All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
53:09
REFUND THE MONEY Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
If you're watching on X or Rumble or YouTube or if you're listening on Apple, Google or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
Hit the subscribe or the follow button.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
America needs this voice.
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.
Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Special edition of the podcast today.
The Attorney General of the State of Texas, Ken Paxton, is here.
And so I asked him to come in studio.
So after my opening segment, he'll be joining me and we'll chat for the rest of the podcast.
We're going to talk about Trump.
We're going to talk about Doge.
We're also going to talk about what's happening inside the state and why so many Republican attorneys general are so timid in taking on the left.
Ken, of course, is an exception to that.
But let me address some of the issues that are swirling around us right now.
The first one has to do with this controversial post that Trump put up where he called Zelensky a dictator.
And there's a lot of protest about this, not just from the Democrats, but some of it even coming from abroad.
And some of the Trump supporters as well are like, well, Zelensky is not really a dictator.
And look, the issue is somewhat ambiguous, right?
Because Zelensky has, he's in the sixth year of a five-year term.
So when it came time for elections, the elections were canceled.
Now, of course, Zelensky would say, and some of the Ukrainians say, that we're in a war, so we can't have elections.
I've pointed out that Churchill postponed elections in England in World War II. But again, even the historical experience is mixed, right?
The United States had elections during two world wars.
And Lincoln had an election in 1864. The Civil War was raging.
In fact, it was not going very well.
And Lincoln even said that he thought that he would lose the 1864 election and the Democrats would come in to power and would, in a sense, restore slavery, at least restore slavery in the South.
So, in Ukraine now, there's no free press.
The press is essentially all amalgamated into one.
They're all, you can say, a public relations extension of the government.
Well, I mean, some people would say our press over here is also a little bit like that, but it's not quite the same thing.
And civil liberties are also suspended.
So, the hallmarks of dictatorship are there.
The only question is, I guess, the defense in Zelensky's defense, you could say, well, it's the exigencies of war that are imposing these unnatural conditions on us.
Now, there's a bunch of legal challenges all across the country to Trump's executive orders, and by and large, well, You know, it's the nature of our judicial system.
You find a federal judge, you shop around, and you find a liberal judge.
They issue an injunction, and then you have to appeal it.
So this process is predictable.
I'm sure the Trump people expected it.
And Trump is doing pretty well in these cases.
The only case where he's not doing well, and I predict that this is maybe the case that he will continue not to do well, is on the issue of birthright citizenship.
I just want to say a word about that because I think that is a case where the language of the Constitution is different than the intent of the framers of that Constitution.
So if you came, for example, to America from Mars, and I'm only saying that because that's the objective outsider, and you read the Constitution, it appears to say clearly and flatly that if you are born in the United States, you become a U.S. citizen.
And this is, of course, the plain reading of the Constitution favors birthright citizenship.
But when you look at the context, like when was the 14th Amendment passed, this is all part of a series of Civil War amendments that came after the Civil War.
The context, of course, is that there were blacks who were born in the United States.
Their ancestors had come as slaves, but these are blacks who were born in the United States and yet were denied the privileges and immunities of citizenship, were denied, in a sense, the rights of citizenship.
And so the purpose of this birthright clause is to say all these people in America who have been in America and are born in America, In other words,
the founders or the framers of those amendments did not conceive this benefit being extended to some woman who creeps across the border illegally from El Salvador or comes deliberately with a view to having her kid over here.
This was clearly not the motive, not the intent, not the purpose of the constitutional amendment.
It's hard for me to see which way the courts, including our conservative Supreme Court, would go on this.
And Debbie's like, surely aren't they supposed to take into account the original intent of the framers?
And they are.
But when the original intent contradicts the seemingly plain language of the Constitution, it is hard to say which way that will go.
I also think that our Supreme Court is a political institution in the sense that they do a certain kind of balancing act.
And I'm saying this particularly of Chief Justice Roberts.
And I wouldn't be totally surprised if Roberts takes the view, hey listen, you know, we're probably going to be siding with Trump on a whole bunch of issues.
And this is one that we should sort of, quote, give the Democrats.
That's not really the way a Supreme Court ought to operate.
It should be operating just by honestly reading the constitutional text, looking at the context that lies beyond the text, look at the intention of the people who made, who passed those amendments and rule on that basis alone.
This is the point of having judicial independence.
But of course, the judicial independence, while true in theory, isn't always true in practice.
All right.
Let me turn to the issue of Doge, where we continue to see report upon report of scandal, the latest being $2 billion and so-called environmental grant.
To a Stacey Abrams-affiliated group.
It's called Power Forward Communities.
And this group is so small and so obscure that its entire annual revenues in 2023 appear to be $100.
So think about it.
The government is forking over $2 billion, supposedly for climate change projects.
But guess what?
I don't think so.
I think that these are payoffs.
Climate change is the pretext.
It's the guys.
This is the way the money is kind of funneled.
So if you wonder, what does Stacey Abrams get out of it?
Why is she setting up all these voter rights groups and mail-in drop boxes and you've got all this stuff that Stacey Abrams is doing in Georgia as a kind of a favor to Joe Biden to put him across the finishing line in 2020?
Well, this appears now.
Now we know why.
In other words, there is a reciprocity going on here.
You help me get across the finish line by hook or by crook, and then I will funnel large amounts of money in your direction under the guise of fighting climate change.
It's just rank corruption.
It's terrible stuff, and I'm delighted that we have the X platform to expose it, because this is not something you're going to read about in the New York Times.
It's not something you're going to see on CBS or NPR. The media exists to hide stuff like this, not to expose it.
I also want to make a comment about a...
You know, this is very interesting, and it kind of shows the power of X. A guy on X suggests that, you know, the government's saving all this money with Doge.
Why don't we, like, give it back to the American people?
And look at the process here.
Elon Musk replies to that guy and goes, you know what?
That's a great idea.
Let me ask the president about it.
And then I see Trump comes out with a statement and says he's thinking about it.
He's not thinking of giving all the money back, but he's thinking of returning 20% of the Doge savings to the American people.
And it could be that American taxpayers could receive $5,000 dividend checks.
This is the dividend that is saved by all the cuts that Elon Musk and his crack team We don't really think that the money should be given back because aren't we trying to cut the deficit?
Aren't we trying to bring government spending into line with tax receipts?
Aren't we trying to figure out some way of Of at least starting to pay off this giant $36 trillion debt.
And I think all of that is valid.
But I also think that there's a political dynamic here that should not be ignored.
I mean, think of it sort of this way.
If you tell the ordinary American that this money is being spent on this or that...
Let's just say something really stupid.
We're going to do transgender research on animals.
I think most Americans would agree that's stupid, but they don't feel that they have a dog in that fight because they feel like, well, maybe we shouldn't do that.
That's kind of bad.
But they don't realize that it's between that and them.
They don't really think about it as they're spending my money, even though the government in fact is.
Where else does government get money if not from the American people?
And so giving the money back to Americans now forces Americans to say, all right, well, would I rather have the $5,000 in my pocket?
Or would I rather fund all these idiotic things that the Democrats want to fund because they are beholden to various lobbyist groups or to various ideological groups?
Where would I rather have this money end up?
Trans research on penguins, let's say, or in my bank account where I can find some practical use for it, like groceries, gas prices, things like that.
So I think the genius of the idea of returning the money to the American people, even though that doesn't help, certainly not directly, in doing anything with the debt.
It has the benefit of putting forward before the American people.
Either the government bureaucrats get to play with the money on their pet projects or it is returned to you where you can use it more wisely.
Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Grand Canyon University, GCU, believes in equal opportunity, and the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.
Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCUs online, on campus, and Hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal and professional goals.
With 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
It's private, it's Christian, it's affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
Don't stop breathing.
On February 28, Focus Features invites you to experience the most inspirational film of the year.
Based on extraordinary true events, Last Breath tells the story of a deep-sea diver trapped at the bottom of the ocean.
With only 10 minutes of oxygen left, he struggles to navigate the pitch-black abyss while his teammates devise a daring plan to save him.
From certain death.
What happens next, some called impossible, others call it a miracle.
Starring Woody Harrelson, Simu Liu, and Finn Cole, Last Breath takes you inside a world of deep-sea high-pressure diving where every decision, every second, and every breath is a life-or-death moment.
moment with incredible performances, astonishing visuals, and an uplifting emotional core.
This is a truly immersive movie you cannot miss.
Witness the most thrilling motion picture event of the year on the big screen.
Get your tickets now for Last Breath.
It's rated PG-13, maybe inappropriate for children under 13.
Opens February 28th in theaters everywhere.
Guys, I'm really delighted to have right here in studio with me, the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, and And we had coffee a little earlier and we thought, hey, we're next door to the studio.
Let's pop in and do a conversation together.
So I'm delighted to have Ken right here.
His website, kenpaxton.com.
Ken, thanks for joining me.
Yeah, nice to be here in person.
I think I've done this by Zoom, but never come to the studio.
You've never been in the studio.
As you can see, it's a little bit of a ramshackle operation, but nevertheless, it gets the job done.
Works.
Yeah, totally works.
Ken, let's talk about the country because we are seeing, I think, something quite historic and maybe even something that we didn't expect because we're used to Trump 2016, right?
We were used to Trump.
He's already been around the block, but he is hitting things with a speed, a determination, a focus, perhaps a vengeance, some would say, that has...
Yeah, I think experience.
He's been through this before.
He realizes that speed is really important because you have a very limited amount of time to get things done.
You never know when that's going to happen.
You don't know when Congress is going to change or not change.
And I think he is committed to making changes that fix many of the problems that were created by Joe Biden and others.
I don't know that we've ever seen anybody move this fast on so many important issues to the country.
So it's pretty exciting, I think, for a lot of Americans.
I mean, we were talking a moment ago about the fact that there was an electricity in the early Reagan years, a sense that you could get tax cuts that we hadn't seen before.
There was escalation of defense spending, missile defenses, all kinds of things were happening.
But nevertheless, it was happening in a couple of big areas.
But when it came to like housing or affirmative action, there were many other issues where you could see that Reagan just decided, well, that's not my priority.
I'm just going to focus on A, B, and C.
I think what to me is electrifying about Trump is that this blitzkrieg is happening on every front. - Yeah, I think they had a period of four years It's obviously unusual to have a break in your presidency and come back.
And so he had four years to have people working on issues so that when he came back, if he came back, and fortunately it was when, that they were ready to take on the federal government, the bureaucracies, and try to overcome them.
Because the bureaucracies are always ready for the new president.
The new president isn't always ready for the bureaucracies.
And they came in ready, armed with great people and great ideas, and they've moved on all fronts.
I mean, to me, the most surprising thing of all...
Is the phenomenon of Doge, of the Department of Government.
I say this because, not just because Elon Musk is in there and because they've got these whiz kids who have, you know, I mean, I love this idea of turning off people's passwords and so on.
I mean, think of how much fun it must be to do that.
But it's more this, that when I think back to the Reagan years, there was a...
It was very difficult to cut the government.
I say this as someone who is a policy analyst trying to do things like this in there.
And the reason is this, that if you have a government program, any program, it will typically have a certain group of beneficiaries who stand to lose a lot if that program is cut.
Now, who's paying for the program?
A lot of American taxpayers, but they're all scattered.
So let's think of, you know, taxpayers are paying $3 a piece, but all those benefits are going to farmers or they're going to one group.
So these groups have effective, desperately motivated lobbyists who fight for those programs.
And by contrast, it's hard to motivate the guy who gave three bucks to say, okay, I want to cut that program.
So this was a dynamic that we didn't know how to break.
And now I see with Doge, Trump has adopted a strategy of, well, first of all, using public humiliation, which I personally love, on X.
Stacey Abrams just got $2 billion, or they had allocated $2 billion for Stacey Abrams.
They had stashed it away, apparently, with a bank so it wouldn't be officially on the government books.
I mean, how do you defend this stuff, right?
So he's putting these people on public trial.
Yes, and so I have two responses.
One is, I'm experiencing even that right now.
We sued over a rule that was created by Joe Biden that related to disabilities trying to add the LGBT designation to disability so that that would be covered.
We sued over that, and as you mentioned, it's a small group of people that are being affected that relate to this disability issue.
They're attacking us right now, even though it has nothing to do with changing anything about what happens with disabilities.
Now, we're just trying to stop them.
From creating an unconstitutional new rule that would designate LGBT by rule as part of the disability.
So I understand exactly what you're talking about.
What I love about what Trump's doing is it's almost like overwhelming force.
And it's also creating transparency, exposing.
What these people have done, and they're all getting caught off guard, and they're having to explain, why is Stacey Abrams getting $2 billion?
And that's kind of a strange thing to know.
And why are all these different things that they're discovering?
Why did they happen?
Why is this money being wasted?
And it's really difficult for anybody to defend it.
Even the Democrats are struggling with coming out and saying, well, you should stop because it's hard to stop it because it's exposing bad stuff.
Waste.
They have created such an elaborate system of payments.
In fact, I mean, think about this.
Who knew that the government is funding thousands of media organizations in the United States and abroad?
I mean, the BBC is on the payroll.
Politico is on the payroll.
And they have a first line of defense, which is...
Politico, they're the best reporters in town.
They offer a premium reporting service, and government people really need it.
And that's why, even though it's like $9,000 a subscription, oh, it's well worth it, you know?
And then you realize, well, I didn't read in Politico anything about Stacey Abrams and her $2 billion.
So where are these crack reporters who are providing this $9,000 subscription?
The whole thing, I think, is...
And it's not just in the government, is it?
It seems to be...
A network involving the government, these non-governmental organizations or NGOs, and then media.
Well, if it's such a great idea to fund them, why did they not disclose it?
Why is it not transparent to the American people?
It seems obvious to me that they knew that this would be a problem, that the American people wouldn't want.
All of these media organizations funded by the government also seems like a conflict of interest in that they're supposedly reporting on the government and they're supposed to have these free speech rights.
But if they're tied in and funded by the government, we've got all kinds of conflicts going on.
And I can tell you just from experience, I have looked into some of these non-governmental organizations that are involved on the border, some supposedly religiously affiliated, which is very questionable, who are getting billions of dollars from the government.
Hundreds of millions, billions of dollars.
And then they are doing things that we think are illegal, which is helping smuggle people into this country and human traffic.
And the government is washing the money by hiding it in NGOs.
The government's not doing it.
They just throw this money in here and then they're unaccountable.
So I love what's going on with Elon and the whole Doge movement because it is exposing to the American people what their government is actually spending their money on.
I mean, what's disturbing to me is that you look at an organization like Catholic Charities, for example, and these guys have taken huge amounts of money from the government.
And I guess it becomes a revenue source, right?
Because the church had been hit by all those lawsuits.
They were basically suffering a hemorrhaging of funds, not only the cost of paying out the lawsuits, but then also a lot of run-of-the-mill Catholics going, I'm not going to put money in the pew, it's all being paid out in these lawsuits.
And then they'd realize, oh, wait a minute, there's an amazing source.
I mean, this is like religious entrepreneurship, right?
You suddenly realize, I can make billions over here.
Because I thought for years it's really strange to find.
It's one thing if you have some guy who lives in Tijuana and then he tries to get across the border.
Okay?
Because he's like, it's better over there.
Right.
I want to go.
It's another thing if some guy from Honduras, Venezuela, China...
If all these people start showing up at the border, you know that there's got to be an elaborate operation sustaining all this.
I knew there was.
One of my jobs as Attorney General of Texas is to oversee charities, to make sure that they're not committing crimes or they're operating as a charity, the way charities are supposed to.
And so my job is not necessarily to support charities, but we are to look into maybe fraudulent activities.
Just when we asked just questions, we sent questions.
We had questions for some of these NGOs, Annunciation House.
I knew then we were onto something because I immediately was attacked by all the politicians down there.
Congressman, mayor, everyone came after me.
And then the Pope criticized me.
I'm like, the Pope is interested in this?
He's criticizing me, saying I'm anti-Catholic?
It's totally false.
But all we had done was ask questions.
Then they sued us in a court of their choice to try to stop us from getting simple answers to questions about how are you spending this money that's coming in from the federal government?
And is it appropriate or are you violating federal and state laws?
And it created such a stir, we're still in the middle of it.
Let's talk a little bit about, I want to talk about Texas, but let's finish up on the national front.
The DOJ, I think today it looks like Kash Patel is going to come up for a vote on FBI director.
When you look at Trump's cabinet nominees, I mean, each one of them makes me laugh harder than the previous one.
You know what I mean?
Because you know exactly, not only is Trump picking people who are going to expose things and turn things around, but it's like the ultimate nightmare for the left and for the Democrats.
It's the guy that will do the most to cause them consternation, and you can see that it's having an effect.
Well, first of all, I'm a huge fan of Kash Patel.
I hope that they confirm him.
But it's true.
Look at...
RFK Jr., look at Bobby Kennedy.
I mean, he was a Democrat, and they so fear, big food, big pharma, so fear that he's going to expose what they're doing, whether it's with vaccines or whether it's with food.
You can tell there's a great fear, so they attack.
And even the Democrats have attacked RFK Jr. I think it's because they know that he's going to be affected, that he is going to expose.
It's this continual idea of letting the American people know what's really going on in government and what's really going on with I look at it a little bit differently.
In other words, when I had my campaign finance case with the Obama people, I began to see for the first time the way in which politics had become gangsterized.
In other words, that the Democrats are willing to deploy the weaponry of government against a critic or a dissident to make an example of you or to kind of...
Take you out.
But I must say that until COVID, I never thought about why, for example, the pharmaceutical industry might want people to have drugs that don't really cure you.
Or why the food industry might want to feed you food that makes you super fat or is not good for your health.
And I think what we've now begun to realize is that these industries Somehow capture these government agencies, partly by offering jobs, you know, hey, you go work for the FDA, then you come work for us.
And so this very profitable traffic between the companies and these agencies.
And so, you know, the distrust that we now have for big pharma, big food, appears to be richly deserved.
I think if you didn't have that environment...
You wouldn't get a guy like RFK. His success is based upon saying, your intuition about these guys is correct, and I know my way around these agencies, and I will stop these people.
No, you're right.
The suspicion has been created by what we watched, right?
Especially during COVID, and we watched how the federal government threatened people with losing their jobs, companies threaten people with losing their jobs if you don't get this vaccine, which...
Never really made sense.
If you think about it, why, if this vaccine works, why would you care if I get it?
Why shouldn't I be able to make my own decision?
Why are you going to fire me because I'm going to harm myself?
Is that really what you're worried about?
But they made it seem like you were going to harm them.
Why would you harm them if the vaccine works?
So I never understood the argument that they were going to protect me from myself.
Shouldn't I make my own decision about my health care if I don't trust it?
Shouldn't I have that?
But they...
They had a bigger purpose, and I think the American people, after they watched what happened in COVID, they became suspicious about a lot of things and about the government's willingness to push things on them that weren't good for them.
What do you think was their bigger purpose?
Because you just outlined, it doesn't make any sense, and yet, as you say, they were so determined to have these policies from lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, even fire people in the military, fire the...
Cops and firefighters who don't take it.
So they went to great lengths.
What was their agenda?
Look, they always say, follow the money.
And there were billions of dollars made on these products.
And despite the fact that they were not effective, and we have a lawsuit with Pfizer that we believe will show, if we can get it through the court system, that this claim that it was 95% effective, the vaccine from Pfizer, we think it was more like 1% or less.
And of course, then they censored people and it was about the money and the power.
They were willing to force people to lose their jobs, threaten them, and put all kinds of pressure on them to take a vaccine that harmed people.
Some of them died.
Do you think that Pfizer and Moderna were sort of smart and upfront and they said, listen, why don't we cut a deal with these government agencies and basically say we're immune from any lawsuits?
And that way, no matter what bad effects turn up from the vaccine...
We are protected.
It was genius.
They got it passed in the 80s and more in the 90s.
And it basically said to these vaccines, if you're doing a vaccine, you're supposed to be protected from it.
You can do anything.
So they didn't even test these vaccines.
They were tested for a couple of days or a week.
That's not real testing.
And so because they have complete immunity, now we're arguing that immunity doesn't apply to state law.
If you commit a deceptive trade practice, you lie to our public.
The federal government can't protect you from state law.
Of course, you know.
The pharmacy companies are like, oh, we're protected from everything.
We can do whatever we want.
I think that's bad policy to say that if you're doing some type of vaccine or you're doing something else, you are not responsible for making sure that they are truthful and that they're accurately reporting their effectiveness.
Why do you think, why would a lawsuit like that have...
And I say that because you would think that a judge would say, all right, listen, you might have somehow wangled your way into federal protection, but we don't see any state immunity that you have.
But it seems like our system, our judicial system and so on, is highly protective of these sorts of companies, even when it doesn't have to be.
They're not on the side of the consumer.
They're kind of on the side of the establishment.
Is that just because, you know, judges go to law schools and they put on robes and they kind of feel like they have to protect a system?
What's the reason?
Why are they like that?
That's a great question because our lawsuit against Pfizer was originally dismissed by a federal judge with the argument that federal law protects them from state law.
Makes no sense to me.
So we're appealing it to the Fifth Circuit.
I'm hopeful that we'll get a panel that will...
We'll see through this argument because I just don't see how it can possibly be true that you get federal protection and that just banishes all the states from protecting their citizens if a corporation is defrauding them and lying to them and potentially causing them bodily harm and maybe death.
That doesn't seem possible or right.
Numbers don't lie.
The impact that Balance of Nature makes every single day is astounding.
You can see the numbers on...
Their website for yourself.
Go to balanceofnature.com.
Listen to a few stats concerning Balance of Nature's worldwide success.
More than a thousand success stories reported each month.
Hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide.
Millions of orders delivered each year and billions, yes, billions of these.
These are fruits and veggies in a capsule.
It's fruit and veggie supplements consumed by people who have decided to start living better.
There's only one number missing here and that's you.
Do what I did.
Add yourself to these numbers.
Start taking Balance of Nature's whole food supplements like so many others around the world.
Here's another number that should get your attention.
35%.
Use my discount code AMERICA to get 35% off plus free shipping and their money back guarantee.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code AMERICA, you get 35% off plus free shipping.
MyPillow is excited to announce they're having the first ever mega sale on overstock, clearance, and brand new products.
For example, you can save over 50% on this season's flannel sheets.
The queen size is just $59.98 and the king size only $69.98.
They sell out fast every year, so be sure to order now.
You can also save 30% on the brand new MyCrosses.
These are designed in the likeness of the one that Mike Lindell has worn every day for over 20 years.
They come in men's and women's styles.
And they're made right here in the USA. Get the 2025 six-piece My Towel sets for only $29.98.
The initial quantities are low, so get them now before they go.
And I don't want to forget to mention the best-selling standard MyPillow, just $14.98.
Take advantage of the first ever mega sale.
Call 800-876-0227.
Again, that's 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
Before I forget, I want to mention, you know, Mike Lindell used to have that deal where if you spend more than $75, you get free shipping.
Well, he tells me that ship has sailed.
He's got a better deal right now for a limited time.
Every order ships free.
Let's talk about the state of Texas.
I want to start with, I just saw a rather peculiar comment by our esteemed Senator John Cornyn.
To the effect of, you know, I don't know what this doge business is up to, very skeptical of Trump.
And number one, the politics of that seemed to be really dumb.
But number two, clearly it showed that, I mean, look, I understand that if you're talking about, you know, if we get a rhino so-called in a place like Maine, it's better because if we didn't have Susan Collins, we'd probably have a Democrat.
And that may be true in a couple of other places.
But Texas is a red state.
It's getting seemingly redder with the movement in the Rio Grande Valley to the right on the part of once blue Hispanics.
And yet we have a guy like Cornyn.
What's the deal with Cornyn?
And why do you think he's got this beef with Doge?
Look, this is just his history.
He's been there for at least 22, 23 years in the U.S. Senate.
I can't...
Look at his record and not go, what have you done that's really good?
You've done things that have harmed, that have restricted gun rights.
You've attacked Trump when he ran in 2016 and attacked him again this time saying he wasn't a candidate that could win.
You've said things like he's maybe guilty of crimes.
He shouldn't run.
And he's been not supportive of border policy, building a wall.
There's not very many things I can look to.
And it's shocking as a senator from the state of Texas that you would not be supportive of what your constituents care about.
That's just not been his history.
He's been aligned with Karl Rove and others, the Bushes, and they just haven't cared about what the constituents in Texas care about.
He doesn't align with us.
And that worked because before social media, when he got elected, People didn't really know what he was doing.
We know what he's doing now, which is he's aligned with the bureaucracies, the spender.
So why would you criticize Doge?
Why would you criticize the transparency that you and I were just talking about?
And finding fraud, waste, and abuse, he's criticizing it.
That, to me, is out of touch with most Americans, and it's certainly out of touch with Texans and more aligned with what Democrats are going to be saying.
I mean, the genius to me of Doge is, I don't know if you remember, but toward the end of the Reagan years, Reagan had appointed, in fact, a Catholic businessman, Peter Grace, to create a Grace Commission to investigate waste.
And Peter Grace set up this massive office, and they did this research report that was like 400 pages long, and it itemized, just like today, you know, these outrageous examples of waste.
But the truth of it was because the commission was outside the government, The bureaucrats just decided, we'll just pretend it doesn't exist.
We'll look the other way.
The storm will pass.
And then we just go right back to business as usual, which is exactly what happened.
There was some media outrage, and how can we be funding this and that?
And there were all kinds of crazy examples, but nothing happened.
The difference here with Doge is that Elon Musk is not just on an investigative committee.
He's actually in these agencies, and he's able to do things.
Trump is, in a sense, delegated actual enforcement power, and that makes all the difference.
No, absolutely.
It means nothing to discover this.
We find out, as you said with the Grace Commission, all of this fraud, waste, and abuse.
We've known about it for decades.
Everybody's known about it.
No one does anything about it.
What matters is, what do we do with the information we have?
And if we don't stop it, as leaders of this country, We're perpetuating a system of fraud, voice, and views which just drains the American economy, drains our pocketbooks, and doesn't actually help anybody.
What's the point of that?
Why would anybody, why would John Cornyn, why would the Democrats speak out against this?
Is this not a good thing?
Well, I think what it's showing you, you know, the Democrats have always said, we're the party of government helping you out, right?
And if you take that at face value, The old FDR vision that government is there to enable you to exercise your rights, to create opportunity, for example, and to provide for retirement.
If you were serious about that, Democrats would be the ones on the front line against fraud, against waste and abuse, because they would realize these are precious government resources, we have a definite moral and political purpose for them, and we are going to be more against fraud than anybody else.
I think it's very telling that they have circled the wagons.
They will defend all of it.
And so the only way they can do that is, you know, Elon Musk doesn't have a proper appointment.
He hasn't been elected by anyone.
All of this is so weak and so preposterous because they're like, how does he get to look at your private information, Dinesh?
And I'm like, well, who had access to it before Elon Musk?
There were obviously...
Dozens of bureaucrats who did, were they elected?
No.
So what's the difference?
No, it's becoming very transparent, right?
That the Democratic Party, they should want more money to help people that need it, right?
I mean, actually, they should be going, way to go.
We now have more money that we can help more people.
That's a good thing, right?
The fact that they're attacking the man and they're attacking the process of discovering all this, instead of going, wait a minute, we have some real problems here.
This is good.
Let's fix it.
None of them are saying, let's fix it.
Even when they're attacking, they're not saying, let's fix it.
They're attacking the process.
They're attacking the person.
I would respect it more if they said, you know, I don't like exactly how he's doing this, but I'm so thankful he's discovering it.
Maybe we should do it this way, but this is awesome that this is happening.
They're not doing that.
And that's another problem I have with John Corden.
He's just not.
Standing up and saying, this is a great process, and it is going to benefit the American people.
I mean, there is a point of view that would say that these allocations are done by Congress, right?
And so that Congress is the place where these cuts should occur.
But when I hear people say that, you would think they would follow up by saying, okay.
Elon Musk hand over all these examples of fraud and abuse, and we are going to promptly pass laws that codify Doge and cut the allocations in the first place.
So the money can't be abused, because we're not going to give it to you to do these things.
But no, I think what they mean when they say, let's turn it over to Congress is, because Congress has done nothing about this for 50 years, right?
So they've shown no ability to audit.
Why wasn't Congress auditing all these agencies all this time?
You know what?
Because Congress has delegated all that authority to these bureaucrats.
And so now you've got this.
It's all in the executive branch.
And you've got an executive who's saying, well, this is in my branch of government.
These people work for me.
If they're wasting money, I'm going to stop it.
That seems very reasonable to me, especially when Congress has delegated so much out of their authority.
They don't watch this stuff.
I mean, how much time do they spend looking at agencies?
When I talk to congressmen and ask them, hey, we've got a problem over in this agency, they're going, yeah, we talk to them all the time.
They don't listen to us either.
That's what they say.
Because they've delegated all their authority.
If they want control, then take it back and take control and fix it.
That is not what they've done.
They haven't done it for, as you say, 50, 60 years.
And so you've got an executive saying, well, if they're going to waste money, we're going to stop them.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Let's talk about attorneys general around the country because we've seen that you've got maybe two, maybe three, maybe four Republican attorneys general, you included, Who are willing to take action on some of the tough issues?
And by the tough issues, I mean issues like election fraud, the border, January 6th, the kind of issues that it seems like a lot of Republicans, and not just AGs, but Republicans in general, I don't want to be an election denier, you know, I don't want to be.
So it seems that it is the minority of Republican AGs who go out on the front line.
Why is that?
I think it's really what you say.
They don't want to be criticized.
They don't want to be the first one out there.
It's easier to stay below the radar.
You don't end up getting sued.
You don't end up having the federal government or some agency try to take your license or try to put you in jail.
If you're the person out there on the front lines, you're going to be persecuted by the system because you're upsetting the...
The money flow and the power flow.
And so it's just easier.
Why do that?
I'll just keep quiet and every once in a while I'll do a lawsuit against Joe Biden.
And it's a much safer environment for you personally.
The problem is, without the push, nothing really ever changes.
And in addition, people like Joe Biden are ruling by edict and creating...
Crazy rules that were never passed by Congress, that were never voted on, and they're running the country as a dictator.
So the problem is, we are having our Constitution run over, and we don't have enough people fighting it.
We haven't had enough people out there on the front lines fighting it.
I mean, I think this is a key point.
You know, if things are going smoothly and you have a business-as-usual approach, I suppose that could kind of make sense.
But what you have is this, and we saw it with Merrick Garland now.
I mean, that was a guy, you got a...
From a distance, give him some credit.
He was a man on a mission, right?
I mean, this guy was pushing the envelope in every area as much as he could.
Look at the number of agents that he deployed and prosecutors on January 6th.
I mean, he treated this like he was just coming into office right after the Civil War.
And there was a lot of stuff to be straightened out.
And they've gone at it for four years with a...
Just a completely callous indifference to the impact of the people whose lives they're ruining.
So when you have that kind of aggression on one side, and then you have passivity on the Republican side, I mean, that's a bad combination.
It's a very bad combination.
And it's true.
Department of Justice and the FBI have become very corrupt.
And it's obvious.
They were targeting people politically.
They were letting real criminals go.
They were spending, I don't know how much they spent investigating me for six years.
And I even feel like they tried to entrap me into doing things that you wouldn't naturally know were a crime, but they would have been a crime.
So here they are using this as a political, instead of justice, we're talking about politics.
That's a really evil thing for democracy to have a criminal justice system that isn't about prosecuting real crimes.
Not made-up crimes.
I mean real crimes that harm people, not political crimes.
And they turned it into, let's just get our enemies.
China or Venezuela or even Nazi Germany, where we use the mechanisms of justice or injustice to hurt our political enemies.
And so we end up putting people in jail on these crazy, what happened to you, what's happened to so many people, Bannon, that, okay, maybe you could say somebody should be fined, but to turn it into a crime where you're going to prison, this is...
What do you think is the psychology that even drives it?
I mean, you mentioned, you mentioned, you know, you're controversial in the state of Texas.
You had the attempted impeachment in the House.
And thinking to myself as I saw all that, and even leaving aside, you know, the actual issues or the merits of it, it struck me.
This is very strange behavior on the part of Republicans.
You know, here you are, whatever they say about you, you're doing your job, and you're pretty effective at doing your job, and it's almost as if that counts against you.
I think about the Democrats and how inconceivable it is that they would do something like this.
In fact, they've got guys, you know, I mean, look at Menendez.
He has gold bars in his back, you know, his closet and so on.
Democrats are like, oh no, guess what?
You know, as long as that guy's voting with us, we're going to keep him in there.
In fact, we're going to keep him on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
So they'll hang on to their guys, whereas we...
Knife our own guys.
It's pretty sad.
You know, we have, unfortunately in Texas, we had a speaker, we've had this for 16, 17 years, that are elected by Democrats first.
The Democrats block vote.
We had 64, 65 of them.
You need 76 votes to get a majority.
And a few, you know, 15, 20 Republicans to get power, to be, you know, chairman of big committees, they'll cut the deal so that the Republicans get left out.
So in my case, I'm convinced the Biden administration went to the House Democrats in Texas and said, look, we want him impeached.
He's suing us every day.
I mean, I sued him 106 times in four years.
I see.
And so, and the reason I say that, this House investigating committee that did their little secret investigation on me that never had witnesses that we even knew who they were, that they never got sworn in, even though it's all required by law, and there was no due process, and I wasn't allowed to defend myself, and I had a gag order on me.
I couldn't respond to anything, and I'd be attacked.
Why is it that the four of the four lawyers, two of them came from the Department of Justice?
Doesn't that seem a little strange?
It's random that we just got our lawyers from the Department of Justice came straight over to help us.
That's a Republican committee?
So there's no doubt in my mind that there was collusion between the Biden administration...
Karl Rove, who also wanted me out because he hadn't been able to control this AG position, attorney general position, for the last 10, 11 years.
And so he participated along with a group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which I hope is getting reformed.
Oops, sorry about that.
Getting reformed.
So it's a combination of more moderate liberal Republicans going, we don't want this guy, we want our own guy, with the collusion of the Democrats.
And I think part of what you're saying, which is kind of shocking, and I think probably outside of Texas people wonder how can this even happen in a red state, that in a sense the Democrats are controlling the agenda, or have been, because the Republican speaker is beholden to them to put him in office.
That's exactly what's happened in Texas.
We just repeated that.
We got rid of the current speaker who's a Republican.
Because of the impeachment and other things that he had done.
This is Dade Phelan.
Yes, he's out.
I went out and campaigned.
We elected 24 new Republican House members.
It made a difference, but still, you only need a few Republicans to go along with it.
And the truth is, Dustin Burroughs was elected by the Democrats.
He was the one that wrote the rules that said you had to be elected by the Republican caucus first.
He didn't get elected, so he cut it, got out of his own rules, and said, no, I'll just cut a deal with the Democrats, and now he's the Speaker.
You mentioned that Burroughs is now kind of facing a choice.
He's at a fork in the road.
Can you lay out this fork in the road and what the options for him are?
Because it seems to me very important, the consequences.
It's very important because Texas is an important Republican state.
It's an important state to the country with the eighth largest economy in the world, and we have an impact on the whole country.
Heading in the right direction.
So Dustin Burroughs has a choice.
You can't serve two ministers.
If he's going to serve the Democrats and try to play this game, he got elected by them.
But he has a choice.
This session is going to be it.
And from here on out, he will be known for his choice.
The choice is, am I going, now that I'm Speaker, am I going to stick with my Republican roots?
Am I going to pass the things that the Senate is so ably and wisely passing?
Some great legislation from Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in the Senate.
Or am I going to let the Democrats, through all these little committee maneuvers where we have no Democratic chairs now for the first time, but they're all vice chairs and they all got a lot of money to hire people to help them, what is he going to choose?
He's got to choose either I'm going to pass Republican legislation or I'm going to do what the Democrats, if he tries to appease the Democrats in any way.
I will tell him that that will not work.
He will be subject to a primary opponent next time, and so will the people that participate with him.
So you're saying the good old Clinton triangulation strategy isn't going to work.
You're going to have to pick a side, and whatever side you pick will have consequences.
But is it the case, let's say Dustin Burroughs decides, okay, you know what, I don't really need the Democrats.
I'm going to go with the Republican agenda.
Do you think that the Republicans will unify behind him and does that give him a pathway?
Yes, I think it does give him a pathway.
Look, it's never too late for redemption, right?
And it's never too late to do the right thing.
And just because you made some bad decisions about how you got there and that were very disappointing to the Republicans that care, which is most of the state, doesn't mean you can't change and move in the right direction.
So my encouragement is, let's change.
Let's head in the right direction for the good of Texas, for the good of our party.
Let's head in the right direction.
And I think there's a lot of room for...
You know, letting go for forgiveness and moving on.
Awesome.
Guys, I've been talking to Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of the State of Texas.
His website is KenPaxton.com.
Ken, really appreciate you stopping by.
Thank you.
Great to be here.
Thanks for having me here.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection