All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 10, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
46:45
PREVIEWING THE DEBATE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep914
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll preview the debate between Trump and Kamala Harris and offer some, well, hard-earned lessons on the art of the debate.
Ivan Reiklin, the former Green Beret and constitutional attorney who served 25 years in the intelligence community, joins me.
We're going to talk about the emerging police state and how it actually functions here in America.
Hey, if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble, listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
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.
Guys, I wonder if you have seen yet the trailer for the new film Vindicating Trump.
It's a good thing.
If you haven't, it's out there.
The website is VindicatingTrump.com.
VindicatingTrump.com.
And make sure you spell it right.
I got a note from a guy the other day.
This was actually a message on X. And he goes, hey, I've been looking up Vindicate Trump, and I can't find, like, no, it's not Vindicate Trump.
It's Vindicating Trump.
So you've got to be accurate.
And you'll get the website.
The trailer's up there.
And mark your calendar for September 27th or 28th or 29th.
That weekend, the opening weekend of a film is often very critical to its success in the theater.
So if you can, plan to go.
Plan to go with friends, take your family.
If you're in a Republican or conservative group or club, be fun to go with the whole gang.
Now, tickets will go on sale next week.
They're not available yet, so if you go on the website, a couple people have messaged us, I can't get a ticket.
Well, yeah, that's because the tickets aren't there yet.
And why?
Because we're still lining up all the theaters.
So the full roster of theaters we'll have next week.
And then on the website, all you do is you, just like in the past, you type in your zip code, boom, the theaters near you will pop up.
Buy your tickets the normal way through Fandango and the other ticketing sites.
So we're not doing buyouts.
We're doing a normal theatrical run and get ready.
This is a film you're going to want to see and want to see in the theater.
The best way to see it.
It's cinematically really powerful.
It's also very entertaining.
So this is a film that is inspirational.
It is in some ways, in some aspects of it dark, but it's also a laugh out loud funny and something you're not going to want to miss.
There's also an accompanying book, which lays out an argument in a very original and thorough way with accompanying references.
The book is called, guess what?
Vindicating Trump.
Same title as the movie.
You can pre-order your copies now on the website, VindicatingTrump.com.
Now, the debate coming up tonight between Trump and Kamala Harris, and there's a lot of kind of speculation about what Trump should do, what Harris is going to do, what Trump's manner should be, and rather than kind of do that kind of a tea-leaves analysis, What I thought I would do is draw upon the fact that I have been in this debate sphere now for two decades.
And I have done a lot of debates.
Political debates, Christian apologetics debates.
I've debated a number of the leading atheists around the world.
I've debated them quite literally around the world.
In Mexico, in London, here in the United States.
And I've debated leading political figures, going back to Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
So I thought what I would do is try to spell out, just from my own experience, four or five key lessons of how to do a debate.
What do you do to be successful in a debate?
Well, first of all, It's really important to realize in a debate that you're not just debating the issue.
This struck me one time while I was debating Christopher Hitchens.
A lot of the things he says are somewhat nonsensical.
They're nonsensical, but they're said in a kind of urbane way.
Mr. Chairman, may I interject?
And so on.
But when you listen to the point, it makes no sense.
But, even though it makes no sense, here's Hitchens, you know, he's got a glass of whiskey in his right hand, he sometimes has a, you know, a cigarette in his left hand, he's got a floppy hair, he looks like a very bohemian, and you don't want people to watch this debate and go at the end of the debate, well, you know, Dinesh made better points, but yeah, you know, if I had to have a drink at the end of the debate, I'd much rather go with Hitchens, he sounds like a much more fun guy.
No.
You want people to go, that guy's a weirdo.
I'd rather have drinks with Dinesh.
So in other words, what I'm getting at is the debate is not just a debate of technical point scoring.
It's really a debate about two rival worldviews as embodied in two rival personalities.
And you got to keep that in mind.
You're in a sense debating, you're bringing everything that you have to the stage.
Number two, an important lesson and actually a good one for Trump.
In a debate, always listen.
And I say that because most people don't.
They go in, they've got some note cards, they've got some points, they're like ready to make their points.
In some cases, they're instructed to ignore the question and just make your point.
You know, you get sometimes media tips that go like this.
Regardless of what the questioner says, you should say, the real issue is, and then say exactly what you want to say.
So they ask you a question about, let's just say, tax policy, or let's say something that's awkward, you just go, well, George, the real issue is, and then you go on and ignore the question, hoping that the audience will just kind of go with you.
But that's not the best strategy, in fact.
The best strategy is to listen carefully to what is being said and try to torpedo the heart of it.
And that's important because a lot of times someone will make four points against you.
Well, I've got four reasons why Dinesh is wrong.
And you're tempted to answer all four, but you shouldn't.
What you should do is listen to all four and ask yourself, of the four, which is the one question that really resonated with the audience, where the audience goes, you know, yeah, that's a really good point.
I wonder how he's going to answer that one.
Answer that point and that one alone, and answer it in such a way that you absolutely smash it into the ground.
Because then nobody cares about the other three.
You don't have to answer all four.
Answer the toughest one, and by the toughest I mean not the most intellectually complex, but the one that resonated the most with the audience.
Another important lesson, I think, of debate is to use Socratic questioning.
And by Socratic questioning, I don't just necessarily mean philosophical type questioning.
It can be a Socratic question that's really simple, a question of fact.
Excuse me, Kamala Harris, you've been talking about nuclear warheads.
On an ICBM, or intercontinental ballistic missile, how many warheads are there?
Is it one?
Is it five?
Is it ten?
Is it a hundred?
How many?
And if she doesn't know, it becomes disastrous.
So what you do is you find a way, if you sense a vulnerability where someone doesn't know something, they're just talking, which Kamala Harris always does, and you find a way to interrogate her with such specificity that you get that deer-in-the-headlights look where she either has to say, I don't know, or give a guess answer, which is quite likely to be wrong, in which case, gotcha.
And finally, A general point, and that is it's really important not to let the debate disintegrate into a pure match of personalities.
Don't worry about making fun of Kamala's laugh.
If you can get her to laugh, then the audience will see that it's silly.
You don't need to point out that it's silly.
What you do need to do is contrast your record With her record.
So tie her to Biden because there's no evidence that she dissented or departed from Biden on any significant policy, let alone border policy.
Highlight the difference in the two records and highlight the difference on the key issues.
Say what this comes down to is four key issues or three key issues.
And then you lay them out.
Here's my position.
Here's her position.
So if you like her position, vote for her.
But if you like my position, consider voting for me.
I think if Trump keeps these ideas in mind, kind of debate tactics 101, he'll do extremely well tonight.
Did you know that there's nearly $1 trillion of infrastructure and pandemic funds yet to be spent?
That's right.
There's a massive amount of money that the lame duck administration is pushing hard to spend in their last few months.
If the president is able to push these funds out, we could see another prolonged inflation surge, just like during COVID.
And I'm sure you remember the terrible effects that high prices had on most Americans.
But you know, there's hope.
A surge in prices can be beaten.
A gold IRA from Birch Gold Group can be an inflation hedge for your savings in uncertain times.
To see how to protect your IRA or 401k, get your free information kit on gold by texting the word Dinesh to 98 98 98.
Birchgold makes it seamless to roll over your retirement account while preserving your tax advantage status.
Do what Debbie and I have done.
Don't wait for the President's spending spree to tank the dollar further.
Protect your financial future now.
Get started.
Text Dinesh to the number 989898 for your free information kit from Birchgold.
Are you feeling overwhelmed by the increasing cost of health insurance?
Have you had enough of not having control over your healthcare dollars?
Introducing ShareRite.
It's healthcare done the right way.
At ShareRite, you're not just a number, you're part of a caring community.
And forget about paying excessive premiums.
With ShareRite, you stand to save 30-50% compared to health insurance.
So think about what you could do with all those savings.
But it's more than just saving.
ShareRight ensures you have access to the care you deserve, precisely when you need it, from routine checkups to unexpected emergencies.
With ShareRight, your healthcare is their top priority.
Empower yourself today by taking control of your healthcare costs.
Visit shareright.org slash Dinesh to learn more.
See how much you can save.
Again, visit shareright.org slash Dinesh.
That's shareright.org slash Dinesh for healthcare done the right way.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast Ivan Reiklin.
He's a former Green Beret.
In fact, he has served countering ISIS in the Middle East, the Taliban in Afghanistan, MS-13 in Central America, countering Russian aggression as a military diplomat in the Republic of Georgia.
He's a constitutional attorney.
He served 25 years in the DoD in various intel and special operations.
He's fluent in five languages.
So this is a guy who has had a kind of experience close up with the intelligence agencies, with the so-called deep state.
And part of what we want to investigate today is how does this all work and what does it all mean?
By the way, you can follow him on X at Ivan Reiklin, R-A-I-K-L-I-N, his website, reiklin.com.
Ivan, welcome.
Thank you for joining me.
You are someone who- I'm absolutely honored to join somebody else who's been fighting the deep state well before I joined into the fight, so you're definitely one of the generals out there, and I applaud you for that, for continuing to have the resilience to push back against these- I call them the lawless, belligerent, and illegitimate executive branch mostly at this point.
Ivan, how does this stuff work?
And I say this because you've got multiple different agencies and they often have different bureaucracies and they have different tasks, but it appears that these agencies coordinate very closely with one another.
And my question is, can we speak about a single intelligence apparatus, or do you have all these different groups that are somehow in sync, maybe in sync ideologically, maybe in sync having common interests?
How do you see this octopus holding together?
I guess if you ask it that way, I would say that the one unifying factor in all this is if you look at from the prism of incestuous generational corruption, and then from there you kind of link analysis it out to the institutions that have the maximum authority constitutionally, legally, to then be leveraged beyond that constitutional authority to then weaponize against political opponents, then you would have to answer that question with
The FBI, I pronounce it, and the CIA when it comes to the international component to then vector in to weaponize against domestic threats through liaison partners.
That would be probably the shortest answer I could explain.
And then we can go into a little bit more depth on each of those components.
One, I guess, prevailing example that I can give you that has been in the media for years now, especially in light of Mark Zuckerberg's admission of guilt, is what I call it.
There are three layers to that admission of guilt by Mark Zuckerberg.
Keep in mind before I go, like, number one, He admitted, what I call, to genocide, participating with the entire corrupt censorship scheme that resulted in manipulating over 3 billion monthly active users across his Facebook, his InstaGarbage, and his WhatsApp platforms to then convey to the globe that you must take these unsafe and ineffective products for one vector.
Number two, he provided cover for, and that was done in coordination with, Those individuals at the Foreign Influence Task Force at the FBI, namely the one that was the Section Chief, Laura Demlow, and her Supervisory Intelligence Analyst, which was Brian Auten, who happens to so be the Supervisory Intelligence Analyst on the Crossfire Hurricane operation a few years prior to that.
And then when it applies to the CIA component of it, we must remember that the second admission of guilt by Mark Zuckerberg was the covering for the Biden criminal syndicate laptop, of which was signed, remember that 51 spies who lied that everybody knows?
When you start to peel the onion of those 51 individuals, One of those is John Brennan, the former director of the CIA.
Another one was his Inspector General, who was later then chosen by the beloved Mike Pence's, I call it Mike Pence's Liz Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi's beloved Bennie Thompson, as they created a committee to cover up for what I call the Fed's erection, and then promote the insurrection narrative That individual, one of the 51 spies who lied was David Buckley who later becomes that committee's staff director to perpetuate the previous cover-ups.
What I'm getting at here is that most of those 51 were almost All of them were senior CIA officials previously, and actually there were 60 total, 51 named, 9 unnamed, and they're still within the ecosystem of that very CIA.
Which then begs the question, how much leverage did those that did the memo in Politico, to cover for the Biden criminal syndicate laptop and then extend that reach to the 3 billion monthly active users that were censored through the Mark Zuckerberg censorship scheme.
It begs the question, what else did they censor?
Well, he admitted to a third thing.
He admitted to basically, you know, you can extrapolate and say that Mark Zuckerberg, through the Zuckerberg Chan Initiative, provided 400 million plus dollars to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, which you covered during 2000 Meals briefly.
And that was essentially used, and if you look at the evidence showcased by Justice Gableman when he provided his report in Wisconsin, It basically takes that $400 million and it was used to bribe local election officials to then create the electoral outcome of their choosing.
So, by extension, Mark Zuckerberg was involved with the CLA and the FBI knowingly, because he admitted to it, to three massive global-level crimes.
Genocide one as it relates to the whole COVID con, the electoral heist number two, and then the obstruction of justice at a global scale as he provided cover for the Biden criminal syndicate laptop.
I can go into literally 40 hours of in-depth details with receipts on every single component of that, Dinesh.
Well, you've just, I think, in a very surgical way, teased out three separate threads that come together.
Now, what's interesting to me is, if you listen to Zuckerberg, he has this kind of adolescent, you know, kind of, aw shucks manner.
You know, the FBI came to us and they said this, and we'd had to take it seriously.
And so, my question is, Is Zuckerberg a, I mean, is this a guy who's like a techie nerd who doesn't really know what's going on in the global scheme of things and is being cunningly manipulated by smarter and older and more experienced people in these intelligence agencies?
Or is he a very knowledgeable collaborator who nevertheless now maybe thinks, whoa, you know, if Trump happens to get across the finish line, things may not look so pleasant for me.
I better make some confessions up front in order to clear the deck a little bit and protect myself.
How do you explain Mark Zuckerberg's personality and his behavior?
What's his motive?
That's a fantastic question.
I would say he could argue at least initially that he was a, you know, unsuspecting neophyte to the entire corrupt regime of the FBI.
Okay, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
But remember, he owns a platform that he could literally at a whim look into through his engineers on all the communications to basically confirm or deny what is being presented with on some of this material.
He's probably the one individual on the planet that has more knowledge and context of humanity's overall knowledge based on all the communications.
It would have been an easy lift for him to look into that.
So then maybe the first few weeks or months, he could have bought into it.
But three and a half years, almost four years later, that's disingenuous to be very diplomatic and polite on your show here.
I would say that it is more the latter that you laid out.
At some point he was knowing and then he had to provide more and more cover.
There's more evidence to support that conclusion because he's still censoring us.
Remember in the admission of guilt he said he wasn't no longer going to do that.
Well, guess what?
You probably know many more people than I that are still on the fake book platform, that are still being censored, that are still demonetized, that are still feeling the wrath of what I call Mark Zuckerberg runs a surrogate comms directorate, one of the sub-directorates of the FBI and mostly the, you know, the uniparty apparatus to be able to control the global narrative on certain subjects.
The illegal 2020 election.
Still really can't talk about it in full detail.
The COVID con.
And then all these other components that were censored.
I took it, you know, just like you, I went on the platforms that allowed us to speak about that.
And now that Elon Musk, just to kind of close out this question, now that Elon Musk is literally going all in on free speech, It's gonna be interesting what happens on September 13th on this Friday because Twitter headquarters is officially moving from California to Texas and it'll be interesting what he does over the weekend on the 14th and the 15th.
The day before on the 16th is when early voting starts in Pennsylvania, one of the first states.
Is he going to release the information that Twitter holds as it relates to what Mark Zuckerberg just admitted to that was being done by the White House and the FBI?
What I mean by that is we're the same individuals that Zuckerberg mentioned on Joe Rogan's podcast that the FBI sent a couple of individuals to start censoring about the Biden criminal syndicate laptop.
Are those the same individuals, meaning Brian Auten, Laura Demlo, Elvis Chan, Joe Pientka III, and all the way up to Chris Wray and beyond?
Were those the individuals that also coordinated with the Deputy General Counsel of Twitter, Jim Baker, who was previously the General Counsel of the FBI during Crossfire Hurricane, during the Mueller investigation?
During impeachment hoax one before he then moved over to the Twitter headquarters team in order to conduct the censorship industrial complex there.
It'll be interesting if Elon Musk then goes ahead and what I call releases the mother of all Twitter files where the communications will show specifically all of the collusion
All of the seditious conspiracy and all the treasonous behavior of this current belligerent illegitimate executive branch that resulted in cover-up after escalatory cover-up from the crossfire hurricane, spying apparatus campaign, to the cover-up Mueller investigation, to the cover-up impeachment hoax one, to the cover-up impeachment hoax two, the fedsurrection, and then the subsequent fedsurrection cover-up, and I suspect that
Now that Elon Musk is endorsing President Trump, I think he's already looked into that and peeked under the rug, if you will.
And it would be very nice to see, maybe even as early as this weekend, to inform those early voters, hey, guess what?
We have full 100% evidence of the entire conspiracy theories that were attacked.
They weren't conspiracy theories, they were conspiracy oracles And here's your evidence, America.
Basically, now we're at 1 billion monthly active users on X, which is, as was posted yesterday, it was about 900 plus million.
I would say going into September, it's going to go well beyond a billion.
And now it's competing with global platforms, free speech platforms like Telegram.
And as we go into one and a half, two billion, and as fake book is being, people are off ramping off of the lying platforms.
We're going to be in a very strong position, I think, going into November to autocorrect what they are trying to do.
But they're not going to go out without a fight.
It's going to get spicy.
Let's pick it up in a moment with Ivan Reikland.
You asked, and MyPillow listened.
They're finally bringing you the most requested offer ever.
Right now, you can get the queen-size premium MyPillow for only $19.98.
Wow.
MyPillow is made with patented adjustable fill.
It adjusts to your exact individual needs.
Regardless of your sleep position, it helps to keep your neck aligned.
And holds its shape all night long, so you get the best sleep of your life.
But that's not all.
There are good deals all around.
Get the 6-piece Kitchener Bat Towel Sets, just $25.
The brand new Mattress Stopper, as low as $69.98.
And the famous MyPillow Bed Sheets, as low as $25.
And there's so much more.
Here's the number to call, 800-876-0227.
Or you can go to mypillow.com.
When you use promo code Dinesh, you get big discounts on all the MyPillow products, including The premium queen-size MyPillow, only $19.98.
That's the lowest price ever, so don't delay.
Order today.
Go to mypillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Guys, if you'd like to support my work, I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel and become an annual subscriber.
It's a modest expense.
I post a lot of exclusive content on Locals, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You also get to interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday, so tonight 8 p.m.
Eastern, and no topic is off-limits.
I've also got a movie page up on Locals.
2000 Mules is up there, the film that came out last year, Police Date, and of course this fall, the new film, Vindicating Trump, will also be up there.
If you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch the movie content for free.
It is included with your subscription.
So check out the 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 back with Ivan Reiklin, former Green Beret constitutional attorney.
Follow him on X at Ivan Reiklin, the website Reiklin.com.
Ivan, I want to pick up what we were talking about at the end of the last segment, namely, I think what you're saying is that if we flash back to 2020, we were facing a really dire situation because Every major digital platform, I think you would agree that YouTube and Google are about the worst, as bad as Zuckerberg, if not worse.
And you've got Zuckerberg who has Facebook, now Meta, as well as Instagram.
And Twitter at that time was under Jack Dorsey.
You had this Twitter regime of Vijaya, the Indian woman who was in charge of the legal department.
What is the guy?
Yoel Roth, the guy who was in charge of Trust and safety.
So this was like, this was a like-minded gang in all these digital platforms.
And then I think what you're saying is that Elon Musk has changed the game dramatically because he's got not only a single platform, but he's got the best one.
He's got the one where basically the political conversation takes place that sets the agenda.
Far more than YouTube, far more than Facebook, and that this might actually prove very important, partly by him spilling the beans and him just going in and looking under the hood and saying, listen, this is all the stuff.
I mean, I think Elon said very memorably that Twitter in the past has been a crime scene, right?
That sums up what you've been talking about.
A lot of bad stuff that's been going on.
Talk a little bit about About the role of Google.
I mean, I think Google is especially insidious because I'm seeing example after example.
And I don't just mean some of it has to do with the election, but some of it even has to do with historical figures.
Their parties are mislabeled, searches, normal searches don't come up.
And so you've got a kind of a A manipulator that is hidden, right?
It's the man behind the curtain, so to speak, because people don't even suspect that when they quote Google something, they're not getting the most frequent results, they're getting the results Google wants you to see.
Absolutely.
Fantastic question.
Let me address that first point that you made.
Uh, regarding Twitter, Twitter 1.0, the, as Elon Musk basically mentioned, it was December 10th of 2022, he tweets out that not only is Twitter a crime, a social media company, but it's also a crime scene.
And the following day he said that his Pronouns were prosecute Fauci.
So I'm wondering what he's sitting on.
And he was teasing out that he was going to do something to the effect of Fauci files that has yet to be released.
And maybe after today's testimony in just about an hour, less than an hour, Andrew Cuomo, the former failed governor of New York that basically slaughtered nursing home patients and to their death due to his cold covid policies.
Maybe after that hearing, as that's exposed by the covid select committee, he's going to release that.
But best case scenario for the leadership team of Twitter that you mentioned, whether it's Vijaya Gade and Yoel Roth, I think the best case scenario for them were only stuck in that woke mind virus that Elon Musk references.
They may not have been aware of their subordinate Jim Baker's role in coordinating that scheme with his previous colleagues at the FBI and by extension those 51 spies who lied and that broader national security ecosystem that leveraged through Jim Baker to run the entire censorship industrial complex from Twitter.
And remember, Twitter was a key player in what was disclosed in the Twitter files by Schellenberger and Taibbi in coordinating with the Office of Director of National Intelligence, the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force, and DHS's equivalent Foreign Influence Task Force, as well as other social media players such as the ones that you mentioned.
Now, as it applies to Google, If you think, I mean, every human being listening to this has to think through, what is the first vector that you go into in order to determine whether or not something is true, or if you're trying to find something out digitally?
The very first piece of software, first you have to have a piece of hardware, right?
Then you have the BIOS level, the coding, if you will, and then on top of that, you're basically using an operating system.
So, and then it basically dictates to you which browser you should be using to then go through to the search engine to then identify the information.
If you take it down to that level and layer, what stops these companies from manipulating which browser you choose to go ahead and use?
And then what stops them from that browser dictating to you which search engine to use?
All that's happening behind the scenes between these big companies, whether it's Microsoft or Google, like you said, Alphabet now, etc.
Well, by the time you get to the search engine, you're already told 90 plus percent of the time, unless you're a critical thinker and deliberately trying to go outside the matrix, you are already a sheep led to slaughter to then receive the information that they want you to know about for full control of you, your rights, without your even knowledge about it, essentially, as a lemming.
So by the time you're already entering into the Google ecosystem, when you type in the word D, It auto-populates as, Dinesh is the worst person ever in the history of humanity.
Never has the human race experienced such a criminal misdemeanor, felon, you name the expletive, right?
That's just typing in the letter D. I've worked really hard to earn that kind of a label, absolutely.
I think that's a very good description of, kind of a very good summary of my career.
But you're saying that all of this stuff is Deeply embedded now, deeply programmed, and it almost takes a citizen who has to be a sort of a sleuth, a vigilant is putting it mildly, to recognize, hey listen, in fact I think this... It has to be deliberate and forceful, but with X,
And Rumble, it actually makes it so much easier because you can easily go into these free speech platforms to then say, all right, let me see what's going on.
Somebody reached out to me yesterday.
I did an interview with the Hodge twins.
They're like, hey, where can I see the full video?
I said, you can't see it on Commitube because, well, some people pronounce YouTube.
It's because they pulled out some of the evidence that I provided as it relates to the COVID con and this is evidence that's provided.
I pulled it from the CDC's own website, Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
I brought in the intel community, the RUS government, Office of Director of National Intelligence, intel community assessment related to the origins of COVID.
These are the things that KamiTube and Google, or KamiSearch I call it, are censoring out.
Meanwhile, this is critically thought out evidence and information, meaning the origins of COVID, the second hypothesis that the first one had a low level of confidence, which the Intel community assessed as being bat soup, basically.
The second hypothesis that had a moderate level of confidence, which is higher than low, Was that the origins were a lab incident and there wasn't further evidence to showcase whether it was deliberate or accidental lab incident.
That's something that requires further investigation.
But when Fauci funds that lab incident.
And he's in a position of power and influence over the course of 50 years over at NAIAD through generational, remember I started off with generational incestuous corruption, well then guess what?
He's in a position to go ahead and leverage not only his friends over at the FBI and the CIA, but the broader U.S.
governmental institutions as it relates to that subject to say, hey I'm the end-all be-all science and hey Mark Zuckerberg, You can only allow your users to the tune of 3 billion monthly active users to say this.
And if they say this, you have to delete them.
Because then my partners over at the big pharma companies aren't going to be making money hand over fist.
To then fund this belligerent and illegitimate regime through their funding mechanisms to name the PAC on the left, and name the PAC on the right, and name the legacy media company that's not sponsored by, name the big pharma company.
There's not a single one.
So I know there was a lot there, but you've obviously been involved in this fight.
You're tracking all of it.
I'll be right back with Ivan Reiklin.
I'm back with Ivan Reiklin.
Ivan, you know, I read something interesting about Fauci, which is that in the aftermath of 9-11, that's when there was a lot of concern on the part of Dick Cheney and a number of others about bioweapons.
And this is when Fauci really developed ties with the CIA, with a lot of the defense industry actors.
Why?
Because he was the guy, he became the bioweapons guy.
And so suddenly a guy who was an infectious disease guy becomes infectious disease guy plus bioweapons guy.
And I think it's dizzying for me to think about, you know, recently Fauci goes up and says, well, you know that six feet social distancing rule?
There really wasn't any science behind that.
Someone just kind of came up with it and we sort of ran with it.
And I thought to myself, that's a very odd thing to do and a very odd thing to admit that you did.
And there has to be some reason why that arbitrary, non-scientific... Whimsical!
Yeah, why was that so appealing to you?
And to me, the answer is obvious.
It's appealing to him because if you can't stand six feet from the other guy, you can't have a normal election.
Because in a normal election, you're standing in line.
And so you suddenly say, well, we have to now redo the whole way we do the election.
Drop boxes, absentee voting, millions of ballots going out in the mail.
All of that was enabled, if we think about it, by the six feet social distancing rule.
So a rule that seems limited to COVID, innocent in its own right, oh, someone came up with it, actually is well thought out because it has well thought out consequences for the election.
So to me, Fauci, maybe unlike Zuckerberg, is a little bit more of a shady and diabolical figure because I think he knew from the beginning what he was up to.
No, you make some great question comments.
So number one, again, the first part, incestuous generational rot.
You mentioned folks like Cheney and Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense.
And who did he work for?
He worked for George Bush and he worked for George Herbert Walker.
And then who was George Herbert Walker's vice president?
So you start getting into the whole Bush Excuse me, George Herbert Walker was the CIA director, right?
So, when you look at some of these individuals and their relationships, and this goes decades and generationally, the corruption only escalates with these individuals.
So, when you move into the decisions that they made, and did it have an impact on the electoral infrastructure?
It absolutely did.
I happened, you may not know this, Dinesh, but let me start off with this, that In the not only superseding indictment, but the original indictment that Jack Smith wrote, in paragraph 88, there's a reference to a tweet that President Trump retweeted called Operation Pence Card.
I am the author of that tweet.
Okay, now when you back it up, my involvement in the 2020 election was to expose how I've identified now that 39 states ran their elections according to COVID measures, which meant that they violated Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the federal U.S.
Constitution, meaning it's up to the state legislatures to decide on how those electors and for president and vice president are allocated.
So when that legislative body in those 39 states says this is how we're going to do the popular vote but then an executive a non-legislative actor known as a governor or a secretary of state or a county clerk or in Wisconsin the Wisconsin Election Commission says no we're going to do it this way according to COVID measures that were promulgated by good old in the CDC and NAID director Fauci
All of them are colluding in a manner in order to circumvent the constitutional order, namely Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2, and so 39 states ran their elections illegitimately, illegally, and so what they transmitted in the form of electors was illegitimate because the underlying manner in which it was done was illegally run.
And that's why I put out the tweet, and I only argued that in the six contested states, but it goes beyond the six contested states.
In that tweet, there was a memo that basically laid it on the shoulders of Mike Pence, because if you look at the Electoral Count Act, Title III U.S.
Code Section 12 specifically states that on the fourth Wednesday of December, which would have been December 23rd in 2020, it is up to the President of the Senate to then send a memo to the Secretaries of State Well, I won't go into those details.
The Secretary of State that, hey, you transmitted electors that were fraudulently transmitted because the underlying election was illegitimate.
And because December 23rd under the Electoral Count Act was the very first time upon which a federal officer had a touchpoint in the electoral college process, it was at that point in time that I had articulated that Mike Pence had to send it back to the states On that date, because that was what the authority of the electoral contact afforded him.
And not only was it an authority, it was his role as a federal officer to defend the U.S.
Constitution.
It was his obligation to send it back for remedy by the states.
And it would have sounded something like this.
Hey states, Run your election according to your own election law so it doesn't trigger the violation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.
That's one option.
Option two is just have a joint session of your state legislative body vote on how you're going to allocate those electors.
That could have been done in a mere hours, right?
Convene, vote, done.
Transmit accordingly, not dictating how they would vote.
It's just to correct the underlying illegalities of it.
They could have very well just said, you know what?
In the interest of avoiding chaos, we're going to reaffirm, we're going to affirm legally the fraudulently transmitted for Biden.
Had they done that, I would have been the first to say, congratulations, Biden.
But they never did that.
Or option three would have been to say for the state to abstain.
Mike Pence did nothing, and then it wasn't until January 6th.
This is a little bit more extension.
Maybe we need to go into more detail on a future show, but I articulated to Kevin McCarthy, directly, and to Mike Pence's Chief of Staff, Mark Short, indirectly, that all you had to do was to fix the illegal 2020 election heist across multiple layers.
We talked about the Mark Zuckerberg component censorship.
We talked about, you talked about it, the mules and the drop boxes.
All we had to do was to have a joint session People would object based on the criteria of, hey, these states ran their elections outside of the election laws of the state's legislature, triggering the federal violation, and for that very reason alone.
We must object.
Triggering and the way that the objection vote I argued should take place would have been by state delegation because neither the electoral count act nor the federal 12th amendment specifically lays out during an objection if you vote by one person one like one member one vote in the house or if you do it by state delegation.
I recommend and do it by state delegation as per the 12th amendment contingent election framework And if had we done that and everybody voted by political party you would have had a 27 to 20 to 3 vote to object to at a minimum three of the six states that were contested because that's the trajectory we were going in on towards January 6th meaning
Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and that would have forced a contingent election overall since no one would have had the requisite 270 electoral votes and under that framework it would have been literally a one millimeter putt into the hole using a golf analogy where if everyone voted by political party you would have had a re-election of Trump and Pence but because I had articulated that
I don't want to get into too much of the nuanced detail.
That wasn't done.
But because I articulated in such a grand scale, because I had several Trump retweets, and I was on bigger podcasts at the time, Nancy Pelosi's people, meaning her chief of staff, Terry McCullough, and one of her staff advisors, Jamie Flea, and others, I argue, articulated to the Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, to go ahead and facilitate the deliberate breach into the Capitol, and thus create a fedsurrection, so that that would not take place.
Meaning, that style of vote would not take place.
And technically, she had the authority to do that, of saying, hey, allow the people and incite them into the Capitol.
But I've done numerous podcasts where I think that my role in articulating this has such a profound impact on the decision-making process of the senior leadership of the Capitol Police Board and the Speaker, and then later the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, that they had to stop the vote from taking place how I explained it.
Otherwise, it would have been a lawful constitutional manner of a re-election, and they could not have that because all the corruption and rot we've just explained in our national security apparatus in the first two segments would then be exposed immediately on January 20th of 2021, and then there would have been immediate retribution subsequent to that.
Because a lot of the people you and I know would have been in the institutions to guarantee that.
And that's why they had to do everything in their power to steal that election, hook, line, and sinker using all the methods and mechanisms that their discretionary authority and beyond allowed them to do.
And that's what they did.
And they're continuing to weaponize to stop a return of Trump because they know Accountability, to say it politely, is coming.
I personally guarantee it, Dinesh.
I mean, I want to emphasize the point that you're making here very briefly, and that is what you're saying is that in the 2020 election, the Constitution could not be more clear and specific that state legislatures have to make the rules by which an election is run, that under the pretext of COVID, this constitutional mandate was systematically violated in many states.
In fact, The majority of states.
It was genocide of our constitution.
Yes.
And what you're saying is that, so regardless of the drop boxes, regardless of the mules, you're making a procedural point.
This was not a properly run election.
And all that Mike Pence needed to do is to basically go, Hey, I noticed that none of you guys have been following the constitutional rules.
I'm just going to, long before January 6th, send this stuff back to you so that you.
Precisely.
Court with the provisions of the Constitution.
You're saying that Mike Pence was presumably too scared to do that, and that's what led... Best case scenario, he was too scared.
Best case scenario, he was too scared.
Yes, that's right.
That's an excellent point.
I mean, there's a lot here.
We're not going to do full justice to it.
I think we've given...
Like I told you before we got started, a little bit of an appetizer to a genuinely huge topic.
I think we need to do this again and we'll schedule with you to make that happen.
Guys, I've been talking to Ivan Reiklin.
Follow him on X at Ivan Reiklin, website reiklin.com.
Ivan, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you so much, Zinash.
I appreciate you.
▲
Export Selection