All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 19, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
53:30
ORIGINAL TARGET Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep772
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll examine the latest revelations in the Trump New York case and also the Fannie Willis case in Georgia.
I'll tell you what's going to come next.
George Papadopoulos, the original target of the spying directed at the Trump campaign.
This is going back to 2016.
Join me. We're going to talk about new revelations and the way in which Obama and Hillary and that whole gang Conducted a massive spying operation on Papadopoulos, on Trump, on the Trump campaign, all with a view to portraying Trump as a Russian asset and helping Hillary win the 2016 election.
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.
I want to react to the two big cases that involve Trump that had important developments at the end of last week.
The Fannie Willis case.
I call it the Fannie Willis case because it's becoming increasingly the Fannie Willis case.
It started out as the Georgia case over the 2020 election.
And the other one is the case involving Judge Engeron.
This is the Trump supposed overvaluation of his properties case in which Trump got a horrible verdict with a giant fine.
A fine of $355 million, not to mention a prohibition for Trump doing business in New York.
I'll come to that, but let me say a word about the Fannie Willis case.
I'm having watched a good bit of that hearing, the hearing involving Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis, It seems obvious what's going on, and yet the question to me is, if the judge wants to rule for Willis, is there a way for him to kind of plausibly justify that?
Now, let's remember that the Fannie Willis case is not about the fact that Fannie Willis had an affair.
It has to do with two things.
One, did she lie to the court?
Did this relationship, which she says began in 2022, actually begin then, or did it begin earlier in 2019, as one of the witnesses, actually a friend, testified?
If the judge believes that it began earlier, that's very bad news for Fannie Willis, because how do you have somebody who's the chief prosecutor of Fulton County in a highly sensitive case involving Trump and other defendants if you can't believe that they can even tell the truth to the court in an official proceeding?
So I think if the judge believes the witness that the relationship began earlier, that would probably by itself be enough for Fannie Willis to be disqualified.
The second issue, a little more murky, is the issue of whether Fannie Willis benefited from this.
And this is important because the key issue here is she paid this lawyer all this money.
And did she do it, A, because he was her boyfriend?
That would be corruption on the face of it.
And B, did she herself get some of that money back because he turned around and spent the money on her?
Now, Fannie Willis produced this sort of far out, and I would say preposterous on the face of its story, that for all these trips they took together and all these vacations and cruise tickets and airplane tickets and money they spent, that Wade paid on his credit card and she paid him back in cash.
In other words, she was unable to produce receipts to say, here's all the money I paid him back.
Here's the proof. I did it.
Here are the checks I wrote. She even denied she went to the ATM to get the money because presumably you could go to the ATM and see if it was in fact the case.
At least, is she on the surveillance cameras of those ATMs?
If she can say, oh, I used to go every Tuesday to the ATM and get the money.
But no, she claimed, I just kept cash in the house, large amounts of cash.
This is sort of what black people do.
My dad taught me to do this.
So this is a case where the excuse is ridiculous.
It makes no sense.
Nobody watching this case, and even the MSNBC legal analyst watching it was like, this looks really bad for Fannie Willis.
So the truth of it is that the judge should I mean, he should throw Fannie Willis and Wade off the case.
There might even be reason to disbar Fannie Willis.
There may be even criminal charges that could come later.
But the starting point would be she can no longer prosecute this case against Trump.
And by the way, that would be a devastating blow to the case.
It's not even clear the case could get back off the ground if that happens.
But... The judge could, in a sense, say, if he wants to, and this comes to what, you know, judges don't like to admit that they have free dispositions.
I'm looking for a way to save Fannie Willis.
But the truth is that judges and very often jurors do.
They like the person, for example, who's accused of murder.
He seems like a good guy, a family man.
I'm looking for reasonable doubt.
Let's turn to the Judge N. Garand case where something very interesting is happening after this horrendous verdict, a verdict that has sent shockwaves through the real estate industry.
In fact, In fact, Kevin O'Leary, this is the Shark Tank guy, this is a guy who deals with real estate, has said on television more than once, everybody in real estate attaches a kind of exaggerated value to their properties.
Why? Because property values are subjective.
You buy a house for $5 million, you can then sell it for $6 million, $8 million, $10 million.
It all depends. It depends on how much the guy who wants to buy it will pay for it.
So what's the value of Mar-a-Lago, of Trump Tower?
Is it possible to just look at an appraisal, often an appraisal made for tax purposes?
I can tell you if you look at my house right now, there's a tax appraisal, which is essentially an incremental increase of the value of the house over the years.
And then there's what I could sell it for, which is a completely different number.
And that's normal.
Kevin O'Leary was saying that, listen, it's customary to have this back and forth with banks.
I have a building. It's 35 stories.
I say it's worth half a billion dollars.
I want to get a loan based on that.
You say it's worth $300 million.
We argue about it.
Maybe we agree. Let's go with $400 million and you give me a loan for $400 million.
This is the normal give and take.
Banks have their own appraisers.
And this only becomes an issue if somehow the bank claims, hey, listen, you told me lies about your property.
I took action based upon that.
I lost a whole bunch of money.
In this case, the case admits, the judge admits, that the banks didn't lose money.
The bank put forward witnesses that said, we didn't lose money.
In fact, we do it again. This is our normal practice of doing business.
So... The case is ridiculous.
The verdict is absurd.
It'll probably be overturned on appeal.
At least I hope it will.
But here is the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, assuring New York real estate businesses that they will not be targeted for inflating valuations to secure better loans like Trump did.
So think about what she's really saying.
She's saying, you guys have nothing to worry about.
We know, she's saying implicitly, we know that you do the same thing as Trump did.
You make a claim for what your property is worth.
The banks then evaluate that claim.
They decide. So it's a free market.
They decide if they want to make the loans.
We're not going to pull you into court and have a judge decide, no, you misrepresented the values of your property.
Why? Because this would destroy the real estate business in New York.
So what the governor of New York is admitting is they had to do a one-off prosecution of Trump.
Trump and Trump alone is going to be targeted for this crime.
This is something that Democratic officials campaigned on.
What they're basically saying is, we carried out our campaign pledges.
We got this guy. We found a friendly judge and an ideologue.
So, in other words, we carried out our witch hunt, and our witch hunt, at least to this point, has been successful.
And it has been successful to the degree that Trump now has to post a giant bond while he appeals the case.
So this is all a way of tying him up financially, tying him up in litigation, tying him up with regard to his time, in all kinds of ways disabling his businesses, making it more difficult for him to successfully carry out a campaign for president.
That is really what that is all about.
Quite frankly, Debbie and I got a little tired of having to replace our trees every time we had a freeze. We went tropical.
And now we regret it. But we had to replace our trees, so we wanted an easy and convenient and economical way to get them.
And then we discovered FastGrowingTrees.com.
Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the U.S. with more than 10,000 different kinds of plants, with over 2 million happy customers in the U.S.?
But besides outdoor plants, you can grow lemon, avocado, olive or fig trees inside your home on top of the wide variety of houseplants available.
Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to order online.
Your plants are shipped directly to your door in one to two days.
And along with their 30-day Alive and Thrive guarantee, they offer free plant consultation forever.
Right now, they have the best deals online up to half off on select plants and listeners to our show get an additional 15% off when using the code Dinesh at checkout.
That's an additional 15% off at FastGrowingTrees.com using the code Dinesh at checkout.
FastGrowingTrees.com, code Dinesh.
The offer is valid for a limited time.
Tell them we sent you.
There's nothing worse than hearing about people living in pain.
This is why I want to tell you about Keith from Washington and his relief factor story.
After years of activity from college football to running a martial arts studio, at age 51, Keith's body felt like it was wearing out.
So he gave Relief Factor a try.
Keith says he now has little to no pain in my knees, highly reduced neck pain.
He's feeling better. He pursued a second-degree black belt.
So that's Keith's story. But it's not only his story.
It's the story of so many people.
This is something that's worked for me and Debbie.
It's worked for our family.
It's worked for our friends. So if you're living with aches and pains, you don't have to.
See how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, could help you feel and live better every day.
To get started, Try this.
It's Relief Factor's three-week quick start kit.
It's only $19.95.
Comes with a 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.
You'll feel the difference.
Guys, I'm really happy to welcome back to the podcast a friend, George Papadopoulos.
And you know George Papadopoulos.
he was the, well, one of the primary targets, maybe the original target of the Trump spying, the spying campaign to get Trump and to get Trump through Trump's advisors.
George is an author.
He's a former member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Panel to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
He's also, his book, which is more timely than ever, Deep State Target, How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.
You can follow him on social media, at GeorgePapa19.
George Papadopoulos, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for joining me.
It seems like your story and your book have sort of bounced right back into the headlines with some interesting new reporting and new revelations about the spying campaign conducted against you and against the Trump campaign.
I want to start by actually just talking about your story, your description of that Of how that took place.
And then we'll come to what we have learned recently and how that ties into your story.
So kind of begin with the fact that here you are.
You're, you know, kind of a low guy on the totem pole.
You're not running the Trump campaign.
But you are working for the Trump campaign and you're based in Europe.
And maybe that's one of the reasons that you came into their sights.
Talk about what happened. So, Dadash, it's great to be back with you in this very, very timely talk that we're going to have based on the bombshell story that Matt Taibbi and Schellenberger released regarding what I think is probably the most devastating piece that has ever been written against the U.S. and foreign allied intelligence services.
What's My story is at the epicenter of, is this scandal in which both the CIA, along with Western intelligence, including British MI6 and Australian intelligence, Canadian intelligence and New Zealand intelligence, worked hand in glove with the Obama administration to sabotage not only the Trump campaign, but of course later on the Trump administration.
So the story is that I left the Ben Carson campaign where I was working as a foreign policy advisor after a career in Washington DC at a various establishments, a think tank called the Hudson Institute.
And according to the reporting, Trump wasn't the only candidate that was being spied on.
Ben Carson actually was one of the 26 individuals that was targeted by the CIA and Western intelligence.
So I believe that there was a mark on particular individuals, obviously the 26 various candidates.
I just happened to join two candidates who were targeted.
And the moment I joined Trump's campaign, you could understand that this thing was predetermined and completely fabricated.
I mean, one of the, I think, aspects of this new reporting is simply the notion that, I mean, the US intelligence agencies made it seem like the foreign intelligence agencies were worried about Russian infiltration into the Trump campaign.
They came to the U.S. intelligence agencies and said, hey guys, we've got this stuff.
And then the U.S. intelligence agencies went, we better look more into this.
But it sounds like from Taibbi and Schellenberger that the truth is the exact opposite.
That it was the U.S. intelligence agencies that kind of called up, recruited these foreign intelligence agencies and basically said, we need your help.
Let's work together.
So it was the point being that this was initiated, it was baked, it was cooked, it was launched out of the United States and not sort of information provided from abroad.
Dinesh, at the very least, according to the reporting that we have seen, the behavior conducted by the CIA with Five Eyes was tantamount to a criminal conspiracy against the Trump campaign.
That's exactly what was described and what you just explained.
At the very worst, what they did was actually subvert the democratic process of the United States.
In a matter that has now impacted three different elections at a minimum, 2016, 2020, of course, where we had the CIA willfully suppressing the Hunter Biden story with the 51 intel agents, which obviously tilted the election, arguably. And of course, now, with these revelations, you have both domestic and foreign implications.
domestically, you have FISA for renewal, you have the funding for Ukraine in this war with Russia, and of course, globally, as I mentioned in recent interview with Marie Bartiromo as well, how does the US conduct in diplomacy if they can't trust our allies?
If you or I or a Trump official or a Biden official for that matter, is having a intimate meeting with their British counterpart or their Australian counterpart, which are supposedly our closest allies, how are we now, based on this reporting, expecting that this individual across from the table from us is not going to spy on us or relay that information to the opposition?
perhaps to an enemy counterpart.
This is really the biggest impact I see from this story and I think it's going to rock how the United States actually conducts its bilateral relationship with these countries and potentially even Russia and others.
So I think this is some of the fallout that we're just now beginning to see and I think there's going to be a lot more moving forward.
I mean, one other aspect, George, that caught my attention, and it affirms your point that this has a relevance even for 2024, was the suggestion that the Mar-a-Lago raid might have had an ulterior motive.
In other words, Trump has these documents, and there is apparently a missing file, a missing file that might reveal The extent of the CIA and U.S. intelligence agencies spying on the Trump campaign.
That file, which is missing, that may be what the intelligence agencies figured is, well, maybe it's at Mar-a-Lago.
So let's do this big raid on Mar-a-Lago.
It'll have to have some sort of pretext or excuse.
But one of its real purposes is...
Is to locate this file because we don't want this file to get out.
It might contain far more information than people already have.
So, in other words, a continuation of the same nefarious operations, all of them camouflaged as legitimate.
Well, you know, he took the documents.
He should have given them back.
And so the raid was presented as on the up and up.
But in fact, would you be surprised to discover that it had this kind of an ulterior motive?
No. In fact, we've seen a disturbing pattern over close to a year now, Dinesh, where anytime there's positive news coming out about either President Trump, the Laga movement, America First candidates, a day to 72 hours later, there's always some sort of reaction by the Biden administration to You had the Hunter laptop story being verified, the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
You had America First candidates doing well in the blast primaries.
You had various other distractions coming out.
Every single time that a story of this magnitude impacts either the U.S. intelligences or the Biden family, there's always this type of reaction.
So I believe...
That while it was a good idea to impeach Mayorkas for the disaster at the border, if it is indeed proven that Garland instructed the FBI to raid a former president's house for the principal purpose to take criminal evidence...
Against President Obama and potentially the sitting U.S. President that I think impeachment should be the last of Garland's concerns at this point and a potential indictment in a future administration should be on the table because what you're looking at essentially is a cover-up, a criminal scheme, a conspiracy to not only defraud the United States but obviously to cover up the crime of the century.
So I think if Trump...
I think that's where we are in that topic.
I mean, George, that's a brilliant idea.
And I would even say this, that what's interesting about the presidential immunity case, which is now before the Supreme Court, the issue being, of course, what is the extent?
Does Trump have absolute immunity for his actions as president?
Let's hypothesize that the Supreme Court decides no.
Trump has some immunity, but he doesn't have absolute immunity.
And that his immunity certainly does not extend to when he is no longer president.
Well, it seems to me that we have now a wonderful reason to criminally indict Obama if we have the means to do so.
In other words, if Trump wins the election...
The new attorney general needs to say, all right, let's look and see if there are actions that Obama took as president that were, in fact, criminal actions.
Obviously, we now learn from the Supreme Court that these are no longer, or they're not protected by the Constitution, and there's no reason that we can't hold Obama accountable.
Do you see that as a, I mean, I don't know if that's likely, but could it happen?
Didesh, you explained it very well.
The precedent has now been set.
And of course, when you're discussing an operation at this level, which basically subverted our 2016 election and sabotaged an entire administration, and you look at the type of partners involved here from high-level ambassadors, prime ministers, CIA heads, MI6 chiefs, potentially Mossad, according to the Taibbi article were
referenced in some sort of connection to the city of Rome.
That type of, I guess, if you want to use the old word, the coalition of the willing could never have been put together unless the sitting president of the United States of America, which was then of course, President Obama, did this because our US allies are not in the business to go out of their way to potentially sabotage their own assets and to expose their methods and sources that go into this type of sensitive work, especially against American citizens working on presidential campaigns,
candidates and presidents.
So now that the precedent has been set that you can indict and bring a former president in front of courtrooms and try and embarrass him and give him mud shots over the most obscure baseless charges that are, I mean, these are laughable charges that are completely politicized I think when you're looking at a crime of a century, like was revealed last week, including conspiracy, I think Obama should be wearing right out of the National Park.
Let's take a pause, George. When we come back, you've had the rare experience of being on the ground and experiencing how this kind of a very sly campaign is carried out.
It's carried out by people who pretend like they're your friends, they're your business associates, they're just having a sort of Swapping of information type of meeting, but in fact they're trying to get you to say something, to admit something, and then boom, they're ready to spring the trap.
When we come back, let's talk more about how that actually happened.
As Christians, we have a sacred duty to honor and respect Israel and the Jewish people as God's chosen ones.
In Genesis, God promised Abraham, I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you, I will curse.
This covenant remains binding today.
Israel is a We're good to go.
Boji also uses humanitarian outreach to support all Israelis.
Let's fulfill our duty as Christians to bless the Jewish people.
The fields are ripe for harvest in the Holy Land where our faith was born.
Will you seize this moment, rise up with voice of Judah Israel, empower the Jewish people.
Let's fulfill our duty as Christians.
Let's bless Israel.
And communicate to them that they are not alone.
Your financial support ensures the ongoing ministry of Voice of Judah Israel.
So visit vojisrael.org slash Dinesh.
That's vojisrael.org slash Dinesh.
Mike Lindell and the employees of MyPillow want to thank my listeners for all your continued support.
Thank you. They're having an overstock clearance sale right now for the best prices ever when you use promo code Dinesh and you get free shipping on your entire order.
Get 50% off the MyPillow 2.0.
That's the pillows. Also on the brand new flannel sheets.
Get six-pack towel sets for just $29.98 and take advantage of the free shipping on larger items like mattresses, mattress toppers.
They're 100% made in the USA on sale for as low as $99.99.
Everything is on sale from the brand new kitchen towels to the bath towels, the dog beds, the robes, the blankets, the couch pillows, and so much more.
So check it out to get the best specials ever.
Go to MyPillow.com.
Use promo code Dinesh or you can call Dinesh.
800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Get free shipping on your entire order while supplies last.
I'm back with the one and only George Papadopoulos.
Follow him on social media at GeorgePapa19.
His book, More Timely Than Ever, Deep State Target, How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.
And this is exactly, George, what I want to talk to you about.
As I mentioned, you went through it.
You experienced it firsthand.
A lot of times when these things happen, people are intrigued about the mechanics of it.
Like, how did it go down?
So can you pick the story up?
You're a young staffer for Trump.
You're in Europe. What is the year?
What is the rough time period?
And what happens first? So, and I always reference this now to the Taibbi article because for so many years and fortunately what we're discussing today or what I have been saying and I wrote in 2019 in my book, the mainstream media called conspiracy stuff.
Now it's all been substantiated with unbiased robust reporting.
So the Taibbi article referenced an MI6 linked organization in London that was basically setting me up.
Now, this organization hired me after I left the Ben Carson campaign for a couple months in London.
I didn't understand really what that was about.
I was an advisor in the energy industry.
They wanted to be some sort of director of energy.
Met some interesting people, a lot of reporters from the Financial Times, some diplomats, some American diplomats.
Just over three weeks of being there.
When I tell this organization I'm leaving, I'm going to be working for Donald Trump's campaign.
That's when you could see the wheels in their head start spinning.
That's when individuals who really have never been scrutinized, like I'm about to explain to you, started to tell me, oh, this is a bad idea.
What are you doing?
You shouldn't do that.
You have a promising career and this and that.
But if you're serious about it, before you go, we're going to invite you to go to Rome to meet some interesting people now.
The head of this organization, which was the London Center for International Law Practice, was a woman named Arvinder Sambe.
Now, this woman is incredibly important because in the spring of 2016, when I was in London, and I'm, I guess, a newly hired person at this organization, she seemed like a middle-aged professional lawyer.
That's all I knew about her, that she wanted me to go to Rome to meet people.
This woman... I learned later, actually worked with Bob Mueller, the infamous Bob Mueller, after 9-11, and was a chief, apparently, defense counsel of some nature to the MI6 in the UK. The British Intelligence Service, right? The British Intelligence Service.
So, the point I'm making is here that everything leading up to my infamous meeting with Joseph Mipset in Rome, That the individual who is the genesis of the entire scandal actually begins and ends in London through an MI6, reportedly, organization.
Then I go to Rome, to Link Campus, where I'm presented from the ex-Italian foreign minister to meet this person, Joseph Mipsa.
Now, think about what I just said.
An MI6-connected organization.
The lawyer who's connected to Bob Luller introduces me to the ex-Italian foreign minister in Rome at a university called Link Campus, which David Ignatius of the Washington Post has reported on, and it's called a spy school.
The CIA trains there, apparently.
Italian intelligence trains there.
And when I was there at this symposium, you had the opposition of Libya at a time when Obama decimated Libya.
It was divided among two warring factions, and their opposition was there having a conference, and a lot of Italian officials were there.
That's how the entire initial meeting happened.
And mind you, Dinesh, and this is incredibly important for your viewers and you to understand, all this happened before the Washington Post even released my name, that I was going to be joining the Trump campaign.
So you can understand how involved and how watched I was, and I'm certain others were, leading up to the infamous spontaneous investigation launch in July 2016.
I mean, George, that is fascinating in itself.
And what also fascinates me is the way in which these intelligence agencies operate through the infrastructure of universities, think tanks.
They organize symposia and conferences.
To the naive outsider, it would appear like prominent figures are having an open-minded discussion of what's happening in Libya, for example.
But in reality, there's always a kind of subtext Now, you are approached by not just Mifsud, but multiple figures, and they're all trying to sort of lure you into saying something that's not true, namely, what are your dealings with the Russians?
Like, are you collaborating with the Russians?
Now, you aren't collaborating with the Russians, but they're trying to get you to say you are.
And they are implanting suggestions that they will subsequently sort of attribute to you.
I want to go into the mechanics of how does that work.
Talk about how those conversations take place.
What did they say? What do you say?
What are they trying to pin on you?
So basically, diplomacy is really mostly about gossip, right?
You're considered, I mean, I've met diplomats from all around the world, including in my current business that I'm in now.
It's a lot of gossip.
It's about, you know, what's this happening, that country, that leader, etc., etc.
And you're meeting basically at these swanky, posh, you know, lounges, restaurants in Mayfair in London or in Georgetown in Washington or, you know, in the center of, you know, by the Piazza di Spagna in Rome.
You know, we're talking... These type of areas.
And you sit there, people are always probing you for information.
What are your motivations?
What's your background?
Who do you like?
Who don't you like? Where are you at an emotional level?
So this is really...
And it happened with probably every government I talked with when I was on this campaign.
And now when it comes to the spies, it just goes a step further.
They're just really there to probably wear a wire against you and lead a conversation in the direction that you would not have ever started.
For example, with Mifsud, it was all...
I've never been to Russia to this day, Dinesh.
I've never met a Russian official to this day, Dinesh.
And I have actually no interest in going to Russia or having discussions with Russian officials, yet...
When one of these operatives are trying to set you up, they bring in a rumor.
For example, oh, did you hear about Hillary's emails, which were obviously speculated all around the world at that time?
Oh, what do you think about this?
Did you know that I had a high-level meeting in Russia and they told me that they stole her emails, George?
What do you think about that?
And you're just dumbfounded. You have a bomb drop on you, you become a target yourself, and you don't know what to do.
So... I believe, and I explain this in the book, and I think you and I have discussed this in the past, the point of this meeting with Mifsud and others was to plant, to make me a ticking time bomb within a campaign.
So I was essentially the bomb that at any moment they could trigger and destroy the apparatus.
Unfortunately for them, it failed because this information that Mitch had told me was then never subsequently repeated to, one, anyone on the Trump campaign, or two, even to this Australian diplomat that they tried to fabricate the situation around me, and I could get into that a little bit more.
Well, let's talk about something that's closely related.
There was an Australian diplomat.
There was a sort of a, if I remember, there was an operative who was an Oxford professor, but still had deep ties with intelligence agencies, both in the US and in Britain.
I want to talk about the guy, the so-called guy posing as an Israeli businessman who gave you money to do a research project, but in fact was setting you up and you returned to the US and basically there's a trap sprung.
They stop you, they search your bags, they've got the media present, they're looking for the money in the suitcase.
But you didn't bring it with you so that their scheme failed.
I mean, this is just so...
This is right out of, like, James Bond.
Talk about that episode.
Absolutely. And then just a quick point about the Australian and this other Cambridge professor that was moonlighting as a CIA assets.
Just look at, I just simply want your viewers to Google Alexander Downer, this Australian diplomat, and look at the spying scandal that he actually embroiled himself in at his government that had nothing to do with me or Trump.
It actually had to do with East Seymour, where he was spying on that government and created a diplomatic crisis.
It's in the Financial Times.
It's not in a blonde. So, also look at this individual's connections to Calicut, the private intelligence organization, which Stefan Halper, the other asset involved in my story, was also connected to in Mayfair in London.
So, just understand that we're not talking about random diplomats here, and it goes to the heart of the scandal that Taibbi reported about the conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and Trump campaign.
Going to the $10,000 setup, What we have discussed here so far, Dinesh, is a sequence of events that was an absolute and total fabrication and setup of me from day one.
The entire process was as if it was already laid out by Hollywood scriptwriter that this is day one, and the end is going to result in this entrapment scheme with $10,000.
Now, after I leave the Trump transition in January of 2017, I go back into my private consulting business, which was energy.
An Israeli quote-unquote businessman quote-unquote oil executive says, hey George, you know, I saw that you were working on this campaign.
I know you've published in many Israeli newspapers about the energy sector there.
I'd like to bring you to Israel and we could discuss some business.
Obviously, it was normal for me at the time to travel like that and to have these type of meetings.
Now, the difference between my normal meetings and this meeting was that I go into a hotel and I'm presented with $10,000 in cash without any contract, any real remuneration plan of what services I would be providing.
And it was in that moment, Dinesh, that I said, okay, I've already been interviewed by the FBI. They were questioning some things about what me and what their suspicions were, and now it looks like they're trying to fray me to substantiate what their confirmation bias was, that I was some sort of person that was designated to be a target or a fake spy or something, the way they were trying to present me in the media.
I take the money because, of course, I'm in a foreign country.
I don't speak the language. I don't know what this person's motivations are, whether they're dangerous.
And I give it to a lawyer that I had in Athens at the time.
As I return back to the United States, I'm intercepted by eight agents, rummaging through my luggage, very angry looks on their face, expecting to find the money.
They didn't. They didn't know what to do with me.
And that's why their entire case at that point moving forward collapsed.
So they were trying...
I mean, it seems quite obvious that there was a scheme to frame you.
If you had the money, you would probably have been on the front page of the New York Times.
You would have led the headline with the evening news.
former Trump official caught with $10,000 of cash and of course as you say there's no way for you to account for the money because there was no contract and so you would have been quote caught red-handed and yet this would be nothing more than one more scheme on the part of the police state to to nail you and and and would you close out George by I mean isn't this ultimately all about Trump
So, it wasn't that they were after you per se, but you were a vehicle for them to discredit Trump and to discredit a movement behind Trump.
Tinesh, I've said this a lot, and this was really about destroying a movement.
Of course, I was not the beginning and the end.
Neither was General Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, even President Trump.
This was mostly and overwhelmingly about the ideology of MAGA, and that is the diametrically opposed viewpoint that that is with the globalist agenda around the world.
And in 2016, the globalist agenda was in full throttle.
You had Brexit, which was raging.
You had the pre-planned or the predetermined idea, I believe, to start war between NATO and Russia, or at least this conflict that we're seeing with Russia.
You had the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Donald Trump stood in the way of all those.
He endorsed Brexit, then the UK got out.
The British were very upset about that, especially during my meetings with them.
You had the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which of course, Australia and China would have led this new global trade architecture while decimating US industries, and of course, why Trump was so precious in seeking the United States to get out of.
So it was this type of idea and his populism and economic nationalist undertones that really set him in the crosshairs himself of the deep state.
And that's exactly why they took him down.
They wanted to subvert the will of the people and to tell over 75 to 80 million Americans, you voted for the wrong person.
These ideas are dangerous.
Only the person colluding with the Russians could have these type of ideas that want to reinforce your borders, want to bring sovereignty back, want to bring your jobs back, not start World War III. Only a bad person Trump could have those type of ideas.
It failed because Dinesh, people like yourself, myself, the president, fought back.
The American people never allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes.
And I believe the Laga movement as a result today is stronger than ever.
That's why all these indictments are not working against President Trump.
These people see through the corruption and it backfired.
And I think the Democrats should be more and more and more panicking.
I mean, the sickening thing is that they're still trying in one way or another to do the same thing.
Their scheme may be different.
It may be various forms of lawfare now.
But all of this really continues.
And the story is rivetingly told in George's book, which I highly recommend, Deep State Target, How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.
George, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you so much, Sinesh. It was real pleasure.
How do you feel these days?
I feel great and one of the reasons I believe I feel better is because I take this, Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy to take.
They have an amazing story of how this product was developed by Dr.
Douglas Howard. Check it out.
It's right there on their website.
Balance of Nature receives over a thousand success stories every single month.
They have hundreds of thousands of customers who have purchased billions of capsules of their fruits and veggies over the past 20 years.
Their products are gluten-free, they're non-GMO, they contain no added sugars or synthetics.
I think if you're looking for something to make you feel better naturally, you should definitely give Balance of Nature a try.
In fact, order today.
Whether you order online or call them direct, you've got to use promo code AMERICA to get the special offer 35% off.
So here's the number to call. 800-246-8751.
Or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
The number again, 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use promo code or discount code AMERICA, you'll get 35% off.
I'm continuing my discussion of the case for Douglas, and I'm now at the point where I'm going to kind of sum up what Douglas was getting at and why he was such an eloquent proponent of this idea called popular sovereignty.
The reason that Douglass advocated popular sovereignty was because he believed that the old compromise or compromises that had held the North and the South together would no longer work.
Now, what were these compromises?
There were really two, but one built on top of the other.
There is the Missouri Compromise, which went back to the 1820s, and then there was the Compromise of 1850, which was essentially the Missouri Compromise with some adjustments.
In other words, think of the Missouri Compromise as drawing a line, a Mason-Dixon line, that separates the North from the South.
But the line doesn't run all the way to the West.
It doesn't run all the way to California.
We're running the line and then we're stopping it in the middle of the country.
Because at that time, the United States did not include Texas.
Texas was not part of America in the 1820s.
It certainly didn't include Southern California.
So the Missouri Compromise Line ran essentially divided North and South, but it then came to sort of a grinding halt.
And it came to a grinding halt at the point where you have these new territories.
Ultimately, it would be Kansas, it would be Nebraska coming into the United States.
And the big question, of course, was what happens to them with regard to slavery?
Are they slave states? Are they free states?
And so on.
Now, as the new territories began to join the Union, there were some adjustments made to the Missouri Compromise, and it had to do, by and large, with the way that states are shaped.
In other words, if there was a southern state that sort of abutted and went north of the Mason-Dixon line, and then there was a northern state that had a southern portion that went south of the Mason-Dixon line, there were some, I'll give you this if you give me that, And this was basically the Compromise of 1850.
It was called the Missouri Compromise Modified.
Now, the big charge against Douglass is that Douglass used to be a pretty vigorous supporter of the Missouri Compromise, and therefore the Republicans portrayed Douglass as a traitor, a sellout, somebody who essentially modified and changed his views because of political expediency, Came up with this new concept of popular sovereignty that was a disguised form of pro-slavery rhetoric.
And the underlying assumption of the Republicans, including Lincoln, was that there was no good reason for Douglass to move from advocating the Missouri Compromise to now rejecting it.
Douglas became the sponsor of something that was called the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act was based upon a full affirmation of popular sovereignty.
Basically, the principle which I've stated before, but it's worth stating again and again, is let's allow states and territories to To collectively make up their own mind as to whether or not they want to have slavery.
And if they do, let them.
And if they don't, let them.
And this principle, if you think about it, is not a regional principle.
Douglass is not saying, let's apply this principle in the South, but let's just keep the North free.
Douglass is saying, let every new territory have this choice.
Now, Douglass is not saying that he wants to retest the notion of popular sovereignty in the existing free states and the existing slave states.
His assumption is, and I think it's correct, that the free states want to be free, the northern states, and the southern states that have slavery want to have slavery, at least a majority of their citizens do.
So, by the democratic process, they have in that sense already decided.
But the issue has to do now with the new territories, which become new states, and Douglass's point is let them have their own choice in the matter.
Now, For Lincoln and for the Republican Party, the Missouri Compromise was a way of confining slavery to the South, and it was also a way of ensuring that new states joining the Union would be free.
The Republicans believe that Congress should be able to legislate for the new territories.
Why? Because the new territories did not belong to the states.
In fact, they weren't states at all.
They were applying to be states.
And the idea is that if you're applying to be a state, then the existing country, as it is, has every right to tell you on what terms you can join.
Now, Douglass objected to this.
Douglas basically said, well, yes, it is true that a territory can come into the Union without the consent, not just of the territory, but also of the Union.
But Douglas said this is not the time to be making new rules for these states.
Why?
Because you can't have one set of rules for the existing states and another set of rules for these new states.
If the new states come into the Union, it has to be on exactly the same basis as the states that are already there.
In other words, an equality arrangement in which, and here Douglas would talk about the fact that, you know, when the Roman Empire expanded, it would bring in new provinces, but the new provinces were governed as extensions of Rome by the iron fist of the center, of the centralized government, of the Roman Senate.
And Douglas goes, well, that's Rome, that's not America.
When a new state comes in, let's say California, it's not going to be treated as inferior to Massachusetts or inferior to New York or to Virginia.
It has exactly the same rights.
And if New York has two senators, California will have two senators.
So Douglass was of the view that we need kind of a unifying principle.
We can't go off with this business about we've got these compromises and now we have these new states and we, the Congress, are going to tell them what to do.
And Douglass' point was, no, you can't tell them what to do.
Why don't we apply, if you will, the principle, not just of, I would say, democracy, because democracy is nothing more than popular rule, but the system of federalism that divides power between the central government, the federal government, and the states.
And Douglass' point was, let's have slavery, Just as slavery...
How did the South Carolinians get slavery?
They decided that they want slavery.
And so, in a sense, a certain version of popular sovereignty has resulted in the northern states being free in the first place, and the southern states being slave states in the first place.
And Douglass' point is, let's do the same thing with the new territories.
In other words, a uniform principle of popular sovereignty.
So Douglas moved from an advocacy of the Missouri Compromise, which he supported in the 1820s, to ultimately saying this compromise worked.
It worked because it held the country together.
It was a little bit of a patchwork.
It was a little bit of a kind of—it was rigged just to keep everybody quiet.
Douglas himself talks about this.
Here I'm quoting him. The Missouri Compromise had been in practical operation for a quarter of a century and had received the sanction and approbation of men of all parties in every section of the Union.
It had allayed all sectional jealousies and irritations growing out of this vexed question, the vexed question being of course slavery, and harmonized and tranquilized the whole country.
First of all, look at the eloquence of Douglass.
He's speaking in a manner that you'd hardly hear a politician today speak.
He says that the Missouri Compromise tranquilized, put the country to sleep, but he means in a good sleep.
Put the country to sleep on an issue that if the country were awake to it, might cause sectional conflict, might lead to civil war.
So Douglass is saying, I approved of the idea basically because it worked.
Everybody was kind of, it's kind of like you make a deal.
It's not necessarily a highly principled deal, but it's going to put off conflict.
It's going to make everybody go, okay, I can live with that.
And Douglas goes, look, that's a good reason to go along with something because the alternative...
To it, which is essentially the North and the South at each other's throats, is going to be far worse.
So Douglass here is not some traitor who believed one thing and then sold out.
He's somebody who accepted a compromise on the grounds that the compromise did hold the country together, and then later he came to the view, in a way an extension of his pre-existing philosophy, that the only consistent way on a long-term basis For the country to really hold together is to adopt a decentralized position on what he calls the vexed question of slavery and let the territories and let the new states decide it for themselves.
▲
Export Selection