directly to him and he will look at it on a case by case basis.
That is how the law does work.
That's how the law should work.
It shouldn't just be a blanket.
Everyone's guilty or everyone is innocent.
You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis and not weaponize language and misapply it intentionally trying to promote a political instead of a just legal outcome.
When we come back more with Jenna Ellis, her GiveSendGo, by the way, GiveSendGo.com slash support Jenna.
We'll be right back. Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't just stop with the famous MyPillow.
He also created the Giza Dream bedsheets.
Now, I sleep on these bedsheets every night.
They're awesome. They look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is crucial for our overall health.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft and breathable, but also extremely durable.
And Mike's latest deal is the sale of the year.
For a limited time, you get 50% off the Giza Dream Sheets, marking prices down as low as $29.98, depending on the size.
Go to MyPillow.com, enter promo code Dinesh.
You'll find not just this amazing offer, but deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the robes, the mattress topper, the slippers, MyPillow kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
Call the number 800-876-0227 to take advantage of this incredible offer.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm back with Jenna Ellis, and we're talking about the Georgia case against not just Trump, but against her and a bunch of other 18 or so other defendants.
Jenna, you mentioned Ron DeSantis, so let's kind of focus in on that, because there are some of the MAGA types, the Trumpsters.
And, you know, I mean, I loosely fall into that category.
My career is not dependent on Trump.
It long pre-existed.
It was long before Trump.
But on the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to the ideas in that movement.
And some of these guys have been bashing you, saying, you know, defected over to DeSantis, and so on.
And so, it's almost like they wish you ill because of that.
And I want to just highlight the point that this is not about that at all.
The left is going after all of us, and they'll go after DeSantis with the same venom as Trump.
In other words, any effective conservative.
They don't mind a conservative who's ineffective, who's willing to operate within their parameters, kind of a well-behaved Republican, a Liz Cheney type, I guess, or Mitt Romney.
But it seems to me like there's a miss...
There's a kind of...
Well, there is too much skirmishing, wouldn't you agree, between the DeSantis and the Trump camp?
This is not something I've seen before among Republicans, a kind of...
Thank you.
Talk a little bit about this issue, because I know it's been a sore spot for many in aiming some of these arrows at you.
Yeah, well, it's like they forget that we've had Republican open primaries in the past and that somehow this is kind of novel that we have the primary process.
And so I think a lot of these, some of them very well-meaning, either are forgetting that, intentionally ignoring it, or this is the first time really that they've participated in politics and they don't remember a political primary before Donald Trump.
And so I think two things are really important here.
The first is that you have to separate advocacy as an attorney and in that professional lane from the right of every voter to select and prefer who they believe is the best candidate.
Now, I can, like Alan Dershowitz, simultaneously represent clients who, of all stripes across the political spectrum, even if I disagree with them, while asserting in public my personal opinion and personal view.
That's one thing.
The second thing is that I completely reject this notion that just because I support Governor DeSantis as, I believe, the best conservative candidate on a whole host of metrics in the Republican primary for 2024, that that somehow retroactively means that I didn't serve Donald Trump well, that I wasn't his best attorney, that I tried intentionally to sabotage him or that I'm going to go against him now.
No, I firmly support Trump.
I've prolifically said that since 2016, against the weaponization of government from Spygate, the first two sham impeachments, the Russia host collusion, all the way through now the four indictments that he faces now.
And so I think that we have to be very clear that what is happening to Donald Trump And the weaponization of government, we can fully and should fully stand against.
But we should not confuse the jury box with the ballot box.
And we can do both simultaneously, support Donald Trump against all of the legal attacks and be very thankful for what he has done in the past and in his administration and what he's doing currently, while still asking the question, who is the best person to lead this country?
And if your response is Donald Trump, then great.
Have that view.
My response may be Governor DeSantis, or may ultimately by the time I get to the ballot box, But we have to be able to freely debate these issues without becoming leftists ourselves.
Because those in the MAGA group that would say, well, this is weaponizing against Donald Trump, but because you don't support him in the way I prefer, I'm now very grateful that you're being targeted.
That is a leftist argument by saying, I'm glad that the government is coming after my political opponent.
We should never... Ever say that regardless of whether we like the person or we hate the person for their political views.
Yeah, I mean, Jenna, I agree with everything that you just said.
I want you also to talk a little bit about the vulnerability of just being in this position with the enormous resources of the government.
I mean, I saw this in a much smaller way with my campaign finance case.
You suddenly realize they've got an infinite number of people, and they've got, in theory, infinite resources.
Look, I mean, I even saw a thing that Miranda Devine put out about how Rudy Giuliani is under the gun because of all the litigation he's subjected to.
And I'm thinking, you know, what about some of the other defendants, not just you, Jenna, but David Schaefer and many others?
You know, it's like, wow, you know, we're now supposed to defend against this.
How do we get the resources to do that?
It's very hard, and I don't come from personal wealth.
I have always chosen my career path based on, frankly, my Christian faith and ministry, and I've always chosen to stand up and do the right thing, even when it's not been personally wealthy for me.
And so this idea that somehow we need to bifurcate and only support the individuals who we want I think it's completely the wrong way to approach this.
And the reason that I would hope that President Trump and the campaign would use their legal fund to support everyone and to even support people outside of his own allies' purview is because if there is something that is truly the interests of MAGA or making America great again, then we all need to come together and say that targeting any of us for political reasons is targeting all of us.
Because we have to, at the end of the day, have good jurisprudential precedent that protects all of us.
We have to have good legislative solutions, and we have to ultimately have good elected officials.
And if we all aren't supporting that and actively engaging in our government as we the people, then we will, if we don't stand together, then we will fall individually.
And it is very, very difficult to mount a legal defense of this type of magnitude, and especially on a national scale, when I'm really just doing this myself with, thankfully, allies like you and other conservatives who understand that this is well beyond just me or Donald Trump.
Well, guys, I want to close out by making a pitch to you to support Jenna and to support the other defendants as well.
Jenna knows this because we've talked about this privately, but this week I'm going to put $10,000, Jenna, in your GiveSendGo.com.
The website, by the way, is GiveSendGo.com slash support Jenna.
And I normally wouldn't mention it, but the reason I mention it is I want my podcast audience to understand that I don't ask them to do things that I'm not willing to do myself.
So I think it's really important here on principle.
It doesn't really matter whether Jenna is a Trumpster right now or whether she's a DeSantis person.
She's on our side on this issue, and we are all in the crosshairs of the left.
So please go to GiveSendGo.com slash support Jenna.
Support my friend Jenna Ellis.
She really needs it, and she would really appreciate it.
Jenna, thanks so much for joining me.
Really great to have you.
Thank you so much for your support, my friend.
I really sincerely appreciate you and everything that you continue to do for the conservative cause.
Thank you. Don't miss the most inspirational movie of the summer, Briarcliff Entertainment's The Hill, starring Dennis Quaid, in theaters this Friday, August 25th.
The incredible true-life story of professional baseball player Ricky Hill.
Growing up poor in a small town, Texas, young Ricky discovers his extraordinary ability for hitting a baseball.
But with leg braces and a degenerative spinal disease, the major leagues were just a dream that could never be.
Courageously, he risks it all.
Defying his father's wish to follow in his footsteps to become a pastor, Ricky tries out for a major league scout.
Pushing hard to overcome his disability, he goes on to become a baseball phenomenon.
From the writer of Rudy and the Hoosiers and the writer of The Game Stands Tall, an inspirational story about family, faith, and a baseball miracle.
Some dreams are unbreakable.
The Hill, starring Dennis Quaid, Colin Ford, and Scott Glenn.
Don't miss The Hill, rated PG, in theaters this Friday, August 25th.
Get your tickets now.
You know that I'm a chess aficionado.
I love to play the game.
I play almost every day.
These days, you can play against the computer.
Now, you're playing against a live person somewhere else in the world who has a rating that's comparable to yours.
So it's really fun to be able to do this.
In any event, there's kind of a mini-controversy in the chess world having to do with the acceptance of trans athletes.
Now, of course, what makes chess kind of interesting is it's a mental game.
It's not a physical game.
And yet, in chess, there is a kind of an open division or kind of a men's division, to be honest.
And then there is a women's division.
And so there's, for example, a world chess champion.
And that guy is currently this guy, Ding Li Ren from China.
And then there's a women's world chess champion.
And I think the reason for this is because, well, men are a lot better players in chess than women.
Now, is this biological?
Is this psychological?
Is this somehow cultural?
Men are encouraged from a young age to play chess.
I don't want to get into all that now, but the fact is that there is a big difference.
In fact, if you take, let's just say, the best...
Five women players in the world, they would, certainly not all of them, would not even be in the top 100 of the best chess players.
And the top woman is probably going to fall somewhere around number 60 or number 70, with the other women dropping below 100.
And so, basically the chess world goes, listen, we kind of want to encourage women to play chess, and they're never going to win anything, so we need to have a separate division.
Sort of kind of the same reasons that we have Separate women's tennis, and separate women's running, and separate women's weightlifting, and separate women's MMA. It's because it is acknowledged that there is a big difference between the two sexes.
Now, apparently, with all this trans stuff going on, the World Chess Association, called FIDE, F-I-D-E, the FIDE group has issued a statement basically saying, no trans athletes in chess, right? This really makes me laugh, because as I say, it would seem not to matter in a mental game.
But it does matter, and I guess their point is, since we have men's and women's chess, we're either going to have that or not.
And if we have it, women's chess has got to be limited to women.
So here we go.
They go, and I love their wording too, which is kind of, I wouldn't say clumsy, it's sort of like old school, and it shows that they're trying to stay on top of all this, but they're actually speaking the plain truth.
They're a little bit like Oliver Anthony in his song, Richmond, North of Richmond.
They're just telling it like it is.
So they go, in the event that the gender was changed from a male to a female...
The player has no right to participate in official FIDE events for women until further FIDE decision is made.
And they say that'll come over the next two years.
So until then, no biological males.
Because think about it. You could have some guy who's like number, you know, 39 in the world in chess and he decides, listen, I'm going to start wearing lipstick, put on a dress, show up in the women's division, clobber all the women, and become the women's world chess champion.
So FIDE goes, no, that's not happening.
I love this slide.
Yeah. So, if you're a woman, you're, let's say, the world's junior champion, and then you decide, I'm going to change my equipment, I'm going to take all these treatments, I'm going to become a man, sorry, you're going to lose that title.
But you can get it back if you decide, okay, doctor, let's lop it off.
I'm going to go back to being a woman.
Okay, you can have your title back.
They also go on to say that any...
A changing gender does not exempt a player from the penalty of punishments and restrictions previously applied to this player.
So in other words, if you've been caught cheating, you've been banned from playing, let's say, in Las Vegas, or you're no longer allowed to play chess in the United States, but you've said, hey, listen...
I'm a new gender. I'm a new person.
I'm now allowed to play.
They go, no. The punishments that applied to you before transfer to your new gender identity.
What they're basically saying is, we're going to put up with your rhetorical BS, but we're not really going to change the rules of the game.
So here is chess, and I'm sure they're going to get some heat for this, but I think they should endure it.
In fact, they are the voice of common sense, and it's the transgender people, the transgender activists.
Those are the real... I want to talk about an interesting clash that is occurring within the atheist community.
Is there an atheist community?
Yes, there is. There are atheist websites, some prominent figures, some of them in science, who are nevertheless outspoken atheists.
And here's an interesting article by a political writer named Brendan O'Neill.
It's in a website called spiked-online.com.
It's called The Treachery of the Atheists.
Now, the reason I have an interest in this is I did quite a bit of work in Christian apologetics.
I, in fact, wrote three books.
Within the space of about five years, I was debating a number of the leading atheists, including notably Christopher Hitchens, but also a dozen or so others.
And the article is about how atheists, even though they claim to be champions of rationalism, they want to be champions of science, they want to be champions of facts over emotion, some of the most prominent atheists are falling hook, line, and sinker for the transgender craze.
And that's the point of the article.
How interesting it is that in claiming to reject divine superstition, They're perfectly willing to embrace secular superstition.
And the author goes on to say, I'm not sure why this is.
Is it because of intellectual cowardice?
These people know better, but they want to be respectable.
They want to be praised.
They don't want to take any kind of heat.
They don't want people going after their sub-stack or their websites.
So is it just that these atheists are cowards?
That's certainly a distinct possibility.
But the other is explained by a line, I think it was Chesterton who said many years ago that If someone stops believing in God, they don't believe in nothing.
They'll believe in anything.
So, in other words, they will find some other, if you will, theological premise to succumb to.
And in this case, the theological premise is, let's worship at the transgender altar, which, let's just say, is perhaps not quite as dignified an altar as worshiping at the altar of Christ.
Now, Richard Dawkins, I should say, perhaps the most prominent living atheist, is not on board with this trans business.
In fact, he's been attacked by some of the atheists because he says, and he's a biologist at Oxford, he goes, listen, there are men and there are women, and there is no So, he's stating the biologically obvious.
He is, if you will, going with the science.
But he's attacked by people who say things like, well, biology isn't black and white, or, you know, biology is a spectrum, kind of like a rainbow.
Now, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a prominent astronomer, probably America's best-known scientist.
And this guy was in a recent interview that I saw clips of on social media, and he goes, hey, listen, you know, you might have X chromosomes or Y chromosomes.
He goes, but listen, some days a guy can wake up and feel that he's sort of female.
Some days a woman can wake up and, you know, decide I'm not going to wear makeup or I'm going to wear, you know, a masculine shirt.
Now, the stupidity of this was so...
I had to listen to this two or three times myself to make sure I'm hearing this from a so-called astronomer, from a professional scientist.
In fact, it was my friend Chloe Cole who's been on this podcast.
She's detransitioned now because after being pressured to transition, she goes, you're confusing basic human biology with cosmetics.
In other words, if you're a woman and you put on, you know, some jeans and a cowboy shirt, that doesn't make you a man.
And if you're a man and you decide, listen, I'm going to wear some makeup.
I mean, by the way, full disclosure, I wear sometimes makeup on the podcast.
Why? Because the light otherwise shines on my face.
I'm actually not wearing makeup today and maybe I look a little shinier than usual.
Matt Dillahunty, another prominent atheist, completely fallen for the transgender nonsense.
There's a big difference between, quote, what your chromosomes are and your gender identity.
So he's falling for this idea that your gender identity is something that is in your mind.
It's something that you make up, if you will, and it somehow overrides or trumps what your chromosomes are about.
Stephen Fry, Philip Pullman, the author, Stuart Lee, all of these guys have sort of given in to what this writer calls, quote, postmodern delirium.
And he goes on to make the point that this is not just the case that the atheists are sympathetic to the trans.
He goes, the atheists are always telling us that reality overrides feelings, right?
But in this case, feelings override reality.
The atheists are always telling us, don't believe in any superstition.
If there's not something for which there is scientific evidence, don't believe it.
And yet, here is something for which there is no scientific evidence, and yet, they're succumbing to it.
They're falling for it.
So, in case after case, what he's saying is that these atheists are not the apostles of reason that they claim to be.
And, as I say, he goes into the motive of this...
And he argues that it's probably cowardice, but it could also be that ultimately people are not as rational as they like to think of themselves to be.
Although the atheists act like, I live my life according to reason...
No, these are people who still say, you know, I love you to their wife.
And there's no sort of scientific basis for that.
These are people who still act, if you will, based on normal human feelings.
These are people who still have the normal human motives.
I want to be liked, not just in society generally, but in my professional community.
And so if all the kind of cool people I know are celebrating Pride Week and So I need to be along with that.
I don't need to say things that are going to make them uncomfortable.
Otherwise, I might not be invited over to their homes and so on.
So what we have here is that atheists, it turns out, are not champions of a kind of dissected rationalism.
They're human like the rest of us.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection