All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:04
FAUCI BUSINESS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep843
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll reveal a pretty elaborate scheme by Dr.
Fauci, the NIH, and its allies to cover their tracks and conceal truths they wanted to keep from going to the public.
I'll consider the grim prospect of Trump going to jail, or might that help him politically?
And Hogan Gidley, senior advisor at the American Foreign Policy Institute, joins me.
We're going to talk about the trial, about Trump.
And the 2024 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.
The Trump case is before the jury in New York and I'll talk about that in the next segment.
But I wanted to focus in this opening segment on some very remarkable emails that have surfaced.
Revealing what seems to be a pretty elaborate scheme on the part of Dr.
Fauci, possibly Dr.
Francis Collins, and And other top figures in the government and in the NIH, the National Institutes for Health, as well as this involves people like Dr.
Daszak. Involved with Wuhan and gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
This is also a guy collecting federal funding through the ECO Alliance.
And these guys were all communicating with each other during COVID. And what we want to focus here on are a number of people, prominent people, outside the government had filed FOIA requests, Freedom of Information Act requests, to get information about what the government was saying, what was it doing, internal communications within the government.
And Fauci and...
His cohorts knew this, and it seems like what was going on was an effort on the part of a number of these people to conceal evidence, destroy evidence, hide evidence, keep evidence outside of the public record, even though they were sharing it as government officials with each other.
One of the malefactors here is a guy named Morenz.
Now, Dr. Morenz is a senior advisor to Fauci.
He's been a senior advisor to Fauci for a long time.
And this guy was deleting emails so that they would not have to be produced under the FOIA records.
Some of his emails, however, were retrieved, and when you read them, you begin to see that they're pretty incriminating.
Let me read you one.
Here's Dr. David Morens writing in an email to Dr.
Daszak. This is the guy outside the government, getting government funding, doing gain-of-function research.
So, this is Morens to Daszak.
Quote,"...I learned from our FOIA lady here..." How to make emails disappear after I am FOIA'd.
But before the search starts.
So I think we are all safe.
Now, this to me is interesting on a couple accounts.
First of all, Morenz is saying, when we get a FOIA request, not even before, but when we get it, we don't want to give out the information, we go and delete the emails.
But second, what he's saying is it isn't just me.
There's a woman at NIH who's like our FOIA expert, and she's showing me how I can delete these emails so I don't have to produce them.
I mean, this is a smoking gun for people to be fired if not indicted.
Here is Dr.
Morenz again to Dr.
Daszak. We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns and if we did, we wouldn't put them in emails and if we found them, we would delete them.
So, here's Dr.
Morenz basically saying, first of all, he's admitting that there are smoking guns.
A smoking gun is sort of like, we said that COVID had a natural origin, but a number of us thought it came from a lab.
It was a lab leak from Wuhan.
So, that would be a smoking gun because you've been telling the public the opposite.
So, he's like, listen, if that comes up, that's okay.
We can delete those emails.
We know how to do that.
And we also know that Dr.
Morens, when he would get these FOIA requests, remember, Dr.
Morens is in the government.
Daszak is not. He's a grantee.
And yet, when Morens would get FOIA requests, not only would he share them with Daszak, but he would work with Daszak in compiling a response.
It's kind of like, hey, Daszak, There's an email we're going to have to release that has your name in it, so let me tip you off to it beforehand, so you'll know that when it comes out in the public, you'll have a response, and let me help you craft that response.
Here's Morenz also saying, quote, that they never had to worry because, quote, he would delete anything I don't want to see in the New York Times.
So this is just government corruption.
You're not allowed to do this.
The whole point of FOIA is to give the public access, knowledge about what it's government.
Remember, the government we have, we created, the government we pay for, we are entitled to have information about that government.
And when government agencies are preventing that, these are people who should be removed from office, as I say, if not locked up.
Here is Morenz again, April 2021.
P.S. He says, So,
right here, we see Fauci directly implicated, and Morenz, a very close and longtime advisor to Fauci, is basically saying, Fauci knows the game.
Fauci knows that he could be caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but Fauci knows how that will never come out.
Because what do we do?
Well, if we got to do anything and we don't want the public to know, we just don't email on the official email.
We show up at Fauci's house or we show up at a meeting and that way this kind of information never gets out and Fauci is in on it.
I think that's the point of the email.
And here is another email from Morenz.
But I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, Marge Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs.
Now, admittedly, people in the government don't like FOIAs because why?
It puts a spotlight on what they are doing.
But this is why you have a government.
It needs to be accountable.
And a final ruse, and a particularly malevolent one...
They deliberately misspelled key words in their emails so that if there is a FOIA request and you search for that word, it wouldn't come up.
And so, for example, one of the key figures involved is Dr.
Christian... Anderson.
This is, by the way, a leading virologist.
Fauci put him up to write a paper saying that COVID had a natural, i.e.
wet market origin.
Now, this is not what Anderson believed, but Anderson was up for a big grant.
And shortly after he did what Fauci said, he got a big grant.
And so guess what?
When they're writing about Christian Anderson within the government, it's Instead of spelling his name the way it's spelled, A-N-D-E-R-S-E-N, they put a dollar sign instead of the S. Now, the dollar sign is kind of appropriate because obviously this Anderson guy is after the dollars.
He's willing to alter the paper to get his grant.
So it's kind of appropriate in a weird way.
But nevertheless, the reason that they change, it's kind of like taking my name, Dinesh D'Souza, but instead of the S, let's just put a dollar sign.
That way, if anyone searches emails for Dinesh D'Souza, it won't come up.
Because it won't match.
That's what they were doing. Deliberately creating false records so they wouldn't be produced under FOIA. So this is all bad stuff.
And really what it goes to show you is these people are not on the up and up.
All the slogans about follow the science, Dr.
Fauci's the science.
nonsense. These are malevolent petty bureaucrats all covering for themselves, looking nervously over their shoulder, looking angrily at an American public that wants answers, doing their best to cover their tracks.
Before I tell you about a very special offer, I want to first explain why the product I'm going to be talking about is absolutely worth it without the discount.
I don't take any particular supplement just because I get a discount. Anything as important as nutrition, I'll research it first. Now if you go to balanceofnature.com scroll down to their homepage.
You'll see that all the stuff that goes into each bottle of Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies, you'll see, like I did, this is all well worth it.
But not just the ingredients.
The real stories from real customers, and they have hundreds of thousands of customers.
Each customer's success story is just another example of how people are finding and taking this Balance of Nature fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Take their risk-free money-back challenge today.
Use my special promo code to get a 35% off your first order, plus a free fiber and spice supplement and free shipping.
So here's the number to call, 800-246-8751.
The number again, 800-246-8751.
Or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code America, you'll get my special offer.
That's 35% off.
Plus free fiber and spice.
Plus free shipping.
This summer, your local movie theater will become a tent revival for proclaiming Jesus.
And you're invited to be a part of this unique evangelistic campaign.
Join with believers nationwide for the Million Souls campaign to bring unsaved family and friends to watch the powerful new movie, The Firing Squad, starring Kevin Sorbo and Cuba Gooding Jr.
The Firing Squad tells the incredible true story about prisoners who find faith in the face of execution and transform their prison in the process.
As the movie ends, co-star Kevin Sorbo comes on the screen to lead the entire theater in a prayer to commit one's life to Jesus Christ, providing an on-site opportunity to introduce family and friends to the message of Jesus.
Go to firingsquadfilm.com.
That's firingsquadfilm.com.
Learn how you can get free tickets and more to the Firing Squad and participate in this unique theatrical event.
Bring your friends, bring your family, bring your faith.
Again, go to firingsquadfilm.com in theaters August 2nd.
The Trump cases before a jury and were following the blow-by-blow, most recently some jury requests for more information, clarification about the jury instructions, which oddly enough were not handed in written form to the jury, and And it's hard to read this jury.
In other words, there are some people who are predicting a hung jury.
They're like, there's gotta be.
The case is so weak that there have gotta be some people who see that.
And on the other hand, people who say, no, this is kind of a fixed or rigged game.
These are New Yorkers who despise Trump, who get their information from CNN and MSNBC from the most part.
And the people who think a conviction is very likely...
We are also up in arms about the fact that CBS reported that there was actually a meeting between the Secret Service and some jail officials in New York about the fact that if CBS If Trump is sent to jail, how would that work?
Let's remember, if Trump is sent to jail, he will still have Secret Service protection in the jail.
So this has obviously never happened before.
It's probably never even been seriously contemplated.
But I don't think the fact that there is this kind of a meeting, and frankly, it's if.
Because the fact that CBS is reporting it, to me, doesn't mean that there was such a meeting.
We are quite familiar with news organizations making up stuff.
A source told a source who told a source who told our reporter.
So, to me, I'm relaying it, but with a kind of big cautionary mark alongside it.
Now, I saw something funny this morning that I haven't confirmed, but it would be very amusing if true.
It involves Robert De Niro.
Before I get to that something, I want to read you Trump's post on Robert De Niro, because I think it's one of the Trumpian masterpieces.
I never knew how small, both mentally and physically, wacko former actor Robert De Niro was.
It's like Trump saw him for the first time.
He's like, wow, the guy's really tiny, with a tiny brain to match.
And then Trump says, today De Niro, who suffers from an incurable case of Trump derangement syndrome, all caps, Commonly known in the medical community as TDS. TDS. And I was laughing both at Trump's formulation, commonly known in the medical community.
And, you know, I have to say that sometimes I'm slightly envious of Trump because this guy's ability to discombobulate the other side is unrivaled.
I was trying to kind of in a small way compare myself to Trump, and I'm thinking, yeah, this is kind of pathetic.
I mean, I have a campaign finance violation.
This guy's got 91 criminal charges.
I mean, I went to a confinement center, which doesn't even have bars, doesn't even have a cell.
Trump is looking at, like, Rikers Island.
You know, Trump has a whole disease named after him, TDS. I was thinking, well, what about DDS? But then I look it up, it's doctor of dental surgery.
I mean, kind of pathetic.
What an embarrassment. So...
Anyway, what I was about to tell you about regarding De Niro is that De Niro was apparently supposed to be in a film with Kevin Costner, but after his manic rant in front of the New York courthouse, Costner has decided to pull him out of the film.
Costner basically goes, I don't need that.
I mean, I don't need some guy going off the deep end.
I'm trying to maintain a certain kind of unity and integrity on my set.
And Costner even implied that he was giving De Niro the job out of pity.
They're like, De Niro can't get work.
So, all right, I'll put him in my film.
But no, this is crossing the line.
Now, if you have any doubt that there is selective prosecution going on here in the Trump case, just compare the Trump case to the case of Hillary Clinton.
Because, well, I'm talking about, right, what case, Debbie's saying, and she's quite right.
I'm referring to the Steele dossier.
Now, notice the Steele dossier was compiled with a view to influence the election.
That was its sole purpose.
And the money that was paid to Christopher Steele for the dossier was concealed in the records and was marked as legal.
In fact, it got the exact same designation as Trump's marking for the payment that went through Michael Cohen and to Stormy Daniels.
In both cases, legal.
And yet, in the Hillary case, much more clearly, an effort to, through, by the way, bogus orchestration, false imputation, that Trump is a foreign asset, that he's a Russian spy, that he's in the clutches of Putin.
All of this was done, and yet...
That woman has not even been charged.
Far from facing 34 felonies, far from facing years and years in prison, she has not even been brought to court over it.
So right there you see the glaring discrepancy.
And so, I don't know what this outcome is going to be.
But I think that the American public has been given a real window into a show trial and a kangaroo court.
You might have heard Mike Lindell and MyPillow no longer have the support of their box stores or shopping channels the way they used to.
They've been part of this cancel culture.
And so they want to pass the savings directly on to you by having a $25 extravaganza.
Now, when Mike started MyPillow, it was just a one product company, just the pillow.
But with the help of his dedicated employees, Mike now has hundreds of products, some of which you may not even know about.
So to get the word out, I want to invite my viewers and listeners to check out their $25 extravaganza.
Two-pack multi-use MyPillows, $25.
MyPillow sandals, $25.
Six-pack towel sets, $25.
Brand new four-pack dish towels, you guessed it, $25.
And for the first time ever, the premium MyPillows with the all-new Giza fabric, just fantastic.
$25. By the way, orders over $75 get free shipping as well.
The amazing offer won't last long, so act now.
Call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
With the election coming up, guys, I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
I would love it for you to become an annual or a monthly subscriber.
I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I respond to your posts.
You can respond to me so I see what you're posting.
I also do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern. No topic is off limits.
I also have a movie page up on Locals.
It's got documentaries, feature films.
2,000 Meals is up there, as well as the latest film, Police State.
And if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch this movie content for free.
It is included in your subscription.
So check out my channel. It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast, well, welcome back, Hogan Gidley.
He is the Vice Chair of the Center for Election Integrity and Senior Advisor for Communications at the America First Policy Institute.
By the way, that's americafirstpolicy.com.
You can follow Hogan on X, at J. Hogan Gidley.
He was former deputy assistant to the president in the Trump administration, and he's joining us from New York, where he is present to observe certain important events.
Hogan, welcome.
Thanks for joining me.
You're in New York.
You're... You've got your eyes on the New York courtroom and what's happening there.
The case is in the hands of the jury.
What is the mood in New York from the different parties as you observe it?
Well, it's just so interesting, and you will not be shocked to learn that while I'm dealing with news outlets, which would not be of the conservative persuasion, they are of the belief that Donald Trump has committed multiple crimes here, that he is as guilty as sin, and that he should be locked away, he should throw away the key, and he should not be allowed to run for president.
Again, I'm still waiting for them to tell me what he was charged with, because I don't know how in the world you can mount a defense as a defendant when you've not been told what you've been charged with.
And you know and I know, and I hate to do this, it's trite, but it is true.
If any other American citizen was on trial for weeks and they were not told what they were being charged with, the media, liberals, conservatives will come out and say, wait a minute, this is a violation of constitutional rights.
You have to at least tell them what their charge was so they can defend themselves.
That hasn't happened in this case.
And so many things are wrong with it.
I'm not an attorney, but just as an observer of politics and understanding and knowing a lot of people who are in and around this trial and this case, to have an expert witness on federal election law and for a judge to say, no, that person can't come testify as to the fact you did not commit a federal election crime is insane to me.
And fundamentally at its core, I don't know that this outcome, whatever it may be, is going to change anybody's mind here.
It could tinker around the margins, and of course in close elections that matters.
But at our core as American people, regardless of political persuasion, we really do want fairness.
Not just for us, but for our opponents too.
And if there's a perception of unfairness here, as there should be, I can't imagine more and more rallying around Donald Trump because, look, 67% of the people in this country believe these are politically motivated attacks.
59% believe Biden is involved in them.
That's a real problem for the left, regardless of what happens when the jury comes back and issues a verdict.
Let's talk about the media in particular because it seems to me we have a real problem here.
It's one thing to say we've got a media that's biased, it's left-wing.
What we generally mean by that is that they have different values.
But we don't mean by that typically that they have different facts.
Right? Our judicial system is based upon the idea that there is the possibility, even for people who have opinions on this or that, to look at the facts.
It's kind of like if you or I were sitting in a cafe, there's an accident across the street, we're both called to testify.
The expectation is that we will each, from our point of view, fairly and accurately describe, well, that's what happened, that's what we saw.
This guy came from this side, that guy came from that side.
So when you have a press that's looking at this and as you say the American people are like we don't even know what the charges are, we don't even know what the felony is that Trump is supposed to have committed and yet you've got this certainty on their part, well he probably committed all of them.
We don't have to choose between felony A, B and C, he probably did A plus B plus C.
I mean to me this suggests that there is a breakdown of communication at a very fundamental level in our democracy.
Do you agree? A hundred percent.
And the felony they're alleging, of course, is a federal crime.
So the jurisdiction of this courtroom doesn't even apply here.
It's a state law issue they're dealing with, regardless of that.
I was a journalist for years.
I did Weather. There was no YouTube then, so nobody go look this up, I promise.
No YouTube. I did Weather.
I was an anchor and reporter, and then Mike Huckabee took me out of that world into the political world, and I've obviously worked with him ever since for 25 years off and on.
I've known Sarah since she was 19, by the way.
But the reason I bring that up is because bias really occurs in two ways.
What you cover and how you cover it.
So if no one's going to cover what's going on at the southern border, that's a bias because you're not letting people know the problems with human trafficking and child smuggling and drugs.
You're not letting them know any of that.
Then if you do cover it, and you don't point to the fact that it was the Biden policies, for example, that opened the border, instead you say it was all Trump's fault, this has been problems for years, that's a how you cover it issue.
Either way, it's biased.
And I'll give you another example.
I was on TV yesterday having an argument, and in the preparation, the segment previous to mine, and the one when I got on, they pointed to Judge Eileen Cannon down in Florida in the documents case for Trump.
And they said, Trump appointee Judge Eileen Cannon, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But when they get to Judge Juan Mershon here in New York, they say, Judge Juan Mershon today said whatever.
And I called out the host and I said, you realize you characterized One of those judges is a Trump appointee to try and further bias there.
But when you talk about Juan Mershon, you don't call him a Biden donor Juan Mershon, right?
You leave out that characterization, that bias slant there.
That's a real problem for the viewer, because while the person out here listening to the media, paying attention, ones who are kind of on the periphery, even ones kind of engaged, you only get the information that they give you.
The only information you get is what they decide to put before you.
That can be problematic, and it's also why you see such polarization.
Some people say, I'm only going to watch Newsmax or Fox, to hell with everybody else.
I'm only going to watch MSNBC, CNN, to hell with everybody else.
It's tough to get that crossover just to have a conversation.
I would love a panel of legal experts I'm seeing at NBC and CNN to be on the same panel with legal experts I see at Newsmax and Fox and let them hash this out in front of the American people.
I think that would do a great service to us out here who are just trying to make heads or tails of what we're hearing in bits and pieces every single day.
But the bias of the media, it's become not just a news outlet, it's become the editorial page.
Don't tune in to watch your opinion get bolstered or to yell at somebody for their bad opinion.
It's never really to learn information.
That's a real problem, I say.
And look, lastly, there's a reason the popularity of the media sits somewhere between Congress and COVID. Because they've been lying to us now for years, and they've been caught doing so.
So it's no wonder you've seen a rise of right-leaning news outlets.
It's no wonder people are turning off TV and looking for alternative sources of information from people like you, Dinesh, or The Daily Wire, or Turning Point, or whatever, because people are looking for more information because they don't trust the sources they get them from.
Interestingly, whether it's my podcast or even whether it's Fox News, I find that on the right, there is actually a desire to probe the other side's argument.
There is an attempt to understand what they're really saying.
So, for example, if they're saying that Trump tried to violate the tax law, the question is, well, how would he do that if he didn't take this as a deduction?
I mean, if he took it as a deduction, you could say it's an improper deduction.
I mean, it's still the IRS's job to go after him, not, you know, Judge Juan Merchant.
But nevertheless, there would be some plausible something there.
But when I look at MSNBC, I look at CNN, they have a round of like-minded panelists, essentially each of them concurring with each other and outdoing each other in trying to go further in enumerating the crimes that Trump, if you will, has committed.
So in some ways, they're doing a great disservice to their viewers because let's just say it comes out and it's a hung jury.
The viewer's gonna go, wait, I thought it was a slam dunk case.
It looked, all these legal experts told me that Trump obviously did all these things.
And it was, for the jury, it was cherry picking.
Get him on this or get him on that or get him on all of it.
I don't understand how anybody could be a holdout at all.
Yeah. It's like that old story when that journalist was famous as saying she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon.
And the response was, well, of course you don't, because you only surround yourself with people who would never vote for Nixon.
So when he won in a landslide, she was absolutely confused.
The same thing applies here.
So the people out there get all fired up, one side or the other, angry about, you know, the potential outcome because they haven't heard any of the other side of the argument.
And so people that tune in religiously to the CNN and MSNBCs of the world, many of them are sitting on that jury, by the way, and hold Donald Trump's future in their hands.
They're never going to hear the fact that Donald Trump really wasn't charged with a crime until the last day of a weeks-long trial in closing arguments, so the defense couldn't mount a defense.
They're not going to understand that, wait a minute, you're telling me there was a Federal Election Commission former commissioner they wouldn't let testify to say, hey, yeah, he didn't commit a crime, NDAs aren't criminal, even though they allowed Michael Cohen to go on stage, who's not an FEC attorney.
but is an attorney, say, oh no, Donald Trump committed all these crimes.
They're not going to hear the fact that the judge was conflicted by his...
Donations to Biden into anti-Trump groups, his daughter's affiliation in a PR firm where she makes millions of dollars raising money for Democrats and left-wing causes.
They're not going to hear any of that.
So whatever the verdict is...
One side is going to be quite confused as to why that particular verdict happened.
Like you said, it's confusing, but it's also concerning because we have to get to a point where we can have this dialogue.
And you point out something.
I don't like saying it, but you're right.
And that is, I'm always looking at the other side.
That's why I'm on CNN and NBC frequently, because I want to hear those arguments and I want to fight them out in public.
I want to go into the belly of the beast and find out why they think the way they think.
They have no interest in what I'm saying.
They shoot it down right off the bat.
They dismiss it as some goober, rube, Idiot from the middle of the country who doesn't really know what he's talking about and you shouldn't listen to him.
Well, I mean, you know, tens of millions of people agree with me, agree with you, and I think we deserve to be heard in this country, and sadly the left continues to shut us down, whether it's through silencing, censoring, shadow banning on social media platforms, or just not giving us a chance to talk in the public square.
Let's talk about the judge for just a moment, Hogan.
You have a judge who is biased in the ways that you said he's a Biden donor.
You have a judge who suppressed witnesses from testifying who would say things like, you know what, here at the FEC, we don't consider making a private payment to someone, a nuisance payment with an NDA to be a campaign finance violation.
He's like, you can't come and say that in my courtroom.
And on top of that, you've got a judge who gives an hour of jury instructions, but then doesn't hand those instructions to the jury.
He's like, you guys can take notes, but you're not going to have my instructions with you when you're in the jury room.
Now, all of this would seem to suggest potential avenues of appeal.
And normally judges are sort of protected.
They don't like to be overturned.
But it looks like in this case with Mershan, he's like, I'm going to ride, you know...
Rough shot over this case.
I want to get a conviction and kind of deliver for the left.
I don't care if I am overruled.
Is that a correct assessment of his apparent temperament in this case?
It really seems to be.
First things first, this really is the Nancy Pelosi prosecution.
We'll have to prosecute you and convict you before we find out what you're charged with.
We'll pass the bill, and then we'll find out what's in it.
But you're hitting on something very interesting here.
Most judges, as I understand it, do not want to have their rulings overturned.
They do not want to see an appeal slap them back, in essence.
And from everything I've seen, again, people on MSNBC, CNN will not have seen this, he's made a lot of mistakes where the appeal should be a pretty easy slam dunk in what he's allowed the prosecution to do, but not the defense.
I mean, the gag order itself, preventing Donald Trump from saying anything about the trial, those are really designed to prevent the prosecution from coloring a jury or coloring outside the lines in the media, not the defendant.
The defendant ought to be able to defend themselves, but either way, they're putting a gag order on Trump, not on Michael Cohen, not on anybody else.
So Cohen can go on TikTok and do all of his things with Trump shirt with him behind bars and all that kind of nonsense.
So it seems as though this is really moving quickly to being overturned regardless, I mean, if it comes in a conviction.
But interestingly enough, I don't know that they care.
The left really did this for multiple reasons.
They wanted to bleed him dry financially.
They wanted to get him off the campaign trail.
They wanted him to focus on court cases and not the American people.
But in addition to that, the cherry on top would be a conviction because then they could call him a convicted criminal, okay?
A convicted felon.
That's what they want to say.
And for someone like Judge Mershon, remember, he's now the toast of the town.
He's invited to all the cocktail parties he was on the outside looking in of before.
So now he has that relevance.
He has that celebrity status.
And look, celebrity is a hell of a drug.
And right now, everyone on the left treats this guy as the messiah because he's the one who could finally get a conviction on Donald Trump.
He and Alvin Bragg, those people can work together, work with the Biden administration, show up and go back and forth inside the White House and not Judge Mershon, but Alvin Bragg.
And they can collude, for heaven's sakes, to get it done as long as they can get that exclamation point behind convicted felon, right?
That's all they want.
They don't care if it's constitutional because then they want to use that as branding going into the election so they can say, J6... Threat to democracy, abortion, convicted criminal.
That's the race. We're talking about all the issues that affect the American people, like the economy, gas, groceries, the southern border, drugs, the children being sold into sex slavery, the wards breaking out all over the world, the peace and prosperity we had under Donald Trump.
They don't want to talk about it. All they want to talk about is threats to democracy even though they're the ones who tried to use some obscure agency to force every American to take a vaccine.
They called us horrific names, said we were killing our neighbors only to find out the vaccine didn't do squat.
They were the ones who want to change the entire Supreme Court because they don't like the rulings.
So we need to break all that down, but yet they're the ones that are so for norms in politics, right?
They're the ones trying to jail their political opponent.
They're the ones trying to take him off the ballot in these states, but somehow we're a threat to democracy.
They burned down the country for an entire summer, billions of dollars in damage, and no one got arrested.
Why would they? They were doing it for a righteous cause.
This is the type of activity from a dictatorship, someone who doesn't really care about democracy at all.
And as you know, and as you've articulated many times, democracy is whatever suits the left.
That's it. It's not a fixed point.
It's whatever they see benefits their own political power.
If that's what it is, that's democracy.
Anything else is not.
And you're anti-democracy if you disagree with them.
So this is the fight.
This is what we're going to be doing for the next several months.
And the country's future is at stake.
Of course it is.
And so what do you say to make sure we get engaged and get involved and active in this upcoming election?
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it reminds me a little bit of, was it Louis XIV, you know, la tase moi, I am the state.
That's the way they look at it.
We are democracy.
That's why we call ourselves a democratic party.
Anything that undermines us undermines democracy itself.
Absolutely. Fauci is the science.
Democrats are the democracy, of course, 100%.
We got it, Hogan.
I've been talking to Hogan Gidley, Vice Chair of the Center for Election Integrity and Senior Advisor for Communications at the America First Policy Institute website.
AmericaFirstPolicy.com. Follow him on X at J. Hogan Gidley.
Hogan, always a pleasure.
Ginesh, thanks so much. Good seeing you.
I'm continuing my discussion of the fourth group that came from Britain to America.
These are the people of the borderlands, and they came from the borders between England and Scotland, the borders between England and Ireland, really on both sides of the border, so the Irish, the Scots. And the English.
And when they arrived in America, a common term for them was the scum of the nations.
Or... No less uncharitably, the scum of the earth.
And this is the way that the existing settlers viewed them.
Why? Because these latest settlers were very unruly.
Many of them had come from farm communities or they were laborers.
They were seen as ungovernable, impossible to placate people who had their own mind and it was so provincial and narrow-minded and argumentative and disputative that these are people who would not only fight with everybody else, they would also fight with each other.
Now, these were poor people.
They were poorer than the Puritans, who by and large came from the middle, some from the upper middle class.
They were poorer than the Virginians, who admittedly had servants and then later slaves, but many of the original settlers came from the aristocracy, from the higher ranks of British society, in fact, closely affiliated in some cases with the king.
Now, the Borderlands settlers were relatively poor.
And I say relatively poor because you can't be absolutely poor and even do this.
Immigration is typically not from the very bottom of society for the simple reason that, you know, unless there is a war and you've got a whole group of people who are displaced and you're kind of forced to leave your land and leave where you live, by and large if you come voluntarily to any country, you need money.
You need to, well, you need to pay for your fare.
And just the simple cost of a family's passage to America was high enough that you either had to sell yourself into indentured servitude or if you were poor you just couldn't come at all.
The other thing about it is that the poor, the absolute poor in Europe are very beaten down.
They can't think in...
They're spiritually poor in the sense that they can't think, oh, listen, I'm just going to go across the sea and I'm going to make a new life.
They don't think in such entrepreneurial and adventurous terms.
The settlers who came from the borderlands to Pennsylvania, they, and later to Jersey, and then they moved to the Appalachias, and they moved south, and they moved west, they were very proud people.
They were feisty, and they had a high opinion of themselves that the existing settlers couldn't figure out.
They're like, these people are so proud.
We're like, what are they proud about?
They're so, you know, look at their clothes, they're so ragged, and their speech is slurred, and sing-song, and can't even really hear what they're saying.
They appear to have little or no culture and yet they think they're the greatest.
And now, religion.
The other settlers I've described, the Puritans who came to New England, well, we know what their religion was.
They were Puritans.
They were Calvinists.
They were predestinarians.
They believed in divine election.
They were a particular brand or sect of Christianity, and they were united in their belief in that.
Similarly, the Cavaliers who came to Virginia were Anglicans.
They were united in Anglican mores, Anglican liturgy, Anglican beliefs.
The Quakers were, of course, Quaker.
They had Quaker beliefs.
They might have been tolerant of others, but nevertheless, they had a shared and uniform set of beliefs, and that gave rise to a uniform culture and a uniform temperament.
Not so with the The sort of group I'm going to kind of affectionately call the rednecks.
They weren't like that. They actually didn't have the same religion.
Why? Because they came from Scotland.
Those guys were Presbyterians.
They came from Ireland.
A lot of Protestants, but also a lot of Catholics.
And then they came from the borderlands of England.
And those people were Anglican.
So the rednecks were a mixed bag.
And this is not to say that because they came from these different sects, they had a kind of go along and get along attitude.
On the contrary, they had massive fights among each other about these things.
And they were fighting about them in England.
And then they brought those fights to America.
In fact, there are a number of travelers who were going through the backcountry.
Now, the backcountry itself is a very interesting phrase because for most Americans, as they moved out west, they were facing west.
And therefore, the historian Frederick Jackson Turner talked about the frontier.
Why? Because if I'm setting out for Massachusetts, I'm looking at Ohio, and beyond that I'm looking at, let's say, Nevada, or beyond that I'm looking at California, and I'm facing that way.
So where is the backcountry?
Well, what's to my back is actually Massachusetts.
That's what I'm leaving as I push out west.
But interestingly, from the point of view of the rednecks, it was the opposite.
The reason they called it the backcountry is almost as if they were facing east and backing up.
That's why it was the backcountry.
It was the country to their backs.
And as I say, as they moved out and set up settlements, they were always disrupting each other.
Here is an account of an English missionary who said he tried to go into an Anglican community and give an Anglican sermon But a whole bunch of Presbyterians showed up and started a riot.
They unleashed a pack of dogs who started fighting outside the church.
They cut loose his horse.
They stole his church keys.
They refused him food and shelter.
And they started handing out whiskey to the congregation.
All of this was aimed at like, let's mess this guy up.
Let's mess with him.
And as you know, this is sort of like a redneck thing to do.
Let's mess with the guy.
So they were messing with him.
Similarly, one Baptist showed up at an Anglican service, stole the clerical dressing gown, jumped into bed with a woman in the dark trying to make it sound.
He wasn't doing anything.
He was just trying to make it look like he was to create a kind of a scandal.
And according to the historian David Hackett Fisher, We're good to go.
Because the rednecks, as they pushed into Appalachian country, and then from there, further west into Louisiana, across the south into Texas, they encountered Cherokees.
They encountered Indian settlements.
And the Indians were fighters, and these guys were fighters.
So this is like, I wouldn't say a match made in heaven, maybe it's a match made in hell, because these guys were all ready to go at it and well suited to the art of battle.
Let's remember these borderline people had been battling in England.
They were used to it.
They were used to being captured and taken captive and tied up.
All of this was like normal for them.
And so they transplanted those mores into America.
Now, let's talk about which part of England they came from.
The common term to describe these people, if you ask them today, like, where did you come from?
First of all, most of them don't know.
And the reason they don't know is that they are the people of the borderlands.
When you come from a borderland, just like the people today who live on the border between France and Switzerland, they're sort of French, they're sort of Swiss.
The Swiss people speak French.
The French people eat a little bit more continental food than even French food.
So their identities become a little blurred and indistinct.
But the most common phrase that you'll hear from people is, I'm Scotch-Irish.
I'm Scotch-Irish.
Now first of all, Scotch is really...
The name of a whiskey.
It's not really the name of a place.
So the correct term, if you're going to say it, is Scot-Irish.
I'm Scot-Irish. Because that means that I am a hybrid from Scotland and Ireland.
But typically, very few of these people were real hybrids.
It's not that they were Scot-Irish in the sense that Debbie is half Venezuelan and half Mexican-American.
They were Scot-Irish meaning, I don't know.
I could be Scottish.
I could be Irish. I'm not really sure.
I'm Scot-Irish. And that's typically the case.
That these people back in England were heavily colonized.
They were raided by one group after another, and therefore the identity that came out of that was not even necessarily a mixed identity, but very often an uncertain and indistinct identity that they brought to America.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection