All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
57:13
WHY HE DID IT? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1133
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, it's the time for our Friday roundup, and Debbie and I are going to talk about all the issues of this past week: what happens next to Obama, how extensive is the damage from the Epstein scandal, how Biden imported dangerous criminals into the country, the extraordinary success of Javier Millet in Argentina, why the old comedians were so much better than the comedians of today, and Brian Kohlberger's sentencing day.
Hey, if you're watching on YouTube, X, or Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
Hit the subscribe, the follow, the notifications button.
I'd appreciate it.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Music America needs its 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.
Debbie and I are here for our Friday roundup.
And in fact, you were just commenting a moment ago that we're in a studio and you can hear some of the ambient sounds if someone is next door talking or actually even if there's like thunder and you were saying it distracts you.
Yeah, it does.
And then you were commenting, Dinash is really loud.
On the phone.
Oh my goodness, you were allowed on the phone.
You act.
Do you remember when we were kids in the 70s when you would call long distance and they couldn't really actually hear you because you had to actually scream?
I don't know.
I'm just saying.
We did it too.
Well, it doesn't, you don't have to do that anymore.
Well, in my case, it wasn't just long distance because I remember those long distance phones where, in fact, when I was staying with host families, they would be like, that's a long distance call.
People would take note of it if it was out at not a local call.
But I would also occasionally, not often, but call India.
And of course, there you had to shout in order to be heard.
In fact, half my conversation with my dad would be like, hello, hello.
Are you there?
Hello?
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I remember that very well as well.
Because your dad would call from Venezuela and we both had.
And there was an echo usually.
Yeah.
And it just sounded like they were really, really far away, which they were, but it sounded like it.
And it shows you how technology has even in really 50 years of one generation, like brought the world not just closer, but into much greater clarity.
I mean, think about when we're in Australia and we talk on the phone to somebody in the United States.
It's like to each other using our normal phone.
It's like making a local call.
Yes.
Yes.
Through this AT ⁇ T international program that we get.
We have a bunch of things.
Typically, before our roundups, we list the key issues of the week.
But I thought I'd start with one that's not on our list, which is the lawsuit that has been filed by, somewhat surprising in my opinion, by Macron and his wife against Candace Owens, who has been, quote, staking her reputation on the idea that Brigitte Macron is a man.
Now, when you and I were talking about this, you were like, why is our side so obsessed?
Talk about.
Oh, yeah, I think we have a very unhealthy obsession with trans.
With the trans.
With the trans issue.
And, you know, and as I was saying, I personally do not believe that Macron is a man.
I don't.
I just don't.
First of all, I don't think he looks like a man.
She looks like a man.
She's not.
No, he has a Freudian slip on you.
Oh, I noticed he.
I mean, she.
Come on, man.
No.
So go on.
Yeah.
So she has really tiny, tiny little legs.
Yeah.
Really skinny little legs.
And just her body just doesn't resemble a man.
But also, even if, let's say she was, who cares?
I mean, that's not an issue I would want to go die on a hill on for.
You know, it's just.
So you are asking me, like, why is there a morbid fascination with whether Macron is a man?
And remember, this pretty much the same thing is said about Michelle Obama.
Now, we don't think Michelle Obama is a man.
We've had some fun with people we know, including a friend in Australia who swears up and down that Michelle Obama is a man.
But, you know, when I look at Michelle Obama's college photo from Princeton, she is just, she looks basically like a tomboyish girl.
She's got the afro, but she is unmistakably a girl.
But maybe a girl just with a little bit of masculine features, which, by the Way is hardly unknown.
You have boys that are somewhat, you know, that have slender features that are somewhat feminine, but doesn't make them women, and vice versa.
But I was saying that I think that the reason for this fascination with the trans is the same reason that my grandfather used to take me to the circus when I was a kid.
And they would have all these dwarves and midgets and freaks who would do somersaults, and everybody would laugh.
And their laughter was based upon the sheer peculiarity of it.
You know, it's the freak of nature idea.
But to me, it's a very dark side of nature.
And I just don't want to surround myself in that part of it, that weird ethos of...
I see what you're saying.
You're saying you're trying not to contaminate yourself by keeping distance.
Yeah, yeah, I do.
I just don't, and I just don't want to make it an issue.
And the other thing that I was telling you about Michelle Obama is I don't think she's a man, but let's just say she was.
Who cares?
I don't care.
I don't care.
If Obama wants to be a weirdo and marry a man, who cares?
What I'm more concerned about is what Obama did as president and the shenanigans that he did behind the White House.
That's what I find important.
I don't really care where he was born.
I don't really care if he's a Muslim.
I do care about what he does.
And here, moving into this important topic of this week, you have really good evidence that the intelligence agencies had looked into this issue of Russia collusion.
They knew that Trump was not colluding with Russia.
They also knew that the Russians had neither the desire nor the capacity to somehow fix the election.
They couldn't change the outcome of the 2016 election.
In fact, we now know that to some degree, they even expected Hillary to win and they wanted Hillary to win.
And they had some goods on Hillary that they were holding back.
So all of this was known to Obama, Comey, Clapper, Brennan.
But what they did is they decided, listen, let's kind of set all this aside and let us cook up, let us manufacture a case against Trump.
And we will use it to subvert the entire Trump presidency.
Now, I say all this because the Democrats indict Trump over the flimsiest of pretexts.
You know, they will, or look at my case.
The Democrats go, well, Dinesh exceeded the campaign finance laws.
No other American has been charged, let alone locked up, for doing what he did.
First time offense, no quid pro quo.
He has nothing to gain.
But their point is, we have an opportunity, indict.
And let's see what we can get away with, particularly if we get a Clinton judge, as in my case, or, of course, a number of Democrat nominee judges, as in the case of Trump.
And meanwhile, the Republicans are facing smoking gun evidence, a chance to do to the Democrats what they did to Trump.
And yet there is, at least among some, some hesitancy in going forward.
So what does that tell you?
Yeah, that tells me that we're the dumb party.
Or we're the, if not dumb, because it's not that we don't know, it's that we're weak need.
Yeah, yeah.
We are invertebrate.
But on the other point, you know, there's still that, that, oh yeah, unsubstantiated rumors that the 2020 election was stolen.
Are they really that unsubstantiated?
Don't you think if they tried to steal the 2016 election and did not succeed, what makes people so sure they didn't try to do it again in 2020?
You know, this is such a good point and so original.
I want to like spell it out some more, right?
So what you're saying is that the Russia collusion hoax was concocted with two separate purposes in mind.
Earlier, this is before that Obama meeting, because the Obama meeting was in December of 2016, the press and the left and the Democrats were using it to try to help Hillary win the election.
Having failed to do that, they decided, all right, we can use it now to subvert the actual presidency of Trump.
We will ruin his presidency.
We will discredit him in advance.
So what you're saying is this shows an utter disregard for the democratic process, a complete willingness to set it aside.
And you're saying these are the characters we're dealing with.
Now let's fast forward to 2020 and people go, do you really think, Dinesh, with 2,000 mules the Democrats are capable of rigging?
And what you're saying is look at their conduct just in 2016, which, by the way, lasted all the way to 2020 and is lasting to now.
That's right.
They're still dug in on this issue.
And what they do is they retreat strategically.
So now they can't say that Trump is a puppet of Russia.
So what they'll say is, can you deny that the Russians bought Facebook ads?
Now, all countries try to have some impact on the U.S. election.
There's nothing new about that.
The question is, were the Russians involved to such a degree that they could change the outcome?
That's really what's at issue.
Not whether the Russians bought some Facebook ads.
Not only that, but apparently the Russians didn't want Trump to win.
They wanted Hillary to win.
Because they, right, because of the, you know, I had to laugh at the portrait of Hillary as a complete unhinged cycle.
I think we kind of portrayed her that way in Hillary's America.
Exactly.
If you recall, that was actually, if you haven't seen Hillary's America, you should see it because I think Hillary was portrayed almost exactly.
Well, both the original Obama film, 2016 Obama's America, and Hillary's America are unbelievably timely right now, right?
Because a lot of times we see on so many issues, people on the right or the left, they say things.
Look at on the right.
You know, if Trump bombs Iran, There's going to be World War III.
Mark my words, bookmark it.
We're going to be drawn into a quagmire.
Now, none of this happens.
And the people who said that they just kind of lie low or they go back and stealth edit or they delete their old post and they pretend like it never happened.
Right now, we, by contrast, put out these movies.
We've never taken them back.
They're out there.
And it's kind of interesting to go back and look at what we said about Obama as early as 2012.
And now we have more than a decade of subsequent experience with this man and see if we got him right.
And I think I'm right, or I can say, without being immodest, we nailed that guy.
We had him.
You nailed his worldview, which then made sense with all these other things that happened after, right?
His worldview is that of, you know what, we're the colonialists.
We're the evil force of the world.
We're the evil force of the world.
We have to undo that.
And we have to undo America as we knew it.
So his anti-Americanism grew out of this anti-colonial ideology.
And if you want to ask, like, why is Obama willing to subvert the American system?
Yeah, and he's not doing it accidentally.
He wants to consciously do it.
Why was he a constitutional scholar, as he called himself, right?
Why did he study the Constitution?
To undermine it.
To undermine it, actually.
Why did he support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?
Because he saw, not that he's a secret Muslim, as some people say, but he saw the Islamists as an ally in this anti-American crusade.
The same worldview, the same worldview.
The same worldview.
Yeah, I think that Obama is probably an atheist, if I had to guess.
I think so too.
And by the way, this is also true.
And a narcissist.
This is also true of Obama's dad.
Many people think Obama's dad was a Muslim.
Now, Barack Obama Sr. was born a Muslim, but he was a notorious atheist, and he talked about his atheism.
Obama doesn't talk about his atheism, although I think he's in the same.
Obviously, he didn't want to because that would kind of like, oh, you know, Barack Obama, the, you know, the president of the United States.
Wait, what?
He's an atheist?
Wait, isn't America a Christian country?
So anyway, so I think.
He wanted to keep that mind.
That's right.
That's right.
He didn't want to go there.
And then Hillary, the portrait we develop of Hillary is you've got a twisted, power-hungry maniac.
Her husband, by the way, is a little more susceptible to, you could call it the human failings.
Hillary is just power-driven.
And so, you know, in some ways, it's almost irrelevant to ask about Hillary's sexuality because I don't think it's important to her.
What's important to her is she's like, I see her like just grasping for power.
She's like one of those.
And so the portrait in these intelligence documents, she's hysterical.
She was so close.
It's almost like she's clawing her way to power and then she falls short.
She doesn't get to the top of the cliff.
And so she goes into such a rage that she has to be medicated.
Right?
I mean, this is the Hillary we know.
Maybe we should make another movie, Hillary's America 2.
Well, the good thing is these days, by the way, both the Obama film and the Hillary film, I mean, they're available on a bunch of platforms.
And so if you search them, they're fun to watch because they have a relevance unto their own time, but they have an applicability to some of the stuff going on right now.
Now, do you think that Pam Bondi is going to move on this?
Or do you think that she's going to do the Republican thing where it's all talk?
This is what a lot of people are afraid of.
They're like, we've been hearing about all this all the way back to the Whitewater scandal.
I saw something in a news article about Ghillan Maxwell's brother saying that Ghillane was ready to talk.
That's interesting.
Now, well, we don't want to conflate the Russia collusion.
That's what I was actually referring to.
But in some ways, you know, the reason they are connected is, of course, both are going on simultaneously.
And from the left's point of view, Trump is only releasing this information through Tilsey Gabbard to deflect from the...
If there was any ounce of evidence that Trump was part of this Lolita Island Express thing, it would have come out a long time ago.
Because you remember the whole grabbing her, that came out.
Yeah, that came out.
And then the Stormy Daniels.
You can only imagine the mileage they would get out of Trump is on Epstein Island.
Exactly.
Yes.
I think it goes without saying.
So think of the weak hand that the media and the Democrats are playing, right?
They are saying Trump is, quote, in the Epstein files, by which all they mean is he's part of the long Epstein crime.
And we all know that they knew each other.
They're photographed together a few times.
But we also do know that he actually barred him from going to Mar-a-Lago.
Yeah.
Because I think he realized he was a weirdo.
And that's right.
And numerous people who are in the know, I mean, people like Alan Dershowitz, who was Epstein's lawyer, have said, hey, listen, Trump didn't do anything wrong here.
So what the Democrats are doing is they are, they have to huff and puff like there is a cover-up.
Right.
There's a big cover-up.
Trump's in the Epstein files.
That's why they, you know, and even though the judge who doesn't want to release the Florida documents is not a Trump judge.
It's not Eileen Campbell.
I mean, if it was, you know, a Trump appointee, then we could say, ah, yeah, well, you know.
But you know how the Clinton judges and Obama judges want nothing more than to crucify him.
now, Turning, since we're talking about Gillen Maxwell, she does know what Epstein was up to.
And not only does she know, I mean, you and I have watched a couple of documentaries on this, and her role in this is bigger than people might suspect because people might suspect, listen, Epstein is the mastermind.
He's got this big scheme.
To be fair, we don't know if she's the mastermind.
We're not saying she's the mastermind.
But what we are saying is that We don't know.
Well, we have to be careful with what we know and what we don't know, right?
So at least from what we've seen, Gillen Maxwell, she comes of age in a very sordid environment in England.
She's very well connected.
She's got her dad is.
Well, she's a billionaire.
Her dad is a billionaire.
So all the doors are open to her.
But we also saw examples of how people were at parties she organized, and they would say, I remember this quite clearly, we had to leave the party.
Things were getting way out of hand.
There was a couple of documentaries where we saw that.
So then Gillen Maxwell comes on bad luck because her family fortune is lost.
She comes to New York.
She connects with Epstein.
But the point is, she's not just Epstein's pawn.
In fact, Epstein, to some degree, relies on Gillen, who has a global connection.
Think of it.
Who brought Prince Andrew into this?
Most likely, it's Gillene with her British connections, not Epstein.
But you know, I think, and I mean, it's been written that they might give her some leniency or something if she comes forward.
Why didn't she come forward initially in her first trial?
I mean, why did she run the risk of getting sent to prison for 20 years?
Why didn't she open up then?
I don't know the answer to that, but here is my thinking about it, which is that the New York prosecutors structured the case in such a way that, remember, prosecutors have enormous discretion in how a case is structured.
And so let's just say they go to the judge and they say, Your Honor, this case is about victims and it's about Gill and Maxwell.
It is not about anyone else.
And so we don't want to create a situation in which we need to call people in, let's just say from all over the world, this shake over here and that tycoon over there.
We don't want to make this into a circus because the question we're trying to explore is what was the role of this woman, Gillen Maxwell, in procuring these underage women and it will suffice in the case to have them and her and we don't need anybody else.
So I think that the guilty party, if you will, here, in keeping everybody else out of it is not Gill and Maxwell.
It's the...
I mean, would have tried to do that?
Yes, although it doesn't, it's not a defense, right?
Let's say you're how does Gillenn Maxwell defend herself by saying, I have a list of all these people.
Unless she was bargaining with the prosecution for a deal.
Well.
In which case she could have said, hey, listen, I got the goods.
And we know anybody who's accused of a crime who has information that they can trade is often willing to do that.
So maybe the prosecutors didn't really care about.
I think they felt they didn't need to make a deal with her.
There was so much, I mean, think there was also a tremendous amount of public prejudice against her.
Yeah.
She was hard to catch.
Some of the victims, of course, didn't.
The victims, of course, were there.
And then you made an interesting point a couple of days ago when you told me a lot of the victims got very lavish payoffs.
They received a lot of money.
And because of that, it's like they don't want to, they are quite happy to take the money and go away.
And go away.
They don't necessarily want the case to continue.
They don't want to make new enemies.
They don't want anyone coming after them.
I think that Virginia.
Dufrey.
What's her name?
Virginia Duffrey.
Jufray.
I think she got paid something like in the millions.
Yeah.
A lot of them did.
Because I remember when they were talking about the settlement, the payout, it was such a big number that, in fact, the prosecutors who were in the case were worried that these witnesses would lack credibility because they basically became rich off of the case, right?
So that was a factor that they were concerned about.
Microplastics, tiny pieces of plastic, are now everywhere in our food, our drinking water, even our air.
A new study shows 94% of U.S. tap water and bottled water worldwide contain microplastics.
Microplastics are in 88% of our meat and seafood.
So even if you eat clean, you're still taking in plastic and it's damaging your health from the inside out.
These particles pass through the gut barrier, enter your bloodstream, and trigger a wave of oxidative stress, which scientists now link to inflammation, mutations, and even cancer.
BPA in plastics is known to disrupt hormones, damage DNA, and is now even showing up in the human brain.
But there's hope, and it starts in the gut.
I want to talk to you about Kim Chi1 from Brightcore Nutrition.
It's one of the most powerful natural detoxifiers on the planet.
It contains a unique probiotic strain proven to degrade BPA, plus over 900 other strains that help flush toxins, restore gut health, and support your immune system.
So this isn't just about digestion.
It's also about protecting your future.
Right now, my viewers and listeners can get 25% off Kimchi1 just by using code Dinesh at mybrightcore.com slash Dinesh.
But an even better deal, if you call, so write down the number 888-927-5980.
You get up to 50% off free shipping and a free bottle of vitamin D3.
But this is only when you call.
So again, here's the number 888-927-5980.
Michael Indell and the employees of MyPillow want to thank you, my listeners and viewers, for all your continued support.
Mike has a great passion to help everyone get the best sleep of our life.
And he didn't just stop with a great pillow.
He also created the best bed sheets.
I want to talk to you about the percale bed sheets.
You can get a set for as low as $24.98.
The MyPillow per kale sheets, they're breathable.
They have a cool, crisp feel.
They have deep pockets to fit over any mattress.
They look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep for me, which is important for my busy schedule.
Now, for a limited time, when you order over $100, you get $100 in free digital gifts.
So call the number.
There are all kinds of deals, 800-876-0227.
Again, it's 800-876-0227, or go to mypillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code Tinesh.
You get all kinds of discounts, including the MyPillow Per Kale sheets for as low as $24.98.
You showed me this article, which we thought was fascinating, about Biden and the Biden administration importing just dangerous criminals into the country.
And the case we were concerned with, there was an article in the New York Post, and it concerned this one guy.
I think I have the article.
Yeah, I gave you the article.
You gave it to me.
Here it is.
I'll hand it to you.
Off-duty officer.
Yeah, he was a border patrolman, and he was off-duty, and he was robbed by this illegal Nunes from the Dominican Republic, who he was 21 years old.
And he came in in 2023 at the same time as 183,000 illegals came in that month.
I believe it was like April of 23, something like that.
183 illegals came in.
183,000 illegals.
Think of that.
That's bigger than most cities in America.
I mean, it just boggles the mind to think about that.
And so this dude came in during that time and a very dangerous guy.
He goes to this off-duty border patrolman in New York City and he shoots him in the face.
He tries to steal something from him, shoots him in the face.
Look at the headline.
This is from the New York Post.
Illegal migrant accused of shooting off-duty CPB officer in NYC was only vetted over Zoom before being set free under Biden.
So they didn't do any kind of vetting.
They get him on a Zoom call.
Oh, yeah, you're fine.
They let him through.
So, see, to me, this is a massive scandal.
But again, as Republicans, we need to look, as Democrats surely would, has the law been broken here?
Because is there a reason we cannot indict, say, Mallorkas?
I mean, look, we should be able to.
There was another case not too long ago of this woman that had been missing for several months.
They find her in this illegal's garage.
She was dumped in a barrel full of bleach.
She had been in there for months.
So anyway, he killed her, obviously, and he put her in there.
But another case of an illegal that kills some American citizen.
I mean, it's just like...
So that can happen.
You're not going to indict the cops for that because all laws have loopholes, they have flaws.
But what we're talking about here was a conscious strategy on the part of the Biden administration.
And it was done with brazen indifference to whether these people are criminals, whether they are terrorists, whether they are ISIS.
There was no systematic attempt to separate the sheep from the goats, no effort to vet, except this so-called almost like perfunctory Zoom call.
Make sure you get on a Zoom call and we'll sign off on you.
This is the kind of thing that you think if people really knew, had the full understanding of what they did, would be infuriated.
And this is the kind of thing that should stop every voter from voting for a Democrat.
Yes, not only that, but I think it is the justification for a systematic evacuation campaign in which the illegals who have come this way under Biden should be sent back.
You know, there's this bill that's introduced by Maria Salazar of Florida, and it's one of these, you know, let's create a pathway to citizenship for the right kind of, or at least for non-violent, non-criminal illegals who have been here a long time.
And under normal circumstances, I would say, you know, yes, this is a problem that has to be addressed in some way.
But I don't think anybody, me included, is in any mood to do that because we are so hopping mad.
Yeah, that's the problem.
They kind of ruined it for everybody.
They really did.
They ruined it for those people that can actually be okay in a system where you're not going to make them citizens or allow them to vote.
Believe that.
Exactly.
Or allow them to vote.
You have to be a citizen to vote.
So that would be, you know, by default, you cannot vote.
Because I was a part of a group, you know, many years ago in Texas where we needed a solution because there were a lot of illegals that were working, but they were, you know, they just weren't legal.
And they were kind of living kind of in the shadows and thought, okay, well, there needs to be a system where we can verify them, e-verify, know where they live.
They report to work.
They get paid.
That's the end of it.
They pay taxes, but they can never be citizens.
It's not a pathway to citizenship.
So it's not an amnesty program.
In some ways, it's an attempt to deal with the situation that is already here.
Right.
Right.
And so, and even, think of it, even under Trump, there is the effort to round up the criminal aliens.
But even under Trump, there is now not a systematic program underway today to send all the 10 million people who came under Biden back.
We're not doing it.
Right.
Right.
And if you don't have the willpower to do it under Trump, you're not going to be able to say, all right, this illegal came in 2004 or 1997, and we're going to find this person who now has had kids here or family here and grandchildren here.
That's just it.
That's what happens is that then you have a web of people that then become citizens via birth, right?
Right.
And then you, and then you kind of have to like split the family because you're going to deport the mom and the grandparents, but then the kids stay here and then they're mad and they're, who are they going to blame it on?
They're going to blame it on the Republicans that split their family apart.
And so it all becomes kind of this battle.
I think the Democrats, by the way, you know, they know all this.
And this is really their goal.
That's right.
Right.
Their goal is to create a fait accompli, a fait accompli, meaning a situation that is a done deal.
There's nothing you can do about it because they have these people develop roots into the society.
And not only is it, you know, it's the moment you grab somebody and send them back, the media is on hand, the lawyers are on hand, they make a big scene about it, there are tears, oh, you're separating families.
So the Democrats are, how do we create a situation?
It's a little bit like FDR said with Social Security.
How do I create a program that nobody can reverse?
And notice, by the way, even Trump is like, I'm not going to touch Social Security.
I'm not going to touch Medicare.
So the Democrats have been successful in creating programs that can't be undone.
They're successful.
And the Biden administration was trying to do that with these illegals.
Yeah.
And just that single number of 183,000.
Just in one month.
In one month.
In one month.
Right there, that is a kind of a synecdoche.
That's just a symbol of what was happening here unchecked.
In the four years.
Over four years.
Well, they say that in the four years, there were probably 11 to 12 million.
It's an astonishing number.
Let's pivot to Javier Millet because a couple of things are significant about this guy.
First of all, you know, he's been in office now.
When he first came in, it was a little unclear whether he could get his ambitious program through.
That was question number one, because after all, it's not as if he controls the parliament.
The parliament is on the other side.
So that was the first question.
Can he get it in?
The second question was that here's a guy who is pursuing hardcore free market policies.
He says things like to this day, I hate the state.
And when he was asked, and I've mentioned this on the podcast before, like, what's your plan B?
He's like, there is no plan B. There is just, we're just going the only way we can go.
But the results are coming in, and they are actually spectacular.
So inflation has come down.
Monthly inflation was 13% when he came in.
That's crazy.
It's now 2%.
Oh, my God.
So by the way, it's still high.
Yeah.
Two is a lot less than 13%.
13 is what you would call runaway inflation.
It's just destroying your currency.
2% is very bad because we're talking about per month, not per year.
The economy is now growing at an annual rate of 7%.
Argentine stocks and bonds have done very well.
Exactly.
The poverty rate has dropped from 42% when Millet was elected to 31%.
Again, one-third of Argentines are still in poverty.
It's getting better.
It's getting better.
Yeah.
So what I find fascinating is not just the economic success here.
What's his popularity like?
I haven't really looked at polls.
So he is popular and he is able to...
It is showing the people that this works.
And so that's how you get people to want more of it, right?
This is just crazy when it comes to South American politics.
I mean, it really is.
Because in my opinion, South American politics, they're similar to American politics, but they're much more corrupt.
And they're more left.
And they're more left, and they're harder.
Once they're in, they're harder to defeat.
Well, they start rigging elections for one.
Look at Lula and Brazil.
Yeah, by contrast.
Yes.
And Millet is actually embarrassing him because he's producing the results and Lula is not going to be able to produce the results.
And that's just it.
If you're going to counter one of these leftists, you have to produce results.
You can't be more of the same.
You've got to be able to turn it around, turn the economy around.
You know, to me, this is actually a lesson for Trump and for the midterms.
Oh, yeah.
Because I was, well, I was yesterday, the day before, on Janet Ellis' show, and she's like, Are you worried about the midterms?
And there is some data that if the midterms were held today, it would not go well for the Republicans.
But my point is, don't get too freaked out about something.
First of all, it's a year and a half away.
Second of all, the midterms will largely be decided, as with Malay, on the economics of the country between about June and October of 2026.
So if you are Trump, you know, don't get freaked out about Epstein or a lot of this stupid stuff.
Focus on having a set of economic policies from tax cuts, deregulation, unleashing energy, artificial intelligence.
If this confluence of factors comes together and you have a juggernaut of economic growth similar to, say, what we saw with Reagan in 83, think about it.
That's right.
Do you remember that one election of my life where I was laughing my head off the whole way through it and in no doubt whatsoever about the outcome was Reagan Mondale, 84?
Yeah, 84.
It's almost as if you'd need that you voted.
Yeah.
And it's almost like you didn't even have to have the election.
Yeah.
Even Mondale.
It was more symbolic.
It was more symbolic.
Even Mondale was making wry jokes about it afterward.
And I think I told you, Mondale apparently, well, he lost the election.
What's he going to do?
He went back to his law firm.
His law firm was in Minnesota.
He was a partner.
He won Minnesota.
He won Minnesota, but he had about five partners in his law firm, right?
And they apparently took a vote about whether to take him back as a partner.
And the vote was like three to two.
No way.
Right?
Yeah.
So they asked Mondale about it.
They go, man, your own partners voted three to two.
And he goes, no worries.
He goes, by my standard, it's a landslide.
Which I got to say, I liked him a little bit more when he said that.
And that's a bit of a Reagan sensibility.
He never showed in the campaign.
No.
But he showed subsequently.
So good stuff on Malay.
And that's an example.
I'd love to meet Malay.
Yeah, something we've talked about, the emergence of a global right.
Yes.
And, you know, and Malay is very much part of it.
Let's talk about, let's pivot to Stephen Colbert and this issue of the old and the new comedians, right?
And there's such a shift.
And I think the shift is not just that we have a different comedian.
Like we used to have comedians that were like this, and now we have comedians that are like that.
It's funny that we're funny.
Well, that's a little bit of what I mean.
But I also mean that we used to have comedians that appeal to the whole country, right?
Think of Carson, Leno, Letterman.
Now, they had different styles.
Carvey.
Dana Carvey, but also Rodney Dangerfield, Don Rickles.
You just go down the list.
You could not say of any of them that they frame their comedy to appeal to one segment of the country, this ideological group, but not another country.
They were an equal opportunity destroyer.
And it didn't matter if they were on, probably many of them, some of them were on the left.
Take Steve Martin or even somebody like Richard Pryor.
I'm pretty sure Richard Pryor was politically on the left.
I'm pretty sure that who's the guy, the other black guy who did the comedy shows.
He did the very foul-mouthed guy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, my gosh.
Rock, Chris Rock.
Okay.
Chris Rock.
Another guy, I'm sure on the left.
But you know what?
You couldn't automatically tell it from their comedy, and they weren't one-sidedly ideological.
You could tell by their material, their cultural stances.
But now we have a bunch of comedians, and comedian has to be put in quote marks because they're very similar.
Fallon, Kimmel, Bill Maher, Colbert.
Bill Maher tries to be- Bill Burr?
Oh, Bill Burr.
Now, Bill Burr, I actually like.
But I know you, you don't like that guy.
I do not like that guy.
Yeah.
But he's not a, you know, we're talking now about comedians who were, for example, features on TV, and particularly late night TV.
The guys we have now are clones of each other.
And I think the reason that they're all rallying to the defense of Colbert is they are all on their way out.
It's actually great.
Oh, yeah.
You know, I think that these studios are like, why do we want to lose tens of millions of dollars on these losers?
You showed me an interview with Jay Leno, and he was being asked about, you know, well, what is it about the comedians today that is different than when you were a comedian?
And he goes, well, first of all, I don't divide half my audience.
Right.
He doesn't, he doesn't, he goes, oh, I, he goes, I had no idea.
He was friends with Rodney Dangerfield.
He had no idea what he was, whether he was a Republican or a Democrat, because they never talk politics.
They only talk jokes.
And I remember watching Johnny Carson early on.
That's when I, the first time I saw Dana Carvey, before he was on Saturday Night Live.
And I just thought they were so funny.
Just funny, funny, funny.
And I laughed about everything they said.
Didn't I?
I mean, another figure from the past, Bob Newhart.
Yeah, Newhart.
I mean, Newhart was just, he would actually hurt my stomach and my sense of humor was just too much.
Just too much.
And not only that, but if you looked at it, each of them cultivated a shtick.
Yeah.
Like Newhart's was that understated, you know, and there was over-the-top slapstick humor.
Remember Benny Hill, the British guy?
Of course.
You know, and then Carson's was just this kind of easy affability.
Humor was integrated, but I think Carson's appeal was his gregariousness, his personality.
He had a deadpan expression that was classic.
Oh, my goodness.
And today, when you look at these comedians, you don't even have that cultural and intellectual variety.
You Have basically, if you took Colbert and gave all his jokes, so-called jokes, to Kimmel, they would sound the same.
Well, you know, I can't remember the last time I actually watched any of those shows.
Yeah.
Maybe 2016.
I can't remember.
I don't even know.
Yeah, no, I can't.
I think that when I, the last time I watched one of their shows and they went there, I was like, okay, I'm waiting for you to talk about the other team.
It's not really.
In fact, Jimmy Kimmel even said something about you.
Did you know that?
Yeah.
When you got pardoned, he never thought of it.
He did, yeah.
Yeah.
Well, to me, the reason I can't listen to these guys, you know, sometimes if you're in social company and you have an irritating uncle or somebody who's in the group that tells jokes that are not even funny and nobody wants to laugh, but because they're there, you have to pretend to laugh.
You know, and you can do that once or twice, but if you imagine doing that a whole evening, it's very painful.
Right?
Well, I mean, if what it basically what they're doing is they're just making your blood boil.
So why would you want to sit there and take that?
And I think for the other side, the reason that like these journalists find them so funny is for that sole reason.
So it's not because they're funny.
In fact, there was an article somewhere defending Colbert, and it actually gave the game away because the writer, this woman, liberal, said, they're not even really jokes.
But she goes, I'm just, she goes, it kind of calms my soul to hear somebody on late night TV say the things I already believe.
Oh, my God.
So this is a very revealing confessional that these guys are not really comedians.
They're preaching to their own choir.
Yeah.
So to me, it's like, don't even worry about like Colbert's contract, which by the way has like 10 months to go.
Just remove him now and bring in comedy.
I mean, in other words, bring back entertainment.
True, but I think that the problem is not just Colbert and it's not just the other guys.
The problem is the networks.
The networks are leftists.
They are.
Think about it.
The news, all of those people, they're all the same people.
It's all the same family.
And as long as that continues and we don't have an actual network that can change things, it's never going to change.
Yeah.
And you're not just talking about cable news that's 24 hours.
You're talking about networks that cover, that have talk shows like The View and they have movies, ABC, CBC.
Comedy and they have reality shows.
And you're talking about these networks that are lifestyle networks and not just.
That's right.
You're not talking about just like MSNBC.
If you think about it, if you think about it, there's a thread, right?
They have The Morning Show and their leftists there.
Right.
Good morning, America, Today Show.
Yes.
And then it continues on through the talk shows.
Right.
Even some of the soap operas that they have.
Right.
Okay.
Then the talk shows, The View, etc.
And then it leads into the news.
And in some cases, even the finance news.
Even the money shows have a left-wing.
Exactly.
And then it continues to late night.
So morning to late night is left-wing propaganda.
Yeah.
And so if all you're doing is removing the late night propaganda, what happens to all the other propaganda from throughout the day?
You know?
So I think that for that reason, that's not going to change.
They'll get someone else to do the same.
You know what?
Maybe perhaps we need new blood.
And then they'll get another leftist up there.
It's just, it's not going to change.
Yeah, I think in the end, when we're dealing with the entertainment world and even the media, I see a lot of conservatives now saying, why doesn't the media finally pay attention to these latest revelations by Tulsi Gabbard?
Can't they see now with all and the answer is, of course they see.
But what do they see?
They actually see their own face in the mirror.
So in other words, what they see is, I was part of that hoax.
And not only that, I was being fed information that I knew was false.
And I chose to go with it to help my team get across the finish line.
Do I want to be covering this story right now?
No.
So the silence of the media is completely understandable in that context.
And so all these petitions to the media to be more open-minded, to look at the facts, it's not going to happen.
You know, this is like trying to get Al Capone to fess up.
You know, he's not going to fess up.
It's not going to happen.
You know, he might make a plea deal with you.
And this is my case for actually indicting these people.
Hey, speaking of that, you heard about Alcatraz, right?
Remember, we saw Alcatraz the other day.
Yes, we did.
Right?
And I jokingly said, you know, they should reopen it.
And they're trying to.
And what would you know?
Yeah, we were laughing about the fact that there's no way they're going to open the actual original Alcatraz.
Yeah.
And I thought you were talking about alligator Alcatraz, but you're like, no, they're looking into opening Alcatraz, Alcatraz itself.
Let's talk about, we have a little bit of time left.
Let's talk about the Brian Kohlberger sentencing.
And we watched, well, you watched more of it than I did, but I did watch the highlights.
And to me, the highlight was, well, I liked seeing the Gonzalve's dad.
I thought he did it.
He was clearly inflamed, but he held back.
I think he did.
I was waiting for him to go, yeah, you got a surprise coming for you.
Yeah, I was so ready for that.
Right.
But you know what he did?
Is he unleashed his daughter?
Yeah, his daughter.
You're right.
His daughter went there.
Yeah.
I mean, she went there two or three times.
Well, she used the F word at one point.
At another point, she said something like, did you catch this part?
Where she said, you know, you might have gotten some A's and B's, you know, in school and college.
She goes, but in prison, you're going to be getting some D's.
Think about that.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
You're going to be getting some D's.
And then she just missed it.
Oh, yeah, but it was such a brilliant double entendre that she was able to get away with it without.
It would not have worked had she been more explicit than that, but nobody could mistake the meaning of what she was saying.
And what she was saying is kind of what the dad had, you know, implied.
But she unleashed on this guy.
Yeah, she did.
You know, the only time that he looked, I don't even know if it was really a smile or what it was, but when she said something to the effect of, you are miserable at everything you do.
You can't even rap.
Remember?
Right.
And then I think he kind of cracked a smile when she said that.
But what a weirdo.
I mean, just, you know, in terms of serial killer, you know, we were talking about, you know, he wanted to be Ted.
He wanted to be like Ted Bundy, right?
And Ted Bundy was actually extremely charismatic.
He, in fact, he actually played his own attorney, remember?
He cross-examined some of his victims.
Didn't he go to law?
Yeah, he went to law.
The nerve of him to cross-examine his victims.
Right.
No attempted to rape you.
You did.
I mean, think about that.
Think of that kind of scene occurring in a courtroom.
So anyway, but he was just very charismatic.
And Kohlberger is not charismatic because I believe he's in the spectrum, for one.
And he's just not, he's not capable of really showing emotion like that.
Well, you made an interesting analogy between Kohlberger and Mangioni.
Oh, yes, Mangioni.
This is the United Healthcare shooter, right?
And with Mangione, again, you've got a guy who's more like Bundy.
Yes.
Mangione is affable.
He seems to have a certain kind of...
And no wonder it's for that reason.
I think his fan club is for that reason.
But the second reason is with Mangione, he is going to claim it was an ideological crime, which is to say he'll try to present it as some sort of a protest.
I was doing this because I was outraged at healthcare.
And that's going to draw people who are on the left, who think, oh, yeah, this guy is like standing up against the evil corporate.
Now, see, with Koberger, he doesn't have that type of defense available to him.
And, you know, the title of the podcast is Why He Did It.
Why He Did It.
Why He Did It.
We don't really know why He Did It.
And in fact, the judge asked him why, you know, some details.
And he said something to the effect of, I respectfully decline to say, or something like that.
Right.
And it's interesting that he used the word respectfully.
Yeah, it is.
And boy, that judge unleashed on him.
He did.
We haven't seen a judge ever give that kind of a tirade.
Not just a sentence, but with an accompanying tirade.
Well, the interesting thing that we were talking about with regard to this case is this.
Did Koberger go to become a criminologist?
And then as part of his studies, he develops a curiosity like, hey, I wonder what it's like to be an actual perpetrator of these crimes.
So as someone interested in criminology, his crimes are an extension of that.
But you raised the opposite possibility, which is that he wanted to kill someone and he decided, why don't I go into criminology so I could learn the techniques of detection and maybe beat them if I become a serial killer.
Which he miserably failed.
Which he miserably failed at.
Epic fail.
Epic fail.
But it really, and it's very sad because we do, you know, Steve Gonzalez, Kaylee's dad, said that he should never be, his name should never be uttered and he should only go down as KB.
No, BK.
A BK.
And so, and then the judge said the same thing.
He's like, I hope nobody wants to write a book about you or do a movie about you.
I want you to just like disappear into the prison darkness.
Right.
And so that's the problem with these killers is that there is a fascination with them.
I mean, if Koberger wants notoriety, he's going to get it.
I mean, he can give interviews.
He can talk to crime students.
He can agree to have a documentary made about him.
So even though I know that the victim's families are desperate to prevent him from getting the spotlight, it's going to be tough to do that.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection