All Episodes
Previous Next
April 22, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:00:26
ELON AND ROGUE JUDGES Dinesh D'Souza Podcast Ep1067
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
I'm Danielle D'Souza Gill.
I'll be hosting Dinesh's podcast while he is away this week in Israel.
I hope you all had a great Easter weekend.
If you're a regular Dinesh D'Souza listener, you've probably heard me on here before.
I was hosting yesterday, but we have a lot of content to get to today.
So we're going to be speaking with Will Chamberlain.
He's a brilliant lawyer.
He serves as the senior counsel from the Article 3 Project and the American Accountability Project.
He knows a lot about rogue judges, so we're going to be talking to him about all of our legal questions.
And we are also going to first kick off the show.
I'm going to talk a little bit about the attacks on Elon Musk, Tesla, some other crazy things the Democrats are doing.
And at the end of the show today, we'll talk about some of the racial tension in the midst of the death of Austin Metcalf and the funding going to Carmelo Anthony.
So let's get started.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Music
It's Halloween night in 1938, and you're walking by a group of people crowded around a radio in the street.
They're sharing incredulous glances as the voice on the broadcast cries out in horror at scenes of devastation.
You quickly try to grasp the situation.
Are these firsthand accounts?
Where is this happening?
Who's attacking whom?
After years of increasingly tense international politics, you wonder if, in fact, Germany's long-anticipated blow has finally landed.
Suddenly, a horrifying noise comes across the airwaves.
The announcer is talking about some novel weapon.
A heat ray.
But it's not being wielded by the Germans.
The attackers appear to be from outer space.
So you rush home, eager to warn your family about this new terror, only to find them completely unconcerned and listening to the top-rated comedy and variety show.
Surely, if the reports you heard were real, that comedy broadcast would have been interrupted.
Relief cascades over your body as you realize those otherworldly horrors you overheard weren't real at all, but just an episode of a show called The Mercury Theater on the air by some chap named Orson Welles.
The scenes of panic in the aftermath of that broadcast are legendary.
People flooding the streets wearing wet rags on their heads to protect themselves from the beams of deadly heat energy.
The story of the broadcast adaptation of H.G. Wells' science fiction hit War of the Worlds, which mimicked a real news broadcast, served as a cautionary tale for the rest of the 20th century.
It has long been held up as an example of the power that the media has to drive society into frenzied hysterics.
More recently, people have begun to push back on that story, saying that the panic was overstated.
After all, not everyone had a radio, and of those who did, ratings showed that only about 2% were listening to the story of Earth's invasion by Martians.
And of that group, none reported the program as a news broadcast, but as a radio play or some other dramatic production.
So even the small percentage of people who were listening weren't fooled.
In 2013, PBS ran a show about the mass panic the broadcast caused, much to the chagrin of people like Michael Sokolow, who had been arguing for several years that the stories were overblown.
In a piece in Slate, Sokolow argues the panic couldn't have happened as described.
He blamed radio's competitors, print media, for trying to demonize radio.
He said, quote, How did the story of panic listeners begin?
Blame America's newspapers.
Radio had siphoned off advertising revenue from print during the Depression, badly damaging the newspaper industry.
So the papers seized the opportunity presented by Wells' program to discredit radio as a source of the news.
The newspaper industry sensationalized the panic to prove to advertisers and regulators that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted.
He applies a good deal of historical data, logic, and goes so far as to detail a possible motive for print media.
In so doing, he helps to debunk the idea that people are gullible and can be manipulated by the media into destructive panics.
Right? Well, not really.
Note Sokolow's frustration at the enduring nature of the myth of the panic.
Who created that myth in the first place?
The print media.
The debunking of the myth of the mass panic itself proves the ability of the media to hack into the minds of the masses on a societal scale and make them see what isn't there, or believe what isn't true.
And it's back to square one, really.
We left Plato's cave only to find ourselves in another cave.
Is it caves all the way down?
The story of the mass panic may not be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that such panics aren't possible.
As a matter of fact, there's a mass panic happening now.
Ever since Elon Musk and Doge have been looking into government corruption, there's been an unending sequence of instances of deranged viewers willingly taking up the mantle of modern-day self-styled resistance fighters.
In order to vandalize random Tesla cars they see, whether it's at dealerships or owned by private individuals on the street, in driveways and parking lots, they oftentimes take videos of themselves vandalizing the Tesla vehicle.
And this is not just in America, mind you.
These acts are being carried out around the world.
Detailed statistics aren't available for minor crimes like keying or marring Teslas with bodily waste, which we've seen on video.
But it seems that not a day goes by where we aren't treated to yet another video from Tesla's sentry mode where yet another vandal makes himself famous.
There are currently three examples of serious cases involving arson and gunfire at the dealerships.
Those perpetrators have been charged by the DOJ with the intent of putting the criminals away for multiple decades.
These acts of protest have limited effect on the object of their ire, Elon Musk.
At the same time, the cameras mean there's a near 100% chance that these perpetrators will face justice.
That could mean anything from hefty repair bills to jail time, depending on what they did.
Roll all that into a traditional risk-reward analysis matrix, and any way you slice it, it is a bad idea.
A very bad idea.
Which begs the question, why?
A 2023 Pew Research study revealed that over 56% of left-leaning Americans were at least somewhat open to purchasing an EV, electric vehicle, compared to only 20% of right-leaning Americans.
That means that the intended victims of these vandals with Teslas are themselves more likely to be a fellow Democrat voter more than anything else.
They're Democrats going after other Democrats.
Leftists are senselessly attacking their fellow leftists in order to score lefty cred.
So not only are these vandals putting themselves in a position of committing vandalism, Potentially facing jail time and other punishment.
They're also aggressively driving their own voters from the Democrat Party.
Typically, political action is taken to win people over to your side as opposed to repelling them.
Picking losing fights with people in your own party is quite conceivably the dumbest thing you could elect to do.
Yet these vandals themselves might as well be wearing wet towels on their heads to protect themselves from heat rays.
Like the mythical panic-stricken listeners of War of the Worlds in 1938.
After all, they're only lashing out because their TV told them to.
Unlike the 2% audience share that Orson Welles boasted, the anti-Doge drum breed has been relentlessly sounding through all channels of the media.
That's because right now, Elon Musk is the target of the left, and specifically Doge.
It's not just news, but also commentary, social media.
Late night comedy shows, if those are even funny.
All really encouraging this.
Democrat politicians have been hard at work ginning up outrage by painting Elon Musk as a marauding technocrat, an evil billionaire, stealing paltry government benefits from Medicare and Social Security, or pocketing people's data.
The only problem is, there's no evidence.
Not once has someone come forward to talk about their benefits being pilfered by Doge or someone saying, I no longer am receiving Social Security even though I am supposed to receive Social Security.
This is the fear that the left is creating in people, but it's not rooted in any evidence.
Of course, Elon Musk and Doge's focus is to focus on waste, fraud, and abuse.
If there was even a scintilla of evidence that someone had their benefits canceled who was entitled to them, you can bet that person's face would be plastered over every media outlet and website from here to Mars.
But that hasn't stopped the Democrats, their media conglomerate, their protest funders, from tirelessly pushing that very narrative across the country.
And many people actually believe that, even though it's not true.
Doge is doing the exact opposite of stealing.
Doge is stopping those who would bankrupt the system by stealing from us, the American taxpayers.
So if these systems are to continue, you can't have waste, fraud, and abuse.
Doge is stopping the fraud, stopping the swamp from continuing how they have been for years.
In other words, Doge is stopping the Democrats.
So is the story of the War of the Worlds panic so far-fetched?
Unfortunately, it appears that it's not.
The Tesla vandals are an example of a group of people who uncritically accept media narratives to their own detriment.
For anyone who's been paying attention for the past decade or so, that shouldn't be a surprise.
After all, what was the COVID scare but another media-generated mass panic?
Which made it seem like every single person was being affected by this.
Not to mention the drive to clamp down on those who refused to take the vaccine or share any kind of alternate experience or information, of course, was censored on social media.
If anything, the story of Orson Welles' infamous broadcast serves as a metaphor for the current state of disasters being pushed by the media.
We have people willing to endure all sorts of harm and hardships in order to fulfill a narrative.
People lost their jobs, their livelihoods, businesses, their health, for those facing a lifetime in prison.
But isn't this where embracing leftism leads?
It is, after all, a completely impersonal and remorseless political philosophy that promotes little, that doesn't lead to some sort of personal ruin.
Imagine being someone who believes the lies about gender transitions, only to realize too late that the person that you are destroying is yourself.
You destroyed your body to the point where you can't live authentically as either gender.
Imagine being someone who believes the left's tales about immigration, only to be killed by a rogue illegal alien.
Or have your child abducted by human traffickers or a loved one lost to a fentanyl addiction.
Now, of course, these horrible things affect more than just those propagating it.
So these people who are promoting, let's say, transgender surgeries, it doesn't just affect them, it also affects innocent children and others around them.
So it does spread to other people.
But the left is actively harming themselves.
They like to pretend they're locked in some sort of desperate struggle, but by doing so, it's their own freedom that they're putting at stake.
It's clear their skewed perceptions do not conform to reality, even a little bit.
Mentally, they live in a world where the MS-13 gangbanger is a harmless waif who is being persecuted by our government, while their political opponents, Republicans, are all evil for wanting immigration laws to be enforced and for those associated with MS-13 and Trende Aragua to be deported.
A world where every Tesla on the street is a tank from an occupying power is almost how they see it.
Their views are so alien and divorced from reality, you have to wonder if we even come from the same planet.
Why else would they embrace a war-like hostility towards those who hold an opposing worldview?
A highly ironic coincidence.
What can we call such a conflict but a true war of the worlds?
Tariffs have thrown the global economy into chaos.
Potential widespread inflation tied to massive supply chain disruptions is weighing heavily on all of us.
But there's a silver lining that most people miss.
President Trump specifically exempted gold and silver bullion from these sweeping tariffs.
Policies are triggering significant financial chaos.
The administration preserved your ability to diversify into...
Precious Metals.
If you're concerned about your savings, I encourage you to have a free consultation with a Birch Gold Precious Metals specialist.
The first step is to text Dinesh, my name, Dinesh, to 989898.
You'll get a free, no-obligation information kit on gold.
Learn how to hold gold and silver in a tax-sheltered account.
Birch Gold will help you to convert an existing IRA of 401k into a gold IRA for no money out of pocket.
Debbie and I buy our gold from Birch Gold.
It's time you did too.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy and thankful customers.
Text my name didn't
Again, text Dinesh to 989898.
You can claim your free information kit on gold right now.
The impact that Balance of Nature makes every single day is astounding.
You can see the numbers for yourself on their website.
Balanceofnature.com.
But listen to these few stats concerning Balance of Nature's worldwide success.
More than a thousand success stories reported each month.
Wow. Hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide.
Millions of orders delivered each year and billions, yes, billions of these fruits and veggies in a capsule.
These are fruit and veggie supplements consumed by people who have decided to start living and feeling better.
Now, 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.
And here's another number that might get your attention.
35%. Use my discount code, AMERICA.
You get 35% off plus free shipping and their money back guarantee.
Here's the number to call.
800-246-8751.
Again, 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code America, you get 35% off and free shipping.
I am delighted to welcome our guest today, Will Chamberlain.
He serves as the Senior Counsel to the Article III Project, which protects constitutionalist judges, and serves as Senior Counsel to the American Accountability Project, which opposes big tech monopolies.
Will, thanks for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah, well, there are a lot of legal issues to talk about.
And since you are the expert on this matter, I feel like people will really enjoy your thoughts on these things.
But yeah, I thought maybe we could just start by talking a little bit about everything that's been going on with the rogue judges and how the American people clearly voted for President Trump.
They voted for his agenda.
They voted for all of the things that he's trying to get done.
And yet we're facing these legal battles with many judges who are trying to stop him from, let's say, you know, continuing with deportations of MS-13 type of gang members.
What is kind of your reaction to all of this?
I know that the Supreme Court is going to be looking at some things in May.
Can you kind of explain a little bit more of this process and how we can address these problems?
So I think, you know, the big meta thought I have is that the...
The Biden administration admitted millions of illegal aliens and didn't do individualized vetting.
They just let them cross the border en masse.
President Trump was elected on a platform of explicit mass deportations.
He was elected to send these people home.
If the courts are going to try and muddy up by requiring complicated individualized determinations before deporting people, then they're thwarting the will of the American people which wanted these people sent home.
They would be in the wrong legally as well.
Deportation is a matter totally within the purview of the executive branch.
This is not the same as detention, jailing people where full due process is required.
This is sending people back home.
So, you know, the outset, the meta way to look at this is if, you know, the courts are going to try and step in and require individualized determinations that are anything more than kind of pro forma.
Are you in the country legally?
Yes, no, go home.
Then
There's just going to be a huge problem.
And the court is going to put its own legitimacy in question because it's so clearly exceeding its authority, so clearly encroaching on the authority of the executive branch.
As for what's happening in these individual cases, I tend to be somewhat optimistic because I think most of them are in this odd procedural posture where you have these emergency petitions and temporary restraining orders.
Stuff where the courts are just being asked to act immediately without the benefit of full briefing or, you know, the considered opinion of the executive branch, their own considered opinion.
So I think, you know, if you had to bet, I would bet that these things will work themselves out.
I think the courts will give President Trump permission to do what he is doing and what he's trying to do.
But there have been some cases where I think, you know, especially district court judges have been very aggressive in trying to meddle with the executive branch.
I think the Supreme Court's going to ultimately put a stop to that.
That would be my guess.
Yeah. Yeah.
And that would make sense.
Why do you think some of these lower court judges are doing this?
I mean, in some sense, you would think, okay, wouldn't we all want these gang member people deported?
So it's interesting because so many of them have taken up this cause.
And I know that they'll say, oh, well, you know, it's not because I like this person.
It's because...
I mean, it's the resistance 2.0.
The first version of the resistance in the first Trump administration was from the civil service and the bureaucrats who weren't on board.
This time around, President Trump has gotten that pretty much taken care of.
He's brought in a lot of very talented people.
He's not.
Letting holdovers stick around.
He's not letting establishment Washington control his executive branch.
He's controlling it.
So then Resistance 2.0 is the courts, which he doesn't control in the same way, obviously.
And I think a lot of these judges see themselves as throwing sand at the gears.
They want to resist the Trump administration because...
They don't agree with its policy goals.
Essentially, think about the lawfare and all this stuff as an attempt to use the legal system to achieve what the resistance could not achieve at the ballot box.
They want to achieve a policy victory they are not entitled to on immigration.
It's by throwing sand in the works, by grinding the system to a halt by lawfare.
So that's what's happening.
That's why these judges are doing this.
I think it will be less successful than the internal bureaucratic resistance was in the first term.
Because judges don't have any army.
They don't have any law enforcement divisions.
They're really reliant on legitimacy and being seen to be legitimate.
And given that and given how aggressive they've been, I don't think they'll have it.
I don't think they're really going to find themselves in a position where they can force the administration to do these things.
And I think the Supreme Court is smart enough to realize they need to pull back from the brink.
Yeah. And it seems like...
You know, the American people probably realize that at the end of the day, what these judges are saying isn't making sense.
I mean, I guess the Democrats are basically talking about how, you know, Trump is not following the Supreme Court.
He's not listening to them because he's not bringing back the man from El Salvador and so on.
It's like that's become their big messaging now.
Do you think that that's Yeah, I think the Democrats are way making a huge mistake here.
I think, you know, if honestly, the smart thing for them to be talking about is the economy.
If they can talk about the economy more, they'd probably be in better shape, but they just can't help themselves.
The groups in their party demand that they talk about the, they demand that they talk about.
This MS-13 gang member and pretend that he's not an MS-13 gang member.
And it's like they're pot committed at this point.
They took the word of the plaintiff's lawyers that said, oh, this guy's just an innocent Maryland man who is being deported for no good reason.
And it's like, well, actually, it's not true.
It's he had a removal war.
The only thing, the only aspect, it's like their one bone that they're holding onto is that he did have a right not to be deported to El Salvador until his so-called withholding of removal was lifted.
The Trump administration could have waltzed into court and gotten that in an hour.
So it's not, in law, this isn't necessarily applicable to this instance, but there's an idea of harmless error, the idea that they made a mistake, but had they done things the proper way, the end result would have been exactly the same, right?
And that's the case here.
I think that's the best way to understand.
Yes, the Trump administration should have gotten this withholding and removal lifted, but they would have.
There's no question this guy was no longer entitled to withholding and remove from El Salvador.
MS-13 has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization in the interim, and foreign terrorists are not entitled to withholding removal, not eligible for it.
And the second reason is that the circumstances in El Salvador have changed in the last six years.
Naya Bukele is now the president.
It's now one of the safest places in the Western Hemisphere.
You no longer have an incredible fear of persecution by gangs in that country because they're all in jail.
There's multiple reasons why he would have to go home under any circumstances.
So the fact that the left is seizing on this as a massive violation of due process is silly.
It's also silly because he had an inordinate amount of due process while he was here.
He crossed the border in 2012, was detained in 2019, was identified as an MS-13 gang member in a bond hearing, and yet somehow stayed in the country for six more years.
What? How did that happen?
That's actually, if there's a scandal here, that's the big one.
Yeah. And it also seems unfair.
You can't just let in all these illegals indiscriminately and then expect each of them to get this individual attention to get deported.
It should be simple.
If you're illegal, you get deported.
If you're a terrorist, you get deported.
I don't know why we have this long process for this.
And then I saw some interesting points made, I think, by Stephen Miller.
He was saying that what about January 6th defendants?
These people didn't get due process.
They're Americans.
But then these people who are in MS-13, all of a sudden, we're so concerned that they're not getting this, you know, very individualized due process.
So do you think that just kind of comes down to who the judges are that are seeing these cases?
A little bit, yeah.
I think, you know, the D.C. District Court is very much a liberal and a very, very liberal court.
And the judges who've been hearing these cases have been very, very liberal on their own.
You know, the sort of sense that the ultimate villain is understood to be, you know, these January 6th protesters.
And then, you know, there's something noble about defending MS-13 gang members.
You know, I look at it, you know, I used to work at a firm called Quinn Emanuel in Los Angeles.
That was where I worked in big law.
And Quinn Emanuel took on the representation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
And I looked at that, you know, the briefing they're filing in the Fourth Circuit into the Supreme Court.
They've thrown like seven partners at this case.
That's some very expensive legal help.
If you were to try and retain that as a corporation or as a private company, you would spend a lot of money.
Their combined time, all of those lawyers are billing you $1,500 an hour minimum.
So that would be extremely expensive.
Quint Emanuel is doing this almost certainly pro bono.
It's part of their pro bono effort.
But I don't recall Quint Emanuel ever defending a single January 6th defendant.
And there were some very serious due process concerns, namely the most obvious one, which is D.C. is 95% Democrat, and they were judging Republican political activists.
Is that a jury of those Republican political activists' peers?
I think not.
I think obviously not.
And I don't think, I mean, the conviction rate was something absurd.
I don't think anybody managed to get out of there.
I think it was 100%.
People got acquitted on individual charges, but nobody got a full acquittal.
No, not a single defendant.
And that's, you know, that's evidence that, well, this is just simply, you know, these were show trials.
This was silly.
And so now for these people who, you know, were so eager and so bloodthirsty to put those J6 protesters behind bars for decades are suddenly, you know, flying to El Salvador to defend the honor of an MS-13 wife-beating gangbanger is beyond me.
Yeah, which really just highlights the fact that this is all just pure politics.
You know, I wish it could just be...
Wow, you know, this is the law.
The judges are just going to follow these things.
But it's horrible, this double standard.
I want to ask you about the kind of the...
The way you think the courts are going to go, do you think that we'll be able to have more lower court judges spots filled by President Trump?
Do you think there's any kind of movement towards, obviously, you know, most people know the Supreme Court, but all of these other judges have all this power and who are delaying things and creating issues.
So are we going to be able to get a lot more this time?
Did, you know, did we not pick the best people always?
Sometimes Republicans even who are picked are.
You know, part of the D.C. orbit or swamp also.
So then we still have those issues.
But what do you kind of foresee?
Well, I think we're going to do a lot better on judges this time.
I think President Trump knows what he's doing.
I know that, you know, I think my boss, Mike Davis, is going to have a role in providing advice to the team.
And, you know, I think we're going to do a better job than the Federalist Society did in the first Trump term.
I think we're going to get better judges, more constitutionalist judges.
More serious judges, judges who won't be swept away in the tide of liberal opinion.
Yeah, that would be great.
I don't know if you can comment on this, but I noticed some people are not super happy with Amy Coney Barrett on Twitter.
Do you think that that was, or her kind of ideology and views, do you think that was something that was foreseen before?
Some people say, oh, you know, we always saw this.
You know, she was kind of always this way.
Other people kind of believe she was.
Maybe a little bit more conservative or constitutionalist perspective, but have been a little disappointed in her.
How would you kind of view maybe her time in Supreme Court so far?
So I used to be the editor-in-chief of Human Events back in, I think, 2019, when this was all being considered.
And a year before she was nominated to the Supreme Court, she was pretty clearly at the front of the shortlist.
And we published a couple of articles.
One of them was very skeptical of Amy Coney Barrett, thought she would make a bad Supreme Court nominee, kind of sussed out a little bit of her underlying liberalism in some of her public statements.
And I think that they found that right.
I mean, I don't think that by any means she's a solid conservative.
I mean, I think she's obviously a very devout Catholic.
I totally take, you know, give her credit for that.
And it has very strong views on certain social issues, but I don't think, you know, does she believe in the conservative platform broadly?
I'm not, I don't think so.
We heard a lot about the reason that the courts weren't intervening in these temporary restraining orders in the early part of the administration.
There was this claim from like Roberts and Barrett, you know, regular order, the idea that things needed to be coming up normally.
And then all of a sudden you have this Alien Enemies Act case where without an injunction, without a stay from the lower courts, the Supreme Court out of nowhere issues an administrative stay on Good Friday as though, you know, the sky was falling or something.
There's a lack of consistency here.
the process arguments are an excuse to achieve the underlying substantive goals.
And those substantive goals aren't necessarily the substantive goals of the Republican Party.
Yeah. Yeah.
And one thing that I wonder, too, is a lot of people thought Kavanaugh would be more conservative because of what happened to him with the big show trial Me Too situation.
But it doesn't seem like that was really the case.
I think Kavanaugh hasn't been wonderful, but he's been a lot better than Barrett.
I think Kavanaugh's been pretty solid.
He's not like Alito or Thomas, but he's pretty good.
Same with Gorsuch.
I don't think those two were mistakes by any means.
I think they've been pretty solid conservative votes for the most part.
I don't like this latest administrative stay, but I think he'll come around and make the right decision on the merits.
Yeah. Why do you think that Justice Roberts decided to come out and make that statement about impeaching judges and things like that, just kind of out of nowhere, just to opine on it on his own?
Yeah, I thought that was bizarre.
The courts have no role to play in impeachment whatsoever.
That's not their job.
That's beyond the capacity of Article 3. Like, if he wants to be a political actor, that's great.
But, you know, that's just a press release.
Politicians issue press releases all the time.
He wants to join the fray.
Go for it.
We're going to light him up.
Impeachment is a political matter.
It's not something that he has any role.
The only time that Chief Justice Roberts would have any role is if we were impeaching the President of the United States, and then he gets to sit as the judge in the trial.
But absent that, for any impeachment of a judge, he doesn't have a say.
The judiciary doesn't have a say.
That's the check on the judiciary.
One of the things that I think people forget, especially liberals, is they talk about checks and balances, but they don't think about the idea that the judiciary has checks on it, too.
One of them is impeachment.
Another is jurisdiction stripping.
Another is the, you know, the underlying premise that if your rulings aren't legitimate, that if they are absurd, we will stop simply not obey them, right?
And you don't have an army and you don't have a law enforcement branch.
So you are, you know, the constraint on the judiciary is that the overwhelming need it has for his decisions to be seen as legitimate and dispassionate.
And so to the extent they're not, and to the extent these judges have decided to play in politics, they're going to find out that the actual political branches will steamroll them.
Yeah. And I mean, someone like, let's say president, he's elected for four years, maybe eight years, but these people in the Supreme Court, they're in there for lifetime appointments.
So I think sometimes people think, oh, well, they're like kings and they can just kind of say whatever.
But the problem is then we're all kind of subject to whatever these judges say, and then the other branches can't do what they're supposed to be doing.
When the branches are supposed to be checking each other, not just have one that's kind of...
Yeah, we don't have a juristocracy in this country, right?
That's not how our system was designed.
You know, the judges are politically, you know, have to go through a confirmation process.
They can be impeached and their authority is limited to cases and controversies.
They don't get to issue advisory opinions.
There are all sorts of restraints on their jurisdiction that should be there that the court has developed over a long period of time.
And these things are important.
These things are important for the continued legitimacy of the judiciary.
And I think it's good to have a judiciary seem to be legitimate.
But, you know, if they're going to completely disregard, you know, do this double game where, on the one hand, you won't intervene when lower court judges are running hog wild over the administration, clearly violating the law because, oh, these things aren't coming up on regular order yet.
But then the moment the ACLU comes running to your courtroom saying, the sky is falling, you completely dispatched with regular order yourselves, we're just going to see through that.
And we're also not going to put up with it.
And, you know, ultimately, You know, people are, you know, the Free Press put out this article where they tried to essentially say the president's acting lawlessly.
It's the courts who are standing in the breach.
I think that's completely wrong.
I think it's completely backwards.
The administration has been more aggressive than other administrations have been, especially Republican administrations.
They're trying to push what they can do.
They're not just staying within the confines of what the civil service says is okay.
But that doesn't mean that this radical behavior from the judges is not the actual catalyst of the constitutional crisis.
Right. Yeah.
And I wanted to ask you, how come we still don't have information on the leaker regarding the Dobbs decision?
I don't know.
I've heard from people that people know who it is or something who are in these inner circles, but they don't want to have any kind of, you know, controversy or something, even though the fact that it was leaked itself is a controversy and already happened.
Yeah. I mean, it's interesting.
You know, I put out a thread a long time ago where I identified who I thought was the likely leaker based on publicly available information.
Right. I found one of the Supreme Court clerks was a Breyer clerk at the time.
And his her husband was like good buddies with the reporter who leaked the opinion.
And she herself had donated basically dedicated her entire legal intellectual career to the issue of abortion and loosening abortion rights or giving.
You know, essentially getting rid of abortion restrictions and forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, things like that.
So that was like this person's entire intellectual work.
And it seemed kind of obvious that a person like that would look at the Dobbs decision and realize that basically all the work she had done up until this point was now meaningless because Dobbs had reversed Roe v.
Wade, right?
And so, you know, this is no longer a federal right.
Chief Justice was retiring that year, so there was no, you know, blowback that he would feel from the leaking of an opinion.
And, I mean, she just, she knew the reporter.
Like, you know, the reporter attended her wedding.
So it's like, you know, but that said, is that proof?
No. I mean, we don't have, like, the smoking gun document that shows that she, or whatever, the smoking gun communication that shows that she was the lawyer.
But they probably could have found it.
Right? Maybe.
I don't know.
Good question.
I mean, I guess I don't know how aggressive they were in trying to stop this leak investigation or to try and track that down.
Yeah. So maybe I'm right.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I think it's her, but I don't know.
You know, I don't have any I don't have any inside information as to that.
And, you know, if they really did a good job of covering their tracks, you know, which I'm sure that whoever this leaker did, I mean, if they're one of the clerks, they're a very smart person.
They probably did.
We're very, very careful in terms of covering their tracks.
Made it really impossible to trace where these documents came from and who was ultimately responsible.
Can you respond a little bit to, sometimes people will say, oh, you know, these justices, they're afraid for their lives.
And so that's why this happens.
And, you know, we have seen that Kavanaugh, others, I mean, there have been actual kind of attacks on them.
So do you think that they do have any kind of fear and that influences any of their decisions?
Or is that kind of more of just...
Probably not.
But I do think that there are attacks on them.
So I don't know.
But what do you kind of think about that?
Yeah, I wonder how much they're rattle.
I mean, we kind of downplay it, but there was a guy who went to Kavanaugh's home with a gun who wanted to kill him.
He was stopped by the security, but they wanted to do that.
There's, you know, the Supreme Court justices, I'm sure, especially, might be a little bit rattled by what the left has done and what the left makes claims to be willing to do.
But that's part of the job.
Like, if they're not up to standing up to that and making dispassionate decisions in the face of those kind of threats, they're in the wrong profession.
And, you know, I don't know if that's what's, maybe that's what's bothering Amy Coney Barrett.
And if that's true, she should, you know, resign and go back to being a law professor.
I'm sure she'd be fine with that.
Wow. That's so interesting.
And then I wanted to also get your thoughts on the Pete Hegseth.
Kind of the left has really been going after him.
They've been kind of hoping that something happens to him.
Do you kind of have any reaction to anything going on there?
Well, the signal stuff is old news, right?
I mean, you're finding more examples of the same signal chat that was a problem before to the extent that that baby has been corrected.
That's fine.
I'm firmly with the belief that...
Under no circumstances should Trump fire anyone on the basis of words that appear in the Atlantic.
We're no scalps.
No scalps, no scapegoats.
They would never let that happen on our side, so we're not going to let it happen.
We're not going to let partisan liberal outlets control the staffing of our administration, period.
I think the right approach is Peg Seth is the Secretary of Defense.
I mean, if at some point he screws up in a way that Trump is personally offended by and, you know, does not like and wants to just, you know, get rid of him, that's Trump's decision.
But we're not going to, you know, the whole world where we're letting liberal outlets dictate who the cabinet officials are, no, not happening anymore.
Right. I wanted to get your reaction to this, but I wanted to read it because I want to make sure that I'm saying it correctly.
So Fox News reported.
Caught in his casita, a New Mexico Democratic judge has resigned after an alleged Trendy Aragua gang member was arrested while living at his home.
Wanted to get your reaction to that.
Yeah, that's bizarre.
I don't know why a judge would have a Trendy Aragua member residing with them.
You have to wonder why that is and what's going on with that judge.
Like, is he personally compromised?
Is he being bribed or controlled?
Like, there's whatever reason there is for that.
There's no good reason that he should be residing with a trendy Aragua member, and so we just have to get to the bottom of exactly what was going on there.
Yeah, yeah.
And I don't have any more details on his specific home situation, but I just think the fact that Democrats are doing this is crazy.
I mean, their allegiances to some of these groups is just, it's really appalling.
Probably because a lot of these illegals are bringing in drugs.
Maybe they're bribing people.
Not saying him, but, you know, that's probably happening.
And these people, they know that they can get away with it, I guess, most of the time.
So they continue to do this.
But I guess we'll follow that case as it continues.
But, well, thanks so much for joining us today and sharing your thoughts.
I really appreciate it.
And, yeah, keep us updated on...
You know, how everything develops with our judges.
All right.
Well, thanks for having me, Danielle.
My pillow is extending the mega sale.
It's a sale on overstock, on clearance, but also on brand new products.
It's your chance to grab some incredible deals on some of my pillow's most popular and newly released items.
For example, save $40 on the new spring my pillow bed sheets available in any size and any color.
Debbie and I use these.
We love them.
The luxurious sheets are designed for maximum comfort and breathability.
They're perfect for a great night's sleep.
Looking for a meaningful gift?
Save 30% on the...
The brand new My Crosses, inspired by the one Mike Lindell has worn every day.
For over 20 years, these beautifully crafted crosses come in both men's and women's designs and are proudly made in the USA.
Get the six-piece bath or kitchen towel sets, just $39.98.
Initial quantities are low, so don't wait.
And don't forget the best-selling standard MyPillow, now just $17.98.
Plus orders over $75, ship free.
Call 800-876-0227.
Again, it's 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
According to historical data collected at the Dallas Love Field Station, the weather at 10 a.m. on April 2nd, 2025 was extremely nice.
There was zero precipitation, gentle 12-mile-per-hour gusts from the south, and the temperature was around 73 degrees.
You couldn't ask for better weather for the track meet going on at nearby Frisco that Wednesday morning.
And it was around that time under those types of conditions that 17-year-old Austin Metcalf breathed his last breath after being stabbed by 17-year-old Carmelo Anthony.
I have to point out that Carmelo himself is on record admitting to the stabbing and that he is apparently currently pursuing a self-defense argument.
So terms like alleged or suspected in relation to his role as the perpetrator are not necessarily appropriate.
This is no murder mystery.
We have the who.
We have the how.
All that's being disputed is the why.
Though he walked away from the incident unharmed, it's safe to say that at least two lives were ruined that day.
Whatever trajectory Anthony may have been on, things are going to be very different for him and his family going forward.
That's just the nature of being prosecuted in a court of law, especially for a crime like murder.
This may mean that he's convicted.
It may also mean that he becomes a hero of many on the left.
Because the aggressor is black and the victim is white, the incident has spurred strong emotional reactions among many on both sides of the political aisle.
The internet is full of commentary that is frankly stomach-churning.
Into this volatile mix of racial tension steps activist Dominique Alexander, alleged minister and president and CEO of NGAN, the Next Generation Action Network.
But Dominique's real title might be more accurately described as a heavy, because that's what he's known for.
He has a long rap sheet, which explains his checkered past in and out of prison.
Before this, he was mostly known as a violent agitator for the now discredited Black Lives Matter.
In 2020, he and a group of BLM goons tried to attack a speaker at a Trump walkaway event, his intended target, a Black female Trump supporter.
Such heresy drove him to violence.
A Black Trump supporter could not be tolerated.
Ever since Carmelo Anthony's release from prison on reduced bond, Dominique Alexander has been the de facto spokesperson for the Anthony family.
It seems an odd arrangement given that Carmelo's mother is both articulate and far more sympathetic when she gets a chance to speak.
At the press conference on April 19th, Mrs. Anthony talked about her family.
She is a stay-at-home mother.
They are God-fearing people.
The father has been harassed at work and had to take a leave of absence.
No mother of any child worth their salt would lead their own flesh and blood to suffer slings and arrows by any aggressor.
Mrs. Anthony is doing what mothers are supposed to do in this type of situation.
Her emotions are understandable and relatable, and she is defending her son.
Dominique Alexander, on the other hand, is quite different.
He really demonstrates his bona fides as a BLM political muscle.
At the press conference, he exhibited all the signs of a professional agitator.
He launched incendiary attacks at the media, at conservative pundits, and even the victim's family.
Shortly after Austin Metcalfe's murder, his father publicly extended an olive branch, saying he didn't believe the attack had anything to do with racism.
Yet when Mr. Metcalfe attended the press conference, he was thrown off the premises.
Dominique Alexander outrageously characterized the actions of Austin's father as, quote, disrespectful.
He began his press conference saying he would never attack a grieving father before immediately launching into an attack on Mr. Metcalfe's character for trying to attend.
It shows you his character, he says.
What he has failed into is the political operatives that want to make this thing a political thing, yet hate and bigotry and yet racism.
There's probably a sentence in there somewhere.
Alexander's loose grasp on words make him a questionable choice for spokesperson in this case, to say the least.
Alexander also takes issue with, quote, conservative operatives.
Posting about the case, again claiming the high ground, saying, we haven't been doing it.
He dismisses all negative reaction to the killing as racist while at the same time injecting race into the conversation.
According to Alexander, outrage over the murder can only be motivated by racism.
He feigns taking the high road, but his grifter tactics are about as low as you can get.
He accuses people of meddling misinformation about the stabbing, and in nearly the same breath, spouts lies about someone like Kyle Rittenhouse saying he shot three people in the back.
It seems like what he is doing is, honestly, he's doing everything possible to further anger and embitter the public in this feud, Want this to be worked out in a way that benefits their son?
So why is he there?
It's a good question.
But I'm not surprised because the modus operandi of BLM and the Democrats is to add to the fire, to make racism the center of things.
To date, the Carmelo Anthony fundraising site has amassed nearly half a million dollars.
Even a cursory glance at the number and size of donations reveals that they are accruing at a rate of a couple hundred dollars every hour.
It shows no sign of slowing, but more than the amount, people are outraged by the messages of support, often anti-white sentiment, supporting the murder of Austin Metcalfe.
In addition, the family has established a merch shop where supporters can purchase Carmelo t-shirts celebrating him.
And someone on the internet seems to have created a rap song in support of Carmelo.
The origin of the song, I'm not sure, of the fact that the lyrics are inhumanly provocative lead many to assume that it could be even created by AI.
Perhaps one of the bright spots in all of this is how that song has been widely condemned by many on the right.
So let's look at what's going on here.
Obviously, race is at the center of this, clearly.
But the fact that the left celebrates this, the fact that the left is celebrating what happened here is really the sad part.
We can see with our own eyes what happened, but where's the video?
Because a lot of people do want to look more closely and say, we want to know what's going on.
But many students' cell phones were actually confiscated, so we have not been able to see the video.
And frankly, I think if we saw it, it would be a quick video because being stabbed in the heart typically leads to you to bleed out fairly quickly.
But you have a defendant, his spokesperson, and a massive fundraising operation on Carmelo's side, every aspect of which seems expertly tailored to ratchet up tensions between whites and blacks and to gin up support from Democrats.
Is this all part of their plan?
Dominique Alexander is not a terribly articulate person.
He... You know, his behavior, I don't recommend him as an effective speaker, even for their cause.
And the longer he stays in the picture, the angrier people get about the situation.
And it's almost like you can foresee another BLM sort of deal rising on their side.
And he has BLM connections, and that might be what's driving the race baiting and the fundraising.
That is, after all, what BLM did to earn its millions.
They stoked the fire of racial tension for financial gain.
Pocketed the money.
Which is why it's important to take a step back and think.
If some dormant faction of what used to be BLM wants you to be angry, they're probably looking for something to do so that they can make more money.
And anger only plays into their hands.
So what would be next on their list?
Riots? People taking to the streets?
Killing perceived enemies?
Targeting white people?
We've seen that, unfortunately, Austin Metcalfe's father was swatted.
Fortunately, he was not in his home when the swatting took place, but he clearly is a target.
We'd be fools to think that such measures are off the table, and it's horrible that our society has gotten to this point.
So we can't be blind to it.
We have to see the truth of what's going on.
The victim's family should not have to endure something like swatting ever, but also after the loss of their son.
A race war is precisely the kind of thing that BLM wants.
It's the kind of widespread social chaos that communists have been trying to agitate in America for nearly a century now.
And race is merely part of their plan.
Recall that the founders of BLM are openly, they've openly admitted to being Marxists, and according to their own websites, Dominique Alexander's NGAN, BLM, and the Communist Party of the United States all share similar societal goals.
Open borders, rampant DEI, militant transgenderism, racial tension.
Any one of these objectives represents a threat to American social stability.
Taken together, they're a potent cocktail capable of systemic destabilization.
The idea is to create unrest in society and then use that as an opportunity to seize power, drag the country into a dictatorship that confiscates capital in order to centralize its control in the state.
And communism likes to play the long game.
After all, there would have to be tension in society in order to bring about communism.
And what better than, in this case, they would say racial tension.
We are seeing the same game that BLM played in 2020 in the here and now in 2025.
Communists recognize that they don't need to win in the immediate moment, but long term.
And it's enough for them to cause chaos.
If they win, then that's the best possible outcome for them.
Because then they will just keep doing this.
But losing the destabilization game still results in marginal gains for them.
And it's never seen as a setback.
Because even if they lose, they still cause chaos along the way.
That's because by being suppressed, they sow the seeds of resentment that will grow into stronger agitation movements in the future.
So that's the lie that they have to keep selling people.
So unrest is both the method, it's the process, and it's also their objective.
It's enough to just destabilize things, cause tension and backlash, and that's what they're doing here.
The Carmelo Anthony movement is not about someone facing justice for their actions in the courtroom, according to them.
It's about using a young man as the face of the movement to fan the flames of discord and encourage.
Other people to follow in that path.
Because leftism is soulless.
It's combined with Machiavellian politics.
It's cold-hearted.
It treats human beings in this way.
It seems to reserve its most mercenary schemes for its own adherence.
The gears of the communist machine are so well oiled with the blood of peasant and property owner alike.
It's really just the people at the top of BLM who probably want to be pocketing this money.
So this kind of grift may be quite lucrative for the family.
Certainly for now, they're living in a very expensive home.
But what about Carmelo?
This person in the middle of all this.
It seems that his own family could be using him as a lightning rod.
This BLM movement is also using him.
It's a difficult conclusion to avoid as long as Dominique Alexander remains the public face of this family and bringing BLM to the center of it.
Alexander is the one who makes it seem as if the legal defense of Carmelo Anthony is being cynically co-opted to help fund a violent political movement.
After all, by inserting himself into this tragedy, Alexander is merely following Saul Alinsky's advice to capitalize on human suffering and trick your fellow citizens into giving you political power.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky explains that if you just observe society long enough, you find that, quote, the despair is there.
Now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change, end quote.
Like all dedicated leftists, Alexander has decided Carmelo is going to be part of bringing in this glorious revolution.
Deep down, the topic of race is only the pretense for advancing communism because it is, quote, the wound that can be used to stoke the fires and the flames of resentment.
Judging from the press conference, I don't think that's the kind of
that maybe necessarily all of the
Followers of this case are looking for, but that's what's happening, and they're just following along.
I could be wrong.
They could all be diehard believers, but for many of them, it's the racial tension that's bringing them in.
After all, being the parents of the next t-shirt revolutionary to succeed Shea Guevara promises a lifetime of status and wealth, especially if Carmelo ends up serving in prison and becomes some kind of symbol to their movement.
I mean, we can't forget George Floyd and the amount of, you know, statues that went towards him.
But look, it's tough to be a parent in this situation.
And I know that Austin Metcalfe's father has gotten a lot of flack, I mean, from the left, from these people swatting him, and then obviously from the right because of his comments.
And I don't really support...
Anyone attacking someone physically, obviously, but it shows that he's quite lost in this situation, which you can't blame him.
He's lost his son.
But the way that this whole case is kind of coming out is really scary because we really hope that there aren't more BLM riots.
We hope that things can not go the way that they did of 2020 because...
That kind of rioting, looting, and so on, it's not good for society.
It's not good for anyone.
So we're going to keep following this case and we are going to stay up to date on what's happening here.
And in the meantime, don't fall for any kind of race baiting or any kind of resentment stoking that the left is doing because it doesn't lead to a good outcome for anyone.
Well, that wraps up today's show.
If you enjoyed the show, make sure to find me on social media.
I'm on Facebook, Instagram, X, True Social, all the places.
I'm at Danielle D'Souza Gill.
And that's where you can find my content, videos, thoughts, all of that.
And I will see you guys tomorrow.
MAGA! Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection