All Episodes
Dec. 13, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:38
JACKED UP Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep726
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by Dr.
Kirk Elliott, Ph.D. In an uncertain economy, if you're looking for wealth management solutions or financial advice, go to KirkElliottPhD.com and make an appointment today.
Coming up, I'll discuss the latest stunts on the part of rogue prosecutor Jack Smith.
As the title of my podcast suggests, he is all jacked up.
Media personality Kim Guilfoyle joins me.
We're going to talk about Trump's New York case and the corruption of the media.
Also reveal the real reason Harvard decided to keep its embattled President Claudine Gay.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
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.
What is this prosecution of Donald Trump for quote trying to overturn the 2020 election?
What is this prosecution all about?
What is its motive?
What is its ultimate goal?
You might say, well, the motive is obvious.
They're trying to get Trump.
They're trying to get a conviction on him.
They're trying to put him in prison.
Well, but I don't think that that is quite right, because ask yourself this question.
What if the trial were to be postponed beyond the 2024 election, and then they go after Trump, they try to get a conviction?
This would be very unsatisfactory for the left, for the Democrats.
Why? Why? Because this prosecution, like all the Trump prosecutions, are really a form of election interference.
They are a form of trying to disable Trump, immobilize him, take him out of commission.
And even if they can't do those things to harass him, to impose heavy expenditures, not only of money, but also of time to make it impossible for him to effectively and viably campaign for the presidency.
So for Jack Smith, it's really important to have this trial before the election.
And more than that, they have timed the trial for March 24th, March 4th of 2024, which is a day before Super Tuesday.
So can you imagine what they're going for?
Trump, you know, you've got this trial going on while Trump is going into Super Tuesday.
This is what this is all about.
And that's why there's a big fight over it right now.
The normal way a trial proceeds is you have discovery going back and forth.
You have various motions that are entertained by the judge.
Sometimes if a motion goes against you, you can appeal it to the appellate court, then you can appeal it to the Supreme Court.
So realistically, this March 4th date is kind of absurd.
It's not going to happen. It's not likely to happen.
Why? Because the prosecution is going to say that we want this, and the defense is going to say no.
They go to the judge, and this kind of adjudication and appeals process has to be exhausted before you can move on with the trial.
And so to short circuit this whole process, at least in one important way, Jack Smith has gone sort of straight to the Supreme Court.
And he has asked the Supreme Court to decide right away the issue of presidential immunity.
So what's the issue?
The issue is this.
Took certain actions on January 6th, connected with the 2020 election.
He gave a speech.
He, of course, has the phone call that he did separately with the Georgia Secretary of State.
So the question is...
Are these actions...
Can you try Trump for this on a criminal basis?
Now, one counter-argument of that would be, wait a minute, you can't.
Why? Because Trump was already tried for this.
It's called the second impeachment.
And in the second impeachment, they had a trial.
And guess what? Trump was impeached by the House, but the impeachment failed in the Senate.
So the argument would be, trial's already over.
What's the point? And that is the proper forum for having this kind of a trial, not a criminal indictment.
So Jack Smith knows that this issue is going to have to be decided by the judge, and normally it would be appealed, and then it would go to the Supreme Court.
So Jack Smith decided, let me just go straight to the Supreme Court.
And interestingly, the Supreme Court seems to be willing to hear it.
So the Supreme Court ordered Trump to file a response to Jack Smith's petition for really an immediate ruling on this issue of presidential immunity.
And the reason Jack Smith is doing this is he wants to keep the trial on a fast track.
And that's what he tells the Supreme Court.
This trial needs to occur expeditiously.
Normally, this appellate process would slow things down.
So I'm coming to you to get a quick adjudication so we can know once and for all if we can proceed with this case or whether Trump has immunity, in which case At least that aspect of trying to go after him for his actions on January 6th or in connection with 2020 would have to fall by the wayside.
Why? Because they've already been tried in the impeachment process.
So we're going to see what the Supreme Court decides about all this.
Interestingly, there's a sort of second sidelight to all this, and that is apparently there's a DOJ whistleblower who's come out and claimed that Jack Smith is a crook.
How? Well, according to a filing, and it's 150 pages long, I haven't read the filing, I've just read the summary.
But the summary basically says that Jack Smith, quote, was an active participant in a scheme to extort millions of dollars from wealthy individuals targeted for investigation and prosecution in Kosovo.
So what the whistleblower is alleging, very serious if true, is that you got the U.S. government targeting these guys for investigation in Kosovo, and Jack Smith, who's involved in this process, goes to those guys and basically says, if you pay me off, if you send large amounts of money my way, an extortion scheme to get money out of those guys to get them out of these investigations and prosecutions.
Essentially... This would be renting out the judicial system in exchange for cash.
Here's an idea to consider.
Diversify your savings with physical precious metals while stockpiling silver in your home safe.
It's Birch Coal Group's most popular special of the year.
Debbie and I are taking full advantage now through December 22nd.
For every $5,000 you spend with Birch Coal, they'll send you a one ounce Silver Eagle coin for free.
Text Dinesh to 989898 to claim your eligibility now.
You can purchase gold and silver and have it shipped directly to your home or have Birch Gold's precious metals specialists help you convert an existing IRA of 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
And they'll send you free silver for every $5,000 you purchase.
Keep it for yourself or give something with real value as a stocking stuffer this year.
Just text the keyword Dinesh to 989898 to claim your eligibility with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, including me.
Now's the best time to buy gold from Birch Gold.
Text Dinesh to 989898, claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases before December 22nd.
Guys, I'm really happy to welcome to the podcast my friend Kimberly Guilfoyle.
She's a former prosecutor, longtime co-host of The Five on Fox News.
She was national finance chair of the Trump 2020 campaign.
She's also the host of the Kimberly Guilfoyle show on Rumble.
You can follow her on x at Kim Guilfoyle.
Kim, thanks for joining me.
Really appreciate it.
This morning, Hunter Biden...
I guess he's trying to hold fast to his position that he's willing to come to a public hearing, but he's not willing to sit down with the Oversight Committee and be deposed.
What do you make of this?
As a former prosecutor yourself, what do you make of this shenanigan with Hunter Biden?
Yeah, you know, I mean, it's just more of the same.
I'm sure he'd show up if they were going to pay him because, you know, Hunter Biden, that whole family loves the grift.
But, you know, he's too good for the justice system.
Obviously, they have so much to hide.
There's so much corruption there.
You know, no surprise that he didn't want to show up.
He doesn't want to actually...
Go behind closed doors because what happens when you do that is they can go for an extended period of time.
It's much shorter if you have a public hearing.
So that's just one way he's trying to dodge it.
And, you know, I'm just not surprised at all.
I mean, this is just going to be another delay, an excuse.
Hunter Biden and, you know, covering up for this family.
Quite frankly, they have been giving them a pass for so long now.
But the American people are getting very tired of it.
I mean, there is so much evidence, you know, of corruption with this Biden family, you know, money trail, the case that they're going after him for is just rudimentary, you know, taxes, something so basic.
They're not doing anything about the foreign lobbying, about the 20 million, all of the stuff with the shady business entities.
You heard all the evidence about Joe Biden with 300 different email aliases to communicate with him.
The whole thing is just outrageous.
And Joe Biden has lied repeatedly to the American people when he said he knew nothing about Hunter's dealings.
You know, we've got photos, emails, text messages showing that all of that is just a complete lie.
You know, and they've got money coming in compromising us from a national security and foreign policy perspective, money coming from China, money coming from Romania, money coming from Ukraine and others.
So it's just it's a very long and extensive money trail.
That's hard facts and evidence.
And at some point there will be accountability, even if it means Donald Trump getting in office and winning the election in 2024.
And that's not him being a dictator, but he will put people in that will actually respect the rule of law, follow the law, the facts, the evidence, apply it and make sure that there is justice.
I mean, while you've got all of this stuff with Biden, on the other hand, you've got President Trump, former President Trump in New York, having to waste time, waste resources dealing with this case in which there are evidently no victims at all.
I mean, there's not a bank that's come forward and said, hey, you know, we made these loans, we got some fallacious information, we never got paid back.
So what is it like just as a family to go through this, I would imagine, surreal experience with a biased judge in New York City?
That's absolutely terrible.
And, you know, first of all, like I've said so many times, there is no fraud here, like you've indicated, Dinesh.
The banks did their own due diligence, just like when you and I apply for a loan or a house, etc.
They check the paperwork, they check your assets, they verify your income, and they make a decision to give you a loan.
Then... You pay that loan back.
You don't have any late payments or anything like that.
And then you get persecuted and prosecuted for it after the fact to say, well, you know what?
We're questioning the valuation of one of your properties.
The whole thing is absurd.
And as you know, The Attorney General Letitia James campaigned vigorously on going after Donald Trump.
She does not care about the facts or the rule of law.
She only cares about attacking Donald Trump and the family and the businesses to further her own political ambitions.
And the people are seeing through it.
it. And the judge has used gag orders to prevent Team Trump from even talking about key aspects of the case while the AG is outside and she can say whatever she wants and accuse them of fraud and say that they lied on the stand.
It is unbelievable.
As a former prosecutor and officer of the court, I have never seen anything like this in my entire life.
And they dragged the whole family. And as you know, Don Jr. and Eric Trump, Ivanka had to go in. It's unbelievable.
It's so un-American.
It really when you close your eyes, you say, wait a second, what country am I in?
How is this even happening?
And we even heard earlier this week, Dinesh, from a very key expert witness, Eli Bartov.
And he said that the whole case He said there's absolutely no evidence of accounting fraud whatsoever.
So, you know, yes, people tell me, Kimberly, this is going to be one for the, you know...
Appeals court, I'm quite certain because the judges prejudged this case that he is going to, you know, find Donald Trump, you know, liable and, you know, impose some insane amount of money and fine against them.
I don't know what's going to happen with the boys, Don Jr.
and Eric. I would hope that he would not find something against them.
Again, they did nothing wrong.
We'll be right back with Kim Guilfoyle, host of the Kimberly Guilfoyle Show on Rumble.
You can follow our next at Kim Guilfoyle.
My name is Mark Lichtenfeld, bestselling author of Get Rich with Dividends and chief income strategist at the Oxford Club, one of the world's largest and most prominent financial firms, where over 250,000 readers receive my insights each week.
I believe we're entering the greatest oil bull market since the 1970s.
That's why I'm so excited to share this special oil and gas investment with you today.
I've discovered an unusual way to potentially bank massive income from the oil and gas surge 100% outside the stock market.
Oil and gas royalties are a backdoor way to get paid over and over again, and you can get into a top royalty stream for just $25.
This is your chance to get the income you need to truly enjoy life, simply because you made the decision to give the Oxford income letter a risk-free try today.
But this opportunity won't last forever.
To learn more about Mark Lichtenfeld's unusual approach to generating monthly income from the oil markets, please visit oilpayday.com.
That's oilpayday.com.
Paid for by the Oxford Club.
I'm back with Kimberly Guilfoyle, host of the Kimberly Guilfoyle Show on Rumble.
Kim, you were talking about the New York case, and I'm beginning to wonder whether our justice system is crumbling a little bit across the board.
And I say that because it's one thing if you just had, let's just say, corruption in the DOJ at the direction of Biden.
But when you've got a rogue prosecutor in Georgia, and then you've got an effort to go after Trump in Florida, and then you've got an AG in New York campaigning, and then you've got a biased judge, and then we talk about biased juries in Washington, D.C., for example, in some of the January 6th cases.
I mean, this seems to be a problem that goes beyond a single runaway agency of government.
It appears now to be sort of seeping more widely into our justice system.
Would you agree? I totally would agree.
This is tantamount to election interference for 2024, and it's becoming so apparent.
And that's why, you know, quite frankly, the American people are really championing behind Donald Trump.
It's only backfired against the leftists that are trying to destroy this country, that have no respect for our elections or the integrity of the voting process.
They are trying to make sure and sideline Donald Trump, put him on the bench essentially so that he can't go out there and campaign because sleepy Joe Biden is not gonna do anything.
He's very lazy and also not capable of going out, commanding a crowd or anything like that.
So they used COVID before, now they're trying to use lawfare, a weaponized justice system to go after President Trump so that he can't campaign.
But it's going to backfire because we see now even in the polls, people who did not support and even vote for Donald Trump in the last election are inclined and supporting him That's libertarians, it's independents, so we're building a much bigger tent.
He's out there campaigning every chance he gets when he doesn't have to be appearing for a mugshot or in a court of law for some kangaroo court that is absolutely ridiculous.
It's like This is what Kim Jong-un and these people do in North Korea and other countries where they say, well, we're going to decide we're going to imprison, put our political opponents in jail, you know, and that's what they do.
But this is happening in the United States of America.
And that's why I tell people, like, wait a minute.
If it can happen to him, it can happen to you.
And they're defrauding and stealing from the American people because they are depriving each individual of their true and valid and legal vote by, you know, stuffing ballot boxes.
I mean, look at the movies that you've put forward and the success.
And why were your movies so compelling and so successful?
because you had the facts and the evidence and the American people were able to see it.
OK, with the mules that they used, all of the above.
Now they're adding to their repertoire.
OK, their bag of dirty tricks.
And now they're saying, OK, let's use the legal system, the court system to go after Donald Trump with all of these indictments and the mugshots.
And it's just it just, you know, defies logic.
It defies decency.
and I just really hope that we can get him across the finish line in 2020.
I believe that we can because we need to have a magnitude order of change and reform to our election system and, quite frankly, to our government agencies and institutions that have proved themselves to be corrupt and complicit to the core.
DOJ, CIA, FBI, IRS. I mean, Kim, I would add to this, the media, and I say that because I think you and I know that even if we walked tomorrow in the offices of the New York Times and showed them video evidence that the 2020 election was stolen, they would be like, thank you very much, thank you very much, and there would be not one word about it in the paper the next morning.
President Trump makes a comment about, you know, day one, and this is amplified by the media.
Meanwhile, they downplay the corruption of Biden.
Are you optimistic that despite the thick fog of the media, that people still are able to kind of see through the fog and go, you know what, there's just something really weird about throwing 91 plus charges against President Trump, trying to lock up the lead.
Do you think that message is getting through to the American people?
I really, really do.
I think it's resonating.
I think it's permeating throughout society that people see this because it's so excessive and so extreme.
But that shows you as well that that is all that the left has left is this corrupt justice system, the lawfare that they are using against the president.
And it's all because they're scared to death.
They cannot beat him at the ballot box.
I mean, it would seem that one of President Trump's great strengths was simply the fact that he was in office before.
And so if you say things will be terrible, and I see all these things now about how, oh, you know, he's really going to be a dictator if he gets into office.
Well, people can go, well, wait a minute, wasn't he president for four years?
You know, was he locking up members of the opposition party?
Was he shutting down the media?
None of it. So in other words, you know, it's one thing to accuse someone and say that they will do this and they will do that.
But when they've already been in office, I think it tells people that, you know what, this is just a lot of hype and we should pay no attention to it.
I know. It's so ridiculous, and it's so sophomoric and stupid.
I mean, you're absolutely right.
He was president for four years, okay?
There was nothing that he did that in any way, shape, or form resembled someone who thought they were in a dictatorship.
He's not going to do that, okay?
He's going to do his job with competency and have the best people in.
He's not going to have to worry about re-election.
We're going to get four solid great years of the best of his work and ability based on his previous experience and based on what he has gone through in the interim and what he has seen transpire in this country and with the Biden administration.
I'm telling you this.
It's so compelling.
I wish the election were held today, Dinesh.
OK, because as you know, in poll after poll, whether it's Des Moines Register, CNN, Wall Street Journal, McLaughlin, Real Clear Politics, Donald Trump is not only dominating the primary, OK, 40 plus points ahead, but he is really growing and gaining his lead over Joe Biden because of what they're doing on the left.
He's up in nearly every major swing state, and he's also boosting his numbers with younger voters and with Biden 2020 voters, which is very important.
He is pulling from Joe Biden's previous supporters, and I think that is a big deal, and it is scaring the Democrats to death.
I mean, it's like, whoops, there you go.
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, but they're trying to see if they can sort of, you know, push him gently, slowly.
You know, they always have handlers right on either side of him in case he collapses to the ground.
I mean, the guy can barely even stand up or put one foot in front of the other.
I'm not being facetious.
It's a serious concern about his cognitive and physical abilities.
Americans should be asking themselves that.
Is this man fit to be commander in chief?
Now, the juxtaposition to that is...
My God, President Trump is just like the Energizer Bunny.
You know, he's all go, go, go.
He's unbelievable. You know, we had him here at our house about two weeks ago, and he started at four in the morning, did a ton of campaign stops, went to Iowa, did a rally, landed in Palm Beach, came out to us in Jupiter, and stayed out there and gave a speech and talked to every just 700 people.
It was unbelievable. And everyone said to me, look at how good he looks.
Look at how much energy he has.
It's an Joe Biden could never do that.
He could never do that. And, you know, I think the people see it.
He's a hard worker, you know, and he's a serious person.
And he showed that he really is deserving of the title and of the position of commander in chief.
I think you know that you know him very well.
Absolutely. And I think in some ways, Biden's fumbling and bumbling is almost a metaphor for the state of the country under Biden.
And so I think people are getting that message.
Kim, thanks so much for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
Pleasure to be with you, Dinesh.
Mike Lindell and MyPillow are excited to bring you their biggest bedding sale ever and just in time for Christmas.
For a limited time, get the Geezer Dream bed sheets for as low as $29.98, a set of pillowcases for just $9.98 and rejuvenate your bed with a MyPillow mattress topper for as low as $99.99.
They also have blankets in a variety of sizes, colors and styles. They even have blankets for your pets. Get duvets, quilts, down comforters, body pillows, bolster pillows and so much more, all with the biggest discounts of the year and they're happening right now. They're also extending their money-back guarantee for Christmas until March 1st, 2024, making them the perfect gifts for your friends, your family and everyone you know. Here's the number to call 800-876-0227.
Once again, it's 800-876-0227.
Huge discounts on all the MyPillow bedding products, including the Giza Dream bedsheets for as low as $29.98.
Or you can just go to the website, mypillow.com, but make sure to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
The president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, is a plagiarist.
She was supposed to be one of the leading scholars in the country.
She is not.
And it turns out that even the stuff that she produces...
Leaving aside its overall intellectual mediocrity is, to some considerable degree, borrowed, stolen, lifted from other people.
And she has been plagiarizing from multiple scholars.
And this has come to light.
Not only has it come to light, I thought the story had been broken originally by Chris Ruffo on X. Chris and kind of a co-author released information about plagiarism.
And then the Free Beacon came out and said, oh no, we've got a lot more to this.
And they had more examples of plagiarism.
And the examples are...
Very clear, because what you have is side-by-side passages, and you look left, and then you look right, and you realize that the right is with maybe a word or two changed, exactly lifting the content of what's on the left-hand side.
By the way, often without providing proper quote marks and not providing proper citations.
Both are essential.
You need the quote marks to say, this is not my words.
This is what somebody else came up with.
That's why it's in quotes. And second, it's not enough even to do that.
You got to say, well, who do Where do you get it from?
And Carol made some interesting remarks in this connection where she basically said, A, she said, this is plagiarism.
She goes, B, there has been a, and I'll talk a little bit more about this in the next segment, a real decline of academic standards when it comes particularly to black scholars, people like Like Claudine Gay.
And third, she says that if Claudine Gay were white, she would be removed as president of Harvard.
Well, I would go even further.
If Claudine Gay were white, she would never have been made president of Harvard in the first place.
Now, you know, plagiarism is...
For some people who don't know about academic regimes and academic standards, they'll be like, plagiarism? Well, you lifted it from somebody else. What's the big deal? Well, plagiarism, in terms of the intellectual coin, is theft. And it's theft because when you...
Well, think of intellectual property.
If I come up with an invention, a new discovery, it's my discovery.
I made it. And that is my intellectual property because I'm the person who had the discovery, the insight.
I wrote, let's say, the paper.
I published a paper revealing this insight.
It's going to be a permanent addition, let's say, to human knowledge.
And then some other guy comes and takes the same idea and claims that he came up with it.
Well, what is that? That's theft.
And it's theft of, I mean, intellectuals would say, of a currency even more valuable than money, because after all, an intellectual is defined by his or her ideas.
This is their contribution to society.
They may get a salary for teaching a class, but it's this discovery for which they're going to be noted, they're going to be remembered, their reputation depends on it.
So when you go to college, They teach you very early on that plagiarism is bad.
And not only is it bad, it's bad enough that if you do it, you are going to be kicked out of college.
And then when you ask about what is plagiarism, they say, listen, this is not simply a matter of taking an essay, a page, a paragraph.
You cannot even take a single line from somebody else and use it verbatim without A, the quote marks, and B, the citation.
So a lot of us, I mean a lot of people, have gone through college with a certain amount of anxiety.
Anxiety for the simple reason that you can accidentally plagiarize. You're looking at something, you memorize what they said, you then out of your own mind repeat the line.
It's almost like you've got to go back and check to make sure that you are not doing plagiarism, that you are giving credit where credit is due. Well, Claudine Gay, the kind of leader of American academia. Harvard is the premier university in the country and maybe there's some debate about that.
Some people would say Stanford has now eclipsed Harvard.
But nevertheless, Harvard is up there.
And to have the president of Harvard be a recognized plagiarist, I mean, what a disgrace.
Christmas is coming up, but if you're suffering from aches and pains, I cannot think of a gift that's better for you than feeling good again.
It may even be better than getting a new car.
And here's an idea.
Relief Factor. It's the gift that helps people relieve pain and feel good once again.
Relief Factor is a daily supplement that helps your body fight back against pain.
It's 100% drug-free.
Relief Factor was developed by doctors searching for a better alternative for pain.
Relief Factor uses a unique formula of natural ingredients like turmeric and omega-3s to help reduce or eliminate the everyday aches and pains you're experiencing.
Whether it's neck, back, joint, or muscle pain, Relief Factor can help you feel better.
Unlike pills that simply mask your pain for a short time, Relief Factor helps support your body's natural response to inflammation so you'll feel better all day, every day.
See how Relief Factor can help you with their 3-week quick start kit.
It's only $19.95 and it comes with Relief Factor's feel-better or your money-back guarantee.
So what do you have to lose?
Visit relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. The number again, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
When you feel the difference, you know it works.
Not only is the president of Harvard a plagiarist, but Harvard knew about it.
And they knew about it before these articles came out just in the last couple of days.
They've known about it for weeks.
And they've even admitted that they know about it.
And clearly, when they found out about it, they pulled together a committee whose job was to kind of, I don't know if I should use this word, whitewash the plagiarism.
Essentially say, well, there's plagiarism and then there's plagiarism.
To say, in effect, that this was sort of plagiarism of the not-so-bad quality.
And so, yes, some steps need to be taken.
She needs to send in some corrections to her earlier articles.
But this is not a fireable offense.
Now, wait, what?
If a student gets kicked out of school for being a plagiarist, why wouldn't the president of Harvard be kicked out of the country's, let's say, premier academic institution for being a plagiarist?
This is actually, in some respects, from an academic point of view, even worse than the antisemitism of Claudine Gay.
Now, you might say that in a moral sense, antisemitism is far worse than To go before a congressional committee and basically say that genocide depends on the context?
What? The Holocaust depends on the context.
You know, the Kristallnacht, the breaking of the windows of Jewish...
Well, it depends on the context.
And all this jejun nonsense from Claudine Gay about, well, I failed to speak my truth, as if these events are somehow subjective, that this was her truth.
And so... All of this is abominable.
And I agree that in a kind of broader sense, societal sense, it's far worse what she did in minimizing, excusing, and downplaying anti-Semitism, but even more, in encouraging a kind of witch hunt atmosphere on campus against these so-called oppressor groups, which, by the way, is not just Jews, but also Asian Americans, also whites.
It's like open season on these groups because they're not classified as victim groups.
She did all that. That alone is enough reason to expel her.
And by the way, she's only been president for a year, so it'll hardly be noticed if she's gone.
But Harvard was determined to protect her.
When the New York Post found out about the plagiarism, they had gotten an anonymous tip.
And this is, again, several—this was a while ago.
The New York Post approached Harvard, and Harvard said, we'll get back to you, we'll get back to you, but they never got back to the New York Post.
And instead, a defamation firm, hired by Harvard, contacted the New York Post and essentially threatened them.
Don't you dare publish this, because you're going to be facing severe liability.
So the New York Post has now revealed that they were at the receiving end of an intimidation strategy by Harvard.
So this is what Harvard's all about.
Not about revealing truth.
Harvard's motto is veritas or truth.
They're not about veritas any more than the DOJ, the Department of Justice, is these days about justice.
They're not. Harvard's idea here was, how do we cover up for Claudine Gay?
We don't care that she's a plagiarist.
What we want to do is protect the whole diversity industry, the whole affirmative action.
Well, you'd have to say affirmative action establishment.
Because if you flash back, why'd they hire Claudine Gay?
By and large, because she's black.
And not only black, but she's a black leftist.
If Claudine Gay were black and a conservative, like for example, would Carol Swain be hired as president of Harvard?
Never. Would Thomas Sowell in his younger days have been considered?
Never. So even though Carol Swain is a far more distinguished scholar than Claudine Gay, which by the way, Claudine Gay knows.
That's why she's plagiarizing from Carol Swain.
They would never appoint Swain.
They need a leftist.
And then because this is an affirmative action regime, you get somebody who's not only a leftist, but also kind of dumb.
Someone who doesn't live up to academic standards.
But the dirty little secret of elite universities is that they've made their peace with mediocrity.
Which means they're really not such elite institutions anymore.
I think Harvard has taken a huge blow to its prestige.
This is a continuing hemorrhaging.
I mean, think about it. You have a plagiarist as the head of your institution, and the plagiarism doesn't go away because it's example upon example upon example.
No matter how much Harvard says we've convened a committee that's concluded otherwise, we know that Claudine Gay is as guilty as was Kevin Cruz when he was accused of plagiarism, and yet Princeton sort of goes, again, same sort of thing.
Well, there are some disturbing resemblances, but this was inadvertent.
It's not really plagiarism, or it is plagiarism, but not plagiarism of the worst kind.
And so what you have here is a complete totemic disgrace to American higher education, and maybe that's how it should be.
Maybe we should have an affirmative action plagiarist in leading our premier institutions to send the message out, not only to America, but to the world, that these institutions ain't what they used to be.
Debbie and I are on a really good health journey, but we still struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber, and those are a requirement.
Now, lucky for us, we discovered Balance of Nature, and there's no better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature.
This is Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies in a capsule, so easy to take, made from fresh whole produce.
The produce is powdered after an advanced vacuum-cold process, which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
And this is Balance of Nature's Fiber and Spice.
Debbie swears by it, a proprietary blend of fiber and 12 spices for overall and digestive health.
Join Debbie and me and start your journey to better health right now.
Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
You get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code AMERICA. Again, it's balanceofnature.com or call 800-246-8751.
Get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code AMERICA. I want to talk about the Cochrane study on masks.
Cochrane is a research outfit that aggregates scholarly data of the highest standards.
And the Cochrane study is revealing that masks don't work.
The leader of the study, one of the co-authors of the study, basically said that masks are useless.
And it was that emphatic statement.
Not that masks don't work as well as we expected.
Not that masks don't work 100%.
But that masks don't work at all.
And this has been a huge embarrassment to the sort of, let's call it the COVID industry.
Because the COVID industry has already gotten busted for saying things like, if you take the vaccine, you can't get COVID, false.
Or if you take the vaccine, you can't transmit COVID, false.
But at least their idea, and it was somewhat of an intuitive idea, that if you put an obstruction in front of your face, I mean, everyone realizes it's limited, right?
Because it's kind of like saying, you know, I can't get a mosquito bite because I'm wearing a shirt.
Well, yeah, but isn't the mosquito small enough to be able to slip down your...
Well, yeah, but at least the shirt offers some protection.
It's going to make it a little more difficult for me to get stung, let's just say, on my chest than it would be on my hand because my hand is exposed.
So that's the kind of intuitive argument for masks.
They may not work all that well, but they've got to work somewhat because they're providing a sort of cloth barrier or some kind of a barrier to the virus getting through.
And yet, the Cochrane study shows that is not the case.
And so, there are people on the left who have been trying to push back against the Cochrane study.
So think about this. Here's a researcher in Scientific American.
She's a Harvard professor, Naomi Orestes.
And she says the Cochrane study is flawed because it uses too high a standard to measure the efficacy of masks.
Too high a standard. I mean, is it possible for academic standards to be like too high?
What is she getting at?
She says, well, they're only looking at randomized studies.
Now, randomized studies is the way you do studies.
Because if you don't do a random study, let's say, for example, I'm trying to do a study of how many people are going to vote for Trump.
And I go to my friends and I say, guys, are you planning to vote for Trump or Biden?
And then I put out on social media, survey shows that 90% of people are going to vote for Trump.
People will go, Dinesh, that's not a randomized study.
First of all, you used a small sample.
And second of all, it's a biased sample.
It's not a random sample at all.
So this is the benefit of randomized studies.
They establish certain parameters to what the study comes out right.
And yet, Naomi Oreskes of Harvard is saying that all the Cochrane study did is they used randomized studies.
They didn't use what I call observational studies.
And of course, the CDC had been relying on these observational studies, and the Cochrane study criticizes that and goes, listen, observational studies where you're just sort of looking at a mask and just by observation, you're like, you know what, I guess that does provide some sort of obstruction of the virus, even though you're talking about a microscopic virus.
These observational studies are not real data.
It's one thing to do a media report on them, but for them to be featured in scientific journals is nothing short of an embarrassment.
And yet the CDC was relying on this to say that we should all wear a mask.
And Oreskes basically says that if masks are used properly, then they can have some effectiveness.
But again, the Cochrane study, which considered this, goes, well, it makes no sense to discuss a hypothetical.
If everybody put their mask on and wore it in the correct way and for the correct time, in other words, let's say, didn't take it off until you are about to eat at a restaurant, kept it on all the rest of the time, the Cochrane study goes, we have to study masks as people actually use them.
If people pull off their masks because they are getting a little uncomfortable, or they pull off their masks because they want to wipe their face, or they pull off their masks because they only want to wear the mask for 30 minutes at a time and not continually, then Cochrane goes, that is what people are doing.
You have to measure the efficacy of a mask given the way that people are using the mask or not using the mask as the case may be.
And then Cochran also looks particularly at children wearing masks and points out that the benefits, if any, to these children are far outweighed by the cost.
In other words, there's a whole body of data on how bad it is to mask children, how this affects their social interaction, it affects their social learning.
It sort of retards them intellectually, emotionally, socially, and that is well known.
And yet the benefit of the mask is unknown.
It's speculative. The masks work no better on children than they work on adults.
And in fact, very often with children, they're more likely to pull them off.
They're more likely to use them in a less systematic way than adults.
So what you've had is a certain kind of child abuse that has been justified by the left in the name of COVID. And then you've got now this pathetic effort to attack, well, not just Cochrane, but attack the very idea of using scientific standards through randomized studies, which are the accepted kind of gold coin of And why?
Because what they're trying to do here is retroactively justify the oppressive COVID regime that was imposed on all of us in the name of fighting this virus.
The left did all these bad things, and now they're trying to say what we did was not so bad.
I'm in a chapter of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago called the Supreme Measure, the Supreme Measure referring to capital punishment, execution.
And Solzhenitsyn begins by talking about a single case of six peasants who were executed really just for Making some extra crop for themselves.
You know, they had to grow their crops, turn it over to the committee, the Soviet committee.
They grew a little extra to feed their own cattle, and they got caught, and death penalty.
So Solzhenitsyn, he looks not only at the big picture, but he also looks at small cases like this, and he goes back and forth between the particular and the general with great skill.
He talks about the fact that in the executions of 1937-38, he goes, I've been trying to find out, he says, how many were executed.
He goes, you can't. Why?
Because no official records are kept.
He goes, there is none, meaning there is no data, and there never will be any.
And yet he says that when you do estimates, you're talking about giant numbers of people.
For example, in the two years of 37 and 38, a half million people executed.
To get a sense of scale, in the previous 30 years before communism, the number was something like 430.
So, a ramping up of execution.
And he says, and this is not intended to be amusing, but he says they keep sort of abolishing capital punishment, but then they say, well, except for a few cases where it's like really necessary.
So, for example, traitors, after all, do need to be shot.
And then political people who are undermining the regime, well, yeah, we do need to kill them.
And yeah, you know, habitual thieves, we do need to kill them.
So the law operates on one level.
Oh, we've abolished capital punishment.
But on the other hand, people are being executed.
So you really haven't.
Then Solzhenitsyn talks about the fact that none of this is really memorialized.
He goes, when you have these big numbers, case upon case, he goes, the cases just pass like statistics.
And they're quickly forgotten.
He goes... He goes, and if someday the relatives of those who had been shot were to send a publisher photographs of their executed kin and an album of those photographs were to be published in several volumes, you know, just names, faces.
This is what happened to that guy.
So-and-so date. He was shot.
He goes, then just by leafing through them and looking through the extinguished eyes, we would learn much that would be valuable for the rest of our lives.
And he says such kind reading, almost without words, I mean just pictures, would leave a deep mark on our hearts for all eternity.
What Solzhenitsyn is talking about here is the sort of second offense.
The first offense is the execution.
The second offense is the removal of memory so that you don't even know what happened.
You don't even record.
Nobody mourns for this guy.
It's like it's as if he never existed.
And yet there are many, one upon another, extending into the tens, hundreds of thousands of people.
He goes, in one household I'm familiar with, where some former Zex's peasants live, the following ceremony takes place.
On the day of the death of the head murderer, so these are people now, their relatives have been murdered, and the guy who was in charge of doing that, the head murderer, Soldier Eason calls him, But at some point, that guy dies.
And so the question is, what do all these families do now that this guy who killed so many of their relatives is gone?
So Solzhenitsyn is now talking about a single case.
He goes on March 5th, they spread out on the table all the photographs of those who were shot and those who died in camps that they have been able to collect. Several dozen of them. Notice that this is being done by one family. You know how sometimes people go, I know one guy this happened to, I know one guy who's committed suicide, but here they're talking about many people known to a single family who have died one way or another. They've been shot, they've been
sent to the camps where they'll never be seen again, and so when the head murderer, as Solzhenitsyn calls them, dies, they're like, okay, let's just put photographs on the table of everybody who this guy victimized.
And throughout the day, solemnity reigns in the apartment, somewhat like that of a church, somewhat like that of a museum.
There is funeral music, a kind of memorial music played in the background.
Friends come to visit, to look at the photographs, to keep silent, to listen, to talk softly together, and then they leave without saying goodbye.
Now, what is, we may ask, the point of this?
These people are already dead.
But nevertheless, it is that respect that you show, not only to the dead, but it's a respect that you show that you acknowledge that these are people with dignity, they have been murdered by a wicked regime, and you are not going to allow those events to pass out of your memory.
So this is, you could almost say that memory is the first draft of history where families record and memorialize.
This is what happened to our family members.
And then it takes a guy like Solzhenitsyn to go around and talk to these different families and talk to people in the camps and make meticulous records with names and dates and times.
And right here, for example, just on the adjoining page, I'll hold it up, Solzhenitsyn himself provides six photographs.
Of people who have been killed with their names.
And think of it. This is probably all we know about them in history.
They're not in any Soviet history book.
All of that has been wiped out, has been extinguished.
But here they are living on in a weird way in the Gulag Archipelago.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
Export Selection