FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
PBD Podcast Episode 202. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Dinesh D'Souza, Tom Ellsworth, & Adam Sosnick.
Listen to The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast: http://bit.ly/3Wtekmh
Purchase the DVD of "2000 Mules": http://bit.ly/3DAYk97
Buy the book of "2000 Mules": https://bit.ly/3hcNfn0
For everything "2000 Mules": https://bit.ly/3NFPxaE
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
This world of entrepreneurs, we can't no value to hated.
I didn't run, homie, look what I become.
I'm the one.
I'll leave it up to you.
Okay, good morning, folks.
This is what is it, episode 202?
Episode 202 with Dinesh DeSouza, a special guest here today.
Somebody that's loved by conservatives and hated by the opposite side.
Many would call him the controversial figure.
He's got a lot to say about the election with the recent documentary that came out, 2000 Mules, which I had a chance to watch.
His most favorite name he's been using the last, I want to say three days is a man named Paul.
Maybe we'll talk about this Paul character today, Paul Pelosi.
I think you've been tweeting friendly things about him lately.
And there's a bunch of other things with his resume.
I think you and I, we did a podcast or an interview together a year and a half ago, and it did very well.
It got a few million views.
The audience loved it.
So we have him back.
So anyways, having said that, thank you so much for being on a podcast.
Hey, it's a pleasure.
Great to be back.
And sure enough, yeah, I think we did, I did a film called Hillary's America.
We did a podcast together, and then a few months later, I went on and looked on YouTube, and it was like 4 million hits.
I was like, wow, this guy must be important.
Yeah.
Welcome to Value Day, man.
This guy's doing something with his life.
Can I say one thing?
You introduced something.
You said he's loved, he's hated.
I don't think he's hated.
Because I think maybe some of the content you do or some of the, you know, obviously he knows how to poke.
True, but there is something about your demeanor that makes you very likable, regardless if you don't agree with you.
Because you're respectful, you're intelligent.
I know, obviously, people on the left are not a fan of you, but you are a likable guy, from what I could tell.
I don't know.
We might get in a fight today.
I hope not.
But I will say that you do things with class and with grace for the most part.
And so I don't like when people use the word hate.
I think I've, you know, let me clarify.
Yes.
He's hated by the left.
Yes, exactly.
Let me clarify.
Thank you for that.
Correction, Adam.
No, but he is hated by the left, but he's a likable guy, but he's hated by the left.
And that's intentional.
That's intentional because sometimes you got to do that to get the other side to be riled up and make up their minds about where they're at.
But we got a lot of things to talk about because also just this week about your 2000 Mules documentary, I saw something on New York Times WAPO that someone came out suing all that stuff.
Matter of fact, why don't we just get right into it if that's what we're going to be doing?
And what we'd want to do today, Denise, since we've already done an interview and people know your background, I just want to hit topics with you.
So we'll have topical topics, economy, politics, midterms, Kanye, Kyrie, Biden, all of that stuff.
But let's first go into 2000 Mules.
So for some people that don't know, if you don't mind, I had a chance to watch it yesterday.
I know Charlie Kirk's in it, Dennis Prager's in it.
I want to say almost everybody was in it.
I've had on the podcast before, but why don't you take a minute and share with everybody what was in 2000 Mules?
Yeah, so 2000 Mules is a movie about election fraud.
And it's not kind of what you expect because right after the 2020 election, people raised all kinds of issues.
They said, oh, isn't it strange that Trump won these Bellwether counties and he still won the and still lost the election?
Wasn't it strange that the counting in all the key states seemed to stop at the same time and Trump was winning the next morning?
Whoa, it's all the opposite direction.
Now these are anomalies.
An anomaly is something strange, but by itself it doesn't prove anything because there could be a reasonable explanation.
And so I stayed out of the election fraud debate for over a year.
And then I was approached by a couple of people who run an organization called True the Vote.
And they told me, you know, we found an ingenious way to look at this issue that no one has done before.
And it's a combination of two things.
One is cell phone geotracking, which is, of course, today a reliable technology used by law enforcement, used by the CIA, used by the CDC to monitor people's social distancing.
It's the tracking of your phone.
It's the same technology that if you come to, you know, go to Naples on vacation, you get off the plane, they tell you the weather is going to be really nice in Naples.
Well, how do they know you're there?
They're tracking your phone.
And the other, the second line of evidence is the surveillance video of the states themselves.
So a number of states, not all, but some, installed surveillance video outside these mail and drop boxes.
Amazingly, a year later, no one had gone back and looked at the footage.
It's almost like having surveillance on a bank.
There's the charge the bank's been robbed, but nobody bothered to go look on the video.
So True the Vote said, look, we're going to show you some of the cell phone geo-tracking.
We're going to show you some of the video.
And when I looked at that, I said to myself, this is evidence of a completely different caliber than I've seen before.
I don't know yet what it proves, but this is a way to go back.
You know, we were moving away from the election.
This is a way to go back and look at the actual cell phone movements of people who are going to multiple Dropboxes, 10 or more, 10 or more Dropboxes.
Now, remember that when you're talking about a Dropbox, we're not talking about the mailbox.
Somebody has a reason to go to a mailbox many times, right?
You can say, I mailed my mortgage on Monday, and then I mailed my utility bill on Tuesday.
I wrote my mom on Wednesday.
But a ballot dropbox, you only have one reason to go.
Put ballots in it.
So if some guy's going to 10 or more Dropboxes, it's hard to think of a good explanation for why they would do that.
So if you can use cell phone tracking to find people who are going in a short period, right up to the election, a few days after the election, to 10 or more Dropboxes, that needs to be investigated.
Then, let's just say that we find, you know, Patrick, your cell phone, you've gone to 10 or more Dropboxes, and there are a couple of those Dropboxes that have video.
So let's just say that we know that from your cell phone, that you on election day or the day before the election were at all these Dropboxes, and we actually know the time you got there because it's from your phone.
So now we go look on the video, and there's Patrick Bett David, and what is he doing?
You can see him on video.
He's putting ballots into the box.
One, two, three, four, five.
So this is evidence.
Who has access to this?
So the states took the video.
You can obtain the video through public records.
That's how True the Vote got it.
You can get it.
There's not a person in the country has said that's not the real.
This is available to everybody.
If I wanted to go get it tomorrow, I could get it.
Yes.
Okay, perfect.
Absolutely.
Freedom of information.
Right, that's why I'm asking.
Similarly, with the cell phone geo-tracking, it's not known to people, but you can go now and buy the data.
Let's just say Atlanta, the city of Atlanta.
You can buy the data from October 1 to November 8th, Election Day, 2020 of every cell phone in what's called a geo-fenced area.
You draw the map, and they'll give you that data.
You can buy it.
And of course, you need specialists to do the proper kind of investigation, but you can use that data to confirm or undermine what we've been saying in this film.
So the film operates on those two lines of evidence.
And that's what makes it remarkable that so many people have tried to sort of dismiss or debunk the film.
It's okay to debate the film and it's okay to debate the significance of what you're seeing, but to pretend like it's not relevant to election fraud seems to me foolish.
So let me ask you.
So here's a few questions that would get me to think if there is fraud going on.
Out of all the videos that we're recording, was there any city or any area that wouldn't give you the recording or was not somehow some way available to see?
Yes.
So a number of areas did not take video, which is actually very bad because think about it.
Number one, we live in a country and at a time when technology is cheap, every mall, every parking lot is under video, right?
Is there any good reason not to put a camera on a Dropbox?
How many places was that?
Was it a lot of places?
Was it necessary places?
The majority of places did not have video at all.
And they basically used the excuse of COVID.
They basically said, oh, you know, yeah, we should, but we never got around to it.
So there are only a few places that did video.
And even those places fight you when you try to get the video.
They don't make it easily available.
Why not?
So this is right away a clue that they're trying to block you from watching what's on the video.
How long have we been recording videos where people go and drop off their ballots?
How long have we been recording the history of recording videos?
Well, here's the thing.
It has been known for over, I mean, over 100 years that the vast majority of election fraud occurs with absentee and mail-in ballots.
And the reason is obvious.
If you go into vote, you're there.
All these people are there.
You're behind a curtain.
They give you one ballot.
You fill it out.
You drop it off.
You leave.
There's just so much.
There's not much you can do with shenanigans.
In fact, if you tried them, they'd stop you.
Like, if I were to say, if I go in to vote and I tell them, listen, I have an urgent appointment.
Let me take my ballot and my brother will bring it back and give it to you filled out.
They'd be like, no way.
Okay, this is ridiculous.
We're not going to allow that, right?
Of course.
But think about it.
That's exactly what happens with a mail-in ballot.
They have these voter rolls.
And the voter rolls, by the way, are notoriously inaccurate.
By that, I mean Americans move all the time.
Let's say you move three times over the last 10 years.
Your name is going to be on all those places that you lived and no one's taken it off.
Even though the DMV knows you moved, the tax people know you moved.
Everybody knows you moved, but nobody tells the election people.
So you now can vote three times and nobody will know the difference.
And if they send out a mail-in ballot, three Patrick Bet David mail-in ballots are going to all the places that you lived.
It's not all that difficult to get your hands on these ballots.
So what I'm getting at is there's the opportunity with mail-in ballots to have fraud.
Now, what made 2020 different was that for the first time, the mail-in ballot, which used to be a tiny part of the election, became a huge part of the election.
So it's almost like the opportunity for fraud multiplied greatly.
So then if they did that, let's just say the claims of there was above and beyond voter fraud than usual.
We always have voter fraud.
It's not a new thing.
It's something that's been going on since day one.
And this happens in all elections.
A big one just took place recently in a country that has a great soccer team.
But aside from that, with this voter fraud that we're talking about, but to say that this is somehow some way more than above and beyond because of COVID, so then that means midterm shouldn't be above and beyond because COVID's pretty much gone.
We don't have the shutdown, right?
So 2022 midterms next week should be pretty fair as well as 2024 because that COVID excuse cannot be used.
Is that a fair question?
Well, it's a little complex.
I would say, yes, I have made no claims that the 2022 election is in danger in any way.
Although I do think part of the reason for that is that 20 million people have seen our film and they're more aware of what these problems are.
20 million people have seen the film.
Have seen 2,000 mules, yes.
So it's been out there.
It's the most successful political documentary of the last 10 years.
Actually, to be honest, since my first film, which was called 2016 Obama's America, that was the previous kind of record holder.
This is number two.
Michael Moore is the record holder in political documentaries of all time, but his films were made a long time ago.
He's not making good films today.
Like Roger and me.
Roger and Me was actually quite a small film, but it was very well done.
It put him on the map.
His big film was Fahrenheit 9-11.
Fahrenheit 9-11.
So, yeah, Fahrenheit 9-11 is the number one political documentary of all time.
My Obama film is number two.
This is going to be a competitor for number three.
Do you and Michael Moore ever collaborate, debate, discuss anything?
Do you guys have any relationship with the other one?
No, we don't.
We've actually had a little bit of social media skirmishing, but it would actually be really fun.
Yeah, why wouldn't you guys have a conversation, debate?
I don't know.
Maybe you get someone that likes hosting debates and figure that out.
I don't know.
I'm just throwing that out there into the atmosphere.
I would be open to it.
I think it would do.
I mean, we could even do a Vegas.
If we did the public event, it would do well.
It would be really fun to do.
I know a guy that might be interested in hosting something like that.
Yeah.
We'll keep you posted.
Well, coming back to, you know, coming back to 2020, 2020 was an anomalous election.
And I want to make a distinction between voter fraud and election fraud.
And here's the distinction.
If one guy says, you know, I'm going to vote three times, or I'm going to vote on behalf of my father.
He died last year, but nobody knows it.
So he's still on the rolls.
I'm going to vote for him.
That's not going to tip an election.
Voter fraud is different than election fraud.
So election fraud is organized.
I'll give you an historical example.
In 1864, we had a lot of mail-in ballots in this country for an obvious reason.
All the soldiers were on the battlefield, so they couldn't show up to vote.
So they use mail-in ballots.
And sure enough, a bunch of Democrats in New York said, let's rig the election against Lincoln.
New York at that time, New York City, was heavily Democratic.
And so what they did is they intercepted these soldiers' ballots.
They would steam them open, change the vote from Lincoln to McClellan, or they would vote the soldiers' ballots who didn't know they voted.
So there was a mail-in ballot fraud scheme made possible by the peculiarity of the Civil War.
So fast forward to 2020, 2020 was sort of the same unstable environment in which election fraud became a real possibility.
Now, what 2000 Mules alleges is this.
It alleges that there were these left-wing nonprofits in the inner city.
We're not talking about throughout the country, but we're talking about key battleground states, the urban areas.
Now, these left-wing nonprofits got a huge infusion of liberal cash right before the election, which alone is kind of odd because nonprofit organizations are not supposed to be involved in partisan electioneering.
They all have this tax status called 501c3.
They're supposed to, they can generically say, guys, it's a civic duty to vote, but they can't say you got to vote for Biden or you got to vote for Trump.
They can't do that.
But they get all this money, and then we see on the video, you can actually see it, these mules show up with backpacks.
And we use the term mule because of human trafficking or sex trafficking.
This is ballot trafficking.
The mules don't come up with the ballots.
They're given these backpacks of ballots to go drop off in all the drop boxes.
But they get them from these left-wing nonprofits.
The left-wing nonprofits go, here's the backpack.
The mule then goes on a kind of a route.
And the reason that they go to many drop boxes is kind of obvious.
If they go to one Dropbox and put in 500 votes, then all the other Dropboxes will have 40 or 50 votes.
But suddenly 500 show up here.
People will be like, what's going on?
So they're instructed not to do that.
Diversification.
Diversification.
In the investment world.
I get it.
Okay.
And again, the combination of the cell phone tracking and seeing them on video is very suggestive.
Now, the debunkers, there's plenty of debunkers of our movie.
And some of them have said, you know, geo-tracking doesn't really work and you can't really pinpoint these people going to Dropboxes.
And some of them have said, well, you haven't shown us the same mule in multiple Dropboxes.
So there are lines of criticism that I want to acknowledge, although I think I've adequately, I've been answering them on my podcast.
I answer them in my book.
So this is the debate that's been going on.
So, you know, in the documentary, it starts off.
If you guys haven't seen it, it starts off Dennis Prager saying, I'm not part of the camp.
I don't believe this happened.
I don't believe this is real.
I think the 2020 election was real and all this stuff.
And, you know, Biden won it fair and square.
And then at the end, you know, it ends in a completely different way where he's like, look, you know, if this is what I just saw right now, everybody needs to see, everybody needs to realize what's going on.
Anyway, so that's that part of the story.
The question I got is the following.
How is it that if we have better technology today, we have all, we have the kind of insight you can get on any of these social media apps that you've never had access to.
The kind of insight to find out what percentage is 18 to 24, 24 to 30 days, 35 to this, male, female, earner, income, location, area, country, they can get so deep in Intel that you can decide, I'm better off making this video in this way because my audience does better when a video like this.
You can really track all of that, right?
Why do we have to do any of this stuff?
If we really use technology today, if we brought the brightest technology folks on both ends of the aisle, okay, somebody from the left, somebody on the right.
So say Bezos and Musk, say, take best engineers we have, they come in and they say, let's create a technology that's 100% proven that no way in the world can be, you know, cheated for anything to happen with it.
Why aren't we doing that?
We should do that.
The European countries do do that.
Even third world countries have been improving their election systems so that number one, they know the result immediately.
There's no reason to have days and days and days.
Technology is supposed to make things faster, not slower.
But the reason it doesn't happen now, and the reason it doesn't happen in America, is that I call it like special logic.
And here's what I mean.
You have things that work in every other sphere of life, but the moment you brace them in the context of elections, you're accused of voter suppression.
Here's a classic example: voter ID, right?
If you go to the bank, it's not banking suppression to say, you want to check, cash your check, show me your ID.
It's not airline suppression if you show up at the airport.
You want to travel?
Show me your ID.
It's normal.
Everybody expects you to do it.
You want to buy alcohol and on and on it goes.
But in the one area of elections, you show up with an ID.
Oh, this is going to be really scary.
Blacks and Hispanics aren't going to be able to vote because they don't know where to get an ID.
It's ridiculous.
Same thing with electronic surveillance.
You have electronic surveillance everywhere, but you put it on a Dropbox.
Suddenly you'll hear, oh, you're going to scare people away.
They're not going to want to vote because they're under observation.
They're under observation everywhere when they go to the mall.
So whenever you find an argument that only applies to this special case, geotracking the same.
Nobody questions that geo-tracking works.
In the January 6th, if you look at the charging documents, Mr. X was 20 feet outside the front door of the Capitol.
Mr. Y was 20, 30 feet inside the front door.
The geotracking is assumed to be reliable.
Yet suddenly when we use it to track mules going to drop boxes, oh, I don't know, Dinesh, this technology is very new.
It doesn't really work.
So this is a clue that somebody doesn't want the process really to be on the up and up.
That makes sense.
So I want to read a story that just came out.
I'm sure you've seen this yourself.
NPR, WAPO, inside, it's all over the place.
New York Times, I'll read.
Let's read the WAPO one.
Okay.
So WAPO story comes out.
Washington Post says one of Dinesh DeSouza's 2,000 alleged mules sues claiming defamation.
Rightly commented, Dinesh DeSouza.
Welcome to special guests to his podcast on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump II.
The two spent about 20 minutes discussing a subject that has animated them both for the past two years, false claims about rampant ballot fraud affecting the outcome of the 2020 elections.
Trump has seen DeSouza's film 2000 Mules.
He held a screening of the film at his Mar-a-Lago event facility.
He's advocated for it regularly and for good reason.
2000 Mules perpetrates to show that Trump didn't lose his election re-election bid, but rather that it was stolen by a network of people shuttling ballots around swing states.
The film is entirely uncovering both and its specific assertions about the number of ballots shuttled.
A figure that DeSouza admitted to WAPO was essentially a guess and in its overall methodology.
But no one on this planet is less phased by his obviously false claims about a voter fraud than Trump.
After declaring that he won by millions of votes, Trump praised 2000 Mules as being a conclusive way, particularly useful to his effort to subvert his laws.
This film, he said, showed fraud in a very conclusive way because you were taking government tapes as evidence.
That is the film's claim that a group of called the vote had compiled through the vote, had compiled geolocation data to show people visiting multiple ballot drop boxes was augmented by video from those drop boxes.
And who could argue without that?
One person who could is Mark Andrews.
So who's Mark Andrews who argues with your 2000 mules?
So, all right, so let's start with Mark Andrews.
In 2000 Mules, we used this technology to identify these mules going to multiple locations.
Then, as I said, in a few cases, and now we're talking about Fulton County, Georgia, we said, we do have some video.
So let's go look at the videotape.
We see this Mark Andrews guy.
And now, in the movie, actually, to be honest, for legal reasons and because this is a law enforcement matter, we blur the faces of all the mules.
So you see the guy, but you actually can't see his face.
You can't see Mark Andrews' face, but it is Mark Andrews, apparently.
And he's putting multiple ballots into the box.
Now, let's turn for a moment to the election law in Georgia.
In Georgia, you are allowed to put in the ballots of your is Mark Andrews the one with the long hair that's sitting there and it's face.
Was his face shown in the documentary?
No, no, his face is not shown in the documentary.
His face is blurred.
You can kind of see his outline.
Okay.
You can see kind of his baldish.
He definitely doesn't have long hair yet.
Right.
And there he is, and he puts five ballots in.
Now, very interestingly, this is unrelated to the movie.
Somebody in Georgia made a complaint about Mark Andrews.
And Georgia sent an investigator to Mark Andrews' house and talked to him.
And he said, Oh, yeah, I was just putting in the ballots of my family members.
So Georgia said, Oh, okay.
And they basically dropped the matter.
They said this is legitimate.
And they said that they said that we are concluding that we don't have any evidence that he was doing anything improper.
Now, Obviously, when you're doing research, we have resources of being able to look at other video, other Dropboxes, geo-tracking of phones.
I won't go into the Mark Andrews case only because he's filed a suit.
So I don't actually want to, I don't want to address it just because it's something that might proceed to trial.
And, you know, let's just say that we have a good rebuttal, but I'm going to withhold that.
Let me make a couple of general points about all this.
All of this started right after election day when it was announced, and I'm not sure who started this, but everyone began to echo it.
The 2020 election was the most secure election in history.
You probably heard it.
You've probably heard it many times.
And the first question you have to ask is: A, how would you know that?
And number two, it's one thing to say we had an election, we haven't seen enough proof of fraud.
But to actually make a positive claim that this was the most secure election requires you to now produce evidence showing that there was less fraud in 2020 than in the previous elections, right?
That's what that statement means.
Less fraud in 2020 compared to 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004.
So ask yourself.
How do you measure?
And what did you do?
And how do you measure?
Right.
To my knowledge, not only has no one ever demonstrated, no one has even attempted to show that 2020 has the least amount of fraud.
And for the reason I gave earlier, which is that absentee ballots are more vulnerable than normal types of voting, it's very unlikely that when you change all the rules of an election, very often 15 minutes before the election, that you can declare afterward, hey, by the way, this was the safest.
So from the beginning, there was a rather dubious or put it, let's say, dogmatic claim.
But here's the interesting thing.
If you challenge that claim in any way, you are a big liar.
You're an election denier.
They began to censor you on social media for questioning an unsupported, well, an unsupported claim.
This is long before I even made a movie.
Did you dive in, Dinesh, to see the origin of that?
Like who the media was quoting or where it was coming from?
Where you're saying it all started to pop up.
What did your research show the origin of the claim or the story from like not a pundit, not a reporter, but like a government source?
I want you to do that, but go back to your point you want to make as well.
So address that and then go back to the point you were going to make.
Yeah, the guy I saw on the government official who said that, and he's in the movie, is a guy named Krebs, Chris Krebs, K-R-E-B-S.
And he's the head of a group, or was the head of a group called CISA, the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency.
So this is the guy supposedly doing the electronic oversight of the election.
But of course, the type of fraud we describe in 2000 Mules is not, it's a high-tech way of busting it, but it's low-tech fraud.
It's actual mules dumping in ballots.
We're not talking about machines rigging votes.
You know, we're not talking about any of that.
We're talking about old school fraud.
You know, go back to the 19th century.
Immigrants come off the boat.
Some political officials meet them.
They go, hey, listen, we'll give you a bottle of whiskey.
Go talk to my friend, you know, Gustavo.
He'll give you a job.
And by the way, here's a ballot.
You sign over here.
We'll fill it out for you.
This has been going on in America for a long time.
We're talking about this kind of old school type of fraud.
Turn to Trump for a second.
Trump did not host 2000 Mules.
We wanted to have our premiere.
I've done my premieres at the Chinese Theater in LA.
That's my usual spot for having them.
This time we decided, since we're on the East Coast, it'd be kind of fun to have it in Mar-a-Lago.
So we showed the film to Trump because it's his house.
And I also was really clear, though, this is a 90-minute film.
If you watched the film while you watched it, Patrick, Trump is not in the film for more than three minutes because I didn't want to make it all about Trump.
I didn't want to interview Trump and Trump.
So because this is really about the integrity of the vote and it's about democracy.
So we have the usual Trump ran in 2020.
So we have Torisho Trump on election day and so on.
But this is not a movie about Trump.
So the reason the Washington Post is trying to make it seem like it's a movie about Trump is they want to make it sound like, oh, Trump gave Dinesh a pardon.
Dinesh is trying to pay back Trump.
We don't have to even look at this movie because this is like a no, it's not.
But for the average person, that could be a valid like theory.
You can say, okay, I can see that happening.
He's returning the favor.
If I do this, will you do this for me?
The average person will say, I can see that happening.
Right.
And my answer to the average guy is, okay, listen, look, the beauty of this movie is the evidence of the movie is in the movie.
So you don't have to worry about what Dinesh's motives are.
You just go in with an open mind and your own two eyes.
Now, you know, as you know, there's a site called Rotten Tomatoes.
And over 500 people have reviewed the movie in Rotten Tomatoes.
What's the movie's rating?
Unheard of for this kind of movie.
100%.
Why?
Because even liberals, even Democrats who see the movie go, whoa, what the heck's going on over here?
You know, in other words, we don't just allege a heist.
We can actually show you the heist.
Yeah, there it is, 100%.
We can show you the heist.
And so you only have to believe your own two eyes.
Well, so I guess the question with that is, if I'm just throwing this out there, if 100% of the audience is already a Trump fan, you know, MAGA country, of course they're going to agree with it.
So I guess my question is, do you have analytics that show who has actually watched your film?
Like, for instance, if it was, you said 20 million people that watched your film, if it was 50-50 and it's 100, all right, whoa, we're onto something.
But if it's all Republicans, all MAGA, all Trump fans, of course they're going to agree.
So how do you respond to that?
Do you know the analytics?
Actually, I do for this reason.
I went to the Rasmussen pollsters and asked them to do something I had done with my Obama film.
I told them, can you bring a bunch of people in a room who are politically independent?
How are you going to find those people?
I know.
Well, this is a good question.
Come on, Dinesh.
No, no, no.
This is how they do it.
There's actually a metric for doing it.
Like, for example, when in my Obama film, they picked people who had voted for Obama in 2008, but Republicans in 2010.
Okay.
Okay, so they picked people who have gone on boats.
Or even in 2016.
You're saying they voted Obama and then they voted Trump.
Those types of people?
Those types of people.
And so what they do— Those days would have been Obama and then— Hillary.
I'm sorry, Obama and then Trump, because see, obviously Obama didn't run in 2016.
It was Hillary.
In any event, Rasmussen said, we won't do that, but what we will do is we'll do a national survey on 2,000 mules.
And they did.
They did a representative sample.
They did a national survey on this movie.
And what they found is that, sure enough, not surprisingly, about 72% of people who saw the movie, right-wingers.
They're Republicans.
But the other 28 broke down into about half of independents and half of Democrats.
Maybe they were just curious.
Maybe they didn't know what the movie was about.
But what's interesting is that even among those groups, independents and Democrats, not everybody but big majorities were persuaded that – now, they might debate the movie.
Was there enough fraud that Trump would have won the election?
That's a separate issue.
But that there was systematic fraud, I think pretty much anyone who sees the movie.
Is that 100% meaning that they liked the movie or agreed with the points of the movie?
Because that's a big difference.
Like, you could watch and be like, that was an awesome movie.
I mean, I don't really believe it, but it was great.
So you'll give it like a thumbs up, but you might not believe the story within the story.
But not for this kind of movie.
This is the kind of movie where... I don't want to get stuck on Rotten Tomatoes.
I want to move on to issues.
Can you do me a favor and go to Rotten Tomatoes and type in his prior movie that he did for Obama or any one of them?
So just type in what was another one.
Well, type in Hillary's American.
That's right.
Do Hillary's American American American?
Yeah.
And that'll kind of give you an idea.
Go right there.
It's right around the bottom.
Click on that.
So let's see what the score is.
And I don't know what the score is to be on.
Okay, there you go.
80%, 4%.
So that means Rotten Tomato on the left.
So Adam, if you zoom in a little bit more, the guys on the left are tomato meters, meaning those are the people that work for Rotten Tomatoes.
They gave it 4%.
Makes sense.
28 reviews.
They hated it.
It sucked, right?
Professional expertise.
And then on the right, 80%, 10,000-plus ratings.
That's still solid for something like this.
We were just kind of talking about this.
I know we don't want to get stuck on Rotten Tomatoes.
I get it.
But we did discuss this exact same topic the other day with Doug Ellen about entourage, right?
About how basically the score on the right isn't necessarily reflective of the score of the left because the critics don't know shit.
Let's go what the audience knows.
All I'm saying is 100% to me, it doesn't do anything for me to give it more credibility or less credibility to me.
Because I don't, first of all, what I was impressed is the fact that Rotten Tomatoes, the tomato meters, didn't even want to review 2000 mules to give it any credibility as if it's not a real documentary.
Like to them, it's an insult to say Dinesh is a nobody, so we'll only give it two reviews and the prior one got 28 reviews.
They don't want to bring that kind of eyeballs to give it attention.
But the reality of it is a lot of people have watched this documentary and are wondering what the hell is going on.
So they want to know a little bit more what's going on.
So let's continue with this.
Let's continue with this on the point you were trying to make.
So Mark Andrews, what happened with you were making a point with Mark Andrews on the fact that they're coming back and they're suing you for the doc.
What point were you going to make with him?
Well, Mark Andrews is simply saying, I'm not a quote mule.
He's not even disputing necessarily that the movie is inaccurate.
He's simply saying he was wrongly identified as a mule.
Out of 2,000, only one is suing you?
Only one.
So, okay.
Did you hear that, Tom?
Loud and Claire.
Out of 2,000, only one is suing you.
That's not good for the other side.
Yeah, well, why isn't there someone like a Gloria Alred who's really good at rounding up women on hashtag MeToo and putting five of them in front of the camera?
Why isn't there a leftist lawyer like that rounding up people to do it?
That's what I'm thinking right now.
Like a class action lawsuit or something.
Yeah, just real quick.
We show a lot.
That's kind of shocking.
To clarify, did you name 2,000 mules?
Did you just name Mark Andrews?
Like, how did Mark Andrews find out that he was in the documentary?
Did you name him specifically?
Do you name other people?
No, we don't name any mules.
Remember, one thing to tell you about geo-tracking.
When you geo-track people's phones, you don't get their names.
You get the ID of their phones.
Okay.
So, for example, all our phones have a unique ID.
It's not the phone number, but it's in our phone.
And so if you run a geotracking search, let's just say, for example, and by the way, this is how good this technology is.
If somebody is murdered in Piedmont Park in Atlanta in the middle of the night, no eyewitnesses, all you have is a body.
First thing the cops do, they run a geofence around that park and they look for all the cell phone devices in that park.
And what they get is the cell phone ID.
Now, they have to go to a judge and the judge will give you a warrant.
And then you go to the cell phone provider and they give you the names, phone numbers, and addresses of all those people.
Then you can go talk to them.
Now, one of the ways you know that somebody is making an honest documentary is you say, all right, I'm going to, we have all these 2,000 mules and their cell phone IDs.
We're willing to give this to any law enforcement that wants it, right?
All you have to do is go interview the mules and ask them who paid you, who gave you those ballots, who organized this operation.
So I'm calling for this.
I'm willing to put my thesis on the line.
And if I'm wrong, go interview the mules and they'll have an innocent explanation.
They'll be like, oh man, we're all like Mark Andrews.
We're all just dropping off the ballots of our family members.
It's all on the up and up.
Dinesh has nothing here.
But they don't want to do that.
So, and the left doesn't want them to do that.
Philip Bump of the Washington Post, who's written like 20 articles on 2,000 mules, he's like, he's scared of law enforcement going and go to the left-wing nonprofits and ask them, hey, listen, you got all this money to get out the vote.
Can we see your records to see if you've been organizing these mules?
Are you providing ballots?
Where are you getting them?
No, in other words, when someone is trying to block the investigation from moving forward, I would say that's on the prima facie suspicious.
So here's why I'm asking the question.
So check this out.
Deshaun Watson, first person comes out, right?
Remember, it's like, well, you know, I was giving him a massage.
And then you remember you and I were talking about it because Deshaun, he's a guy I wanted to buy his best card.
So I'm like, hey, what's the story all about?
And then he's like, well, you may want to hold off because a second person came in and a third person came out and a fourth and a fifth.
Eventually it was what?
28.
Well, guess what?
At about 20 something, do you believe that that actually happened with Deshaun?
Right, after all those allegations.
Yeah, there's five.
Yeah, I mean, so Ellen DeGeneres, she's a very tough person to work with as a boss.
She's a one person, two people, 10 people, 20.
Probably she's got high expectations and it's tough to work with, right?
You know, coaches, you would hear stories.
To only have one of 2,000 come out, it's a little weird.
Let me give you the other part, the other part.
So you know the whole 81 million votes.
Let's play that, you know, to say your argument is wrong.
2,000 meals, you're just kind of doing a favor for Trump.
Come on, Dinesh.
Let's face it.
I mean, obviously, great opportunity.
You made a lot of money.
If 20 million people watch it, they pay 20 bucks.
You make good money.
Good for you.
This is a big victory for you.
If we're going to dinner tonight, you're paying for it.
We're giving a nice bottle of wine.
But aside from that, if Democrats are sitting there saying, guys, do us a favor.
Help Biden win.
Allow us to have the Senate.
Allow us to have the House.
We're going to show you that Russia was behind this with Trump.
Okay?
So then Democrats are like, what?
Hell yeah.
If this guy really did do something with Russia, guess what?
Let's take him down.
I'm going to vote Democrat.
And then you vote Democrat.
Six months goes by.
12 months goes by.
24 months goes by.
Nothing's going on there.
Here's the scary part.
If, and they've all been saying the same thing, if Republicans win the House and the Senate, their biggest fear is some of these investigations may actually start.
And that's why some of these guys on the other side, like you heard what Hillary said, if you want to post what Hillary just recently said, a story that, you know, you can't talk.
Here's Hillary.
Hillary Clinton, GOP, has planned to literally steal 2024 election.
It's kind of weird that she gets away with saying this kind of stuff.
And she said this on what?
She said this on an interview.
What was the context of this when she said this?
This was like a week ago, right?
Yeah, a couple weeks ago.
Yeah, Hillary, GOP has literally planned to literally steal 2024 election.
She's been saying this.
Pelosi said it back in the days.
Even the speaker, what do you call it?
The person that represents that, and that came up.
But if what you're saying is true, if you have enough to show data, do you think if the right wins, Senate and the House, they're going to go investigate 2020 elections or no?
Well, I hope that they do.
I know there are some congressmen and senators who will push for it.
But I will also say that I've detected, this has been maybe my greatest frustration with this film, has been that there is a sort of a GOP establishment, right?
And their view is, let's move on.
Dinesh, why are you making this film?
Let's not look in the rearview mirror.
We need to move on.
And part of it is that these guys are not entirely unhappy that Trump lost in 2020.
In other words, their view is that, hey, listen, if Trump and the Republicans both got clobbered, that'd be really bad.
But Trump lost, but the Republicans' down ballot did pretty well.
So here is their scheme.
That is, Biden's going to come and he's going to be horrible.
There's going to be a public revolt, throw the Democrats out, and the Republicans come back in, but without Trump.
So there's a sort of a Republican feeling that 2020, the 2000 Mules is kind of spoiling the Republican picnic right now.
Like Dinesh is not cooperating with the team.
So I want them to have these hearings.
I think we should get to the bottom of it.
And again, you know, this is all a case where if there's nothing to it, show us.
Same with Russia collusion.
Yeah, what you're saying, Mitch McConnell has all but said everything you just said.
Yeah, the problem with Mitch McConnell is he's a tricky character.
I mean, he is pulling money out from Don Bulldock, who is running even with Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire.
Think of it.
Republicans could take a blue state and the polls are 50-50.
And he's putting the money to support Lisa Murkowski in Alaska against a Republican, Kelly Shabaka.
So why is he doing that?
Because basically it's about, it's not even about whether you're a Republican.
It's are you on Mitch's team?
Lisa Murkowski is on Mitch's team.
Kelly Shabaka is like a Trumpster.
She's a MAGA type.
He has his own complicated agenda.
I'm not entirely against Mitch, but I'm saying Mitch is known to play these kinds of inside baseball type of games.
What's the relationship with Mitch and Trump at this point?
We know that it's all strained.
Even like establishment Republicans, whether it's a Romney or a Pence or a Mitch, you know, these establishment Republicans, where are they with Trump these days?
Mitch specifically, though.
No, I think the relations are, there's a Cold War between Mitch and Trump.
And partly it's the Trump calls Mitch like you broken old crow and names like that.
And I don't think he should do that, to be honest, but he does do that.
He ain't the only one, Dinesh, that's getting a nickname from Trump.
Yeah, so he does that stuff.
And then Mitch, you know, Mitch is an old establishment guy, and I don't think he likes it.
And he's, so there's a very uneasy relationship there.
Who do you think has more power within government, within like the actual senators and representatives, a McConnell or a Trump?
McConnell.
McConnell has more power on the legislative process, but to be honest, Trump has far more power with the base.
With the people.
Yeah, with the people.
Of course.
So if Trump does get re-elected, right?
I mean, we're fast forwarding.
How's that relationship going to work?
Because it's so beyond strained at this point, assuming McConnell's still there in the Senate.
At some level, I mean, look, they're similar.
He might be the Senate majority leader if they take it over in 2022, next week.
Yeah, there are similar strains on the Democratic side.
They're not as obvious.
The media doesn't cover them.
The truth of it is both parties can function with some levels of strains because they're united by a philosophy, less government and more personal liberty.
And they're united also by their hostility to the other party and the bad stuff that comes out of the other side.
So to me, it's not impossible that Trump and McConnell could work together.
Although I think that there is likely to be at some point a movement to challenge McConnell, in part because McConnell is also getting really old.
Right.
But it's way more strained on the right, meaning like the McConnell and Trump situation is way worse than like a Schumer, Pelosi, Biden situation.
I don't even think it's terrible, right?
Yeah, that's right.
That is right.
Yeah, I brought up McConnell simply because that's the narrative that that sliver of the Republican Party that is over Trump by their own words, not by my accusation, by their own words is there.
But where in the Republican Party are those people that would like to see an investigation simply to do what you're saying?
Hey, let's go count it.
Let's let law enforcement dive in.
Let's go look at the data and let's all sit back and get away from the microphone and posturing and hypothesizing and let's look at data.
Who in the Republican Party is with you to say, hey, let's go look at this, and if the data is credible, let's show it.
So that would be, by and large, the people in the so-called MAGA Make America Great Again, wing of the Republican Party.
Classic example would be right now, I think it's possible that all the four major candidates in Arizona will win.
It could be three.
Maybe Blake Masters will lose to Mark Kelly, but I think Kerry Lake will win.
Her race, Mark Homedy, will win for Attorney General, Mark Fincham for Secretary of State.
So all those guys are major advocates of 2,000 meals.
They came to our screening.
They've talked up the movie.
So this is the kind of new face of the Republican Party that will be like, we need to have an investigation.
We need to have hearings.
Now, admittedly, Kerry Lake's running for governor.
She's not running for Senate or for Congress, but that's the sensibility we're talking about.
So it's the Lauren Boeberts and stuff that are on the congressional side.
Yes, but it's also, it's not just that.
It's also people who are more to the mainstream.
I mean, I've had Steve Scalise on my podcast.
He's concerned.
Tom Cotton, people like that who have power in the Republican Party, but are not necessarily right now in leadership.
Within the Republican Party, do you kind of have to pick a side?
I'm a MAGA guy or I'm just a traditional Republican.
Like, how does that breakdown work?
And where do you fall in line there?
So what's happening in the Republican Party is, you know, think of how strange it is.
You know, when I came to America in 1978, the left and the right were quite different than they are today.
If you met a leftist on a campus, I was at Dartmouth.
I met a lot of leftists for the first time.
Here were their big issues.
You know, number one, they were defenders of minorities and the working class.
Number two, they care about individual civil liberties.
And this applied from everything to free speech to abortion.
Like, get the government off my back.
Let my individuality flourish.
And number three, they were against the Cold War.
They were against war.
They were the peace party.
So just take those three things right now.
And they flipped on their head.
78, right?
78 to six years after Vietnam.
Yeah.
Six years after Vietnam.
It's fresh.
It's fresh.
And now you talk to the left about the working class.
They're like, oh, yeah, this is a bunch of morons.
Or those guys are a bunch of truck drivers and bombs.
You know, make them wear their masks.
You know, so there's a hostility to the working class.
No surprise, the working class is pushing toward the Republican Party.
Number two, civil liberties.
I mean, the biggest issue of civil liberties isn't abortion.
It's can you speak your mind?
Can you just talk?
And on all these key platforms, the left has become the party of censorship, not just the leadership.
The ordinary Democrat wants to shut you down and shut your speech off and allow speech to be regulated by the big tech platforms if possible, but if they won't do it by the government.
And there's all kinds of survey data to support that.
And number three, suddenly the left has become, they're pro-FBI, they're pro-CIA, and they're pro-war.
I mean, they're even saying things like, you know, if Biden talks about World War III, they're on board.
So think of the change that's occurred there.
There's a similar change occurring on the Republican side.
A party that's becoming somewhat more working class.
I mean, when I was in college, if you met a guy who's a CEO of a company, there was an 80% chance that guy's a Republican.
Now there's an 80% chance that guy's a Democrat.
So no wonder the old Republican guard is used to relying on the business guy, the oil guy, the Chamber of Commerce guy.
That's their team.
And suddenly those guys are being challenged.
And all these new people are coming in.
So that is what's going on in the ground.
And MAGA and the establishment are just metaphors for this really big sweeping change occurring at the ground level.
Fair enough.
Do you have a follow-up?
So where do you fall in on the MAGA Republican side of things?
Well, today, I think if you ask most people, they'd be like, well, Dinesh is in the MAGA wing.
And I guess I am, but I came out of the other wing.
In other words, if you look at my background, I mean, I'm not some guy who like, you know, is a plumber who decided to run for office.
I mean, I came up to the mainstream of the Republican Party.
My mentor was a guy who was the deputy to Bill Buckley at the National Review.
My early articles were at National Review.
I then went to work for Policy Review, which is a policy magazine.
I went to the Reagan White House.
I worked there for two years.
Then I joined the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank.
I was there for 10 years.
Then the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
So this couldn't be a more mainstream path of the Republican establishment.
The only difference is that after that, and I think actually my case with the Obama administration, you know, I was at an election.
You know, I exceeded the campaign finance laws.
I was, you know, in a confinement center for eight months.
All that experience helped to sort of help me see a part of America I hadn't seen before.
I think that helped to shift my politics a little bit.
Is it also one last follow-up?
Is it also that if you are a Republican, it's like you're a dead man walking if you're in the Liz Cheney camp, the Adam Kinzinger-Kent, the what's it dude who wears the eye patch?
Dan Crenshaw.
Dan Crenshaw.
Like if you're in that camp, like you're a dead man walking.
So it's like either get on board with the MAGA train or you're going to get run over.
So is it like, I'm not even saying about you, but do people just kind of have to be opportunistic and say like, yeah, I kind of have these principles, but if I want to win elections or get money or donations or even, you know, fulfill what my base wants to hear, I got to get on board with the MAGA camp.
Well, I think actually that's, I'd like to nuance that a little bit because there's a huge difference between, let's say, Liz Cheney on the one side and then let's take Brian Kemp and Dan Crenshaw.
So Dan Crenshaw is my congressman.
And Dan Crenshaw won by 75% of the vote.
He won the primary easily.
What state is he in his team?
This is in Texas.
This is in Texas.
And Brian Kemp is the governor of Georgia.
Yeah, and he's running against Stacey Abrams, but he's leading by over 10 points.
Yeah, I guess.
So what I'm getting at, and he entered into a big skirmish with Trump.
Huge skirmish.
I mean, the whole Raphael Warnock and the situation in the Senate was a disaster.
They lost two Senate seats because of that skirmish.
That's right.
And I think honestly, there was a lot of blame to go around, by which I mean I think that the charges of election fraud were made in an irresponsible way.
And many people thought, well, if the whole process is rigged, why should I go vote?
And so in a red state, you have voters who don't vote.
Horrible.
That's what helped that outcome to happen.
And then there was a blame game to follow that.
Who's responsible for losing those Senate seats?
Is it the Brian Kemp establishment or is it Trump?
And that continued after a while.
So here's what I'm getting at.
Liz Cheney has basically become, at least in the view of most Republicans, an operative for the Democratic Party.
She mainly attacks Republicans.
She endorses Democrats.
So she's in a whole different, she's basically become the face of the January 6th Commission.
And again, look, I mean, there are guys in January 6th who should have not done what they did.
They should not have broken those glasses.
They should not have engaged in any skirmishes with the cops.
But then there's a whole bunch of other people who walk in there.
Nobody stops them.
The cops standing around.
They walk in.
They're there for 10 minutes.
And now they're in solitary confinement.
I mean, there's no excuse for that.
If they were on the left, that would never have happened to them.
That's the key point.
And that's really all we're saying about January 6th is that there needs to be some equity of treatment.
So he announced yesterday that, you know, not he announced, but your story got out that he's going to announce November 14th that he's going to run.
I'm sure you saw the story.
It was all over the place.
Trump, you're saying?
Yeah, Trump.
Do you think any of this January 6th or any of the raids, FBI, Mar-a-Lago, any of that's going to prevent him from making a run for 2024?
No, although I think that is the left's intention.
They want to keep him off the ticket.
You can really see with all these cases, they've already got the criminal and now they're looking for the crime, which is not the way it should be.
You should have a reason to go look at somebody, but they're on a fishing expedition.
Let's get him on something.
And that's troubling.
It's troubling.
It's troubling because it's Trump, but it's also troubling because it's starting to happen to other people.
So it's starting to happen to people who are at pro-life rallies.
Now they're actually trying to go after people who watch Dropboxes.
This is the latest thing.
Now, when a Dropbox doesn't have 24-hour surveillance and people watch our movie, they're like, well, you know what?
I'll go have a tailgate party.
We'll have some beers.
We'll sit outside the Dropbox and we'll just see if any shenanigans go on.
By the way, this is perfectly legal.
The Dropboxes are on public property.
You're a citizen.
You're sitting there.
You know, I don't know if it's maybe can't have a beer.
Let's say you're having a Diet Coke.
Nothing to prevent you from watching a Dropbox.
Now, you shouldn't show up in your military fatigues.
Don't be cleaning your shotguns.
Exactly.
I mean, that's all.
I was going to say, you're cleaning your shotgun from a Dropbox.
That's going to be pretty intimidating.
Right, agreed.
I mean, we agree on that for sure.
Right.
But some people are doing that.
We've seen evidence of that.
I have seen whether that's mainstream media making that up.
I don't know.
I've seen one image on social media of two guys and they're like in military fatigues.
And I was like, this is crazy.
So we agree.
But what they're doing in the Biden DOJ has file documents.
They're basically saying that for people merely to appear at Dropboxes and turn on their cell phones, which again is totally legal.
Totally legal.
Yeah.
Is somehow voter suppression.
And that's the point.
You had asked earlier, Patrick, about why can't we have sort of reasonable discussion about this?
Where we agree, yeah, don't do that.
And in fact, a judge stepped in in Arizona and basically said that.
He goes, listen, there's nothing to stop citizens from showing up at a Dropbox.
That's not illegal.
He said, just keep a safe distance away and don't interfere with voters.
Don't engage with voters.
If someone's coming with ballot, let them do what they're doing.
And I think that was a good way to resolve that particular issue.
Well, it's also you're saying voter suppression, but I think the term, the correct term in that instance is voter intimidation.
Right.
Okay.
So if you see a person with a shotgun or, I mean, military fatigues, most people are just going to show up, drop their thing.
But if you maybe the good thing is if you are trying to do something illegal and you see Rick over there with a shotgun, you're going to be like, maybe I don't go over there.
Well, you know, this happened, by the way.
I forget if it was in 2008 or 12, but in Philadelphia, and there are pictures on social media you can easily pull up.
There was a bunch of Black Panthers with like nightsticks and they were patrolling these boxes, these voting ballot boxes.
And the issue went up to the Obama DOJ and they had an investigation and they concluded, nah, this was actually no problem.
They didn't file any complaints or any indictments.
But that was a troubling episode that is remotely.
So you're saying it happens on both sides.
Because I think that's BS with the Black Panthers surrounding a ballot box on the left and the right.
I think voter intimidation is not.
I think we should have voter encouragement as long as it's legal.
Of course, exactly.
I mean, this is the meeting point of reasonable discussion.
How do we maximize the ability of people to vote and minimize the ability of people to cheat?
That's not a controversial statement.
So going back to it, so with Trump running.
So you don't think they're going to be able to stop him?
They're going to try to figure out many creative ways.
But knowing Trump and you've spent a lot of time with him, your feeling is that he's most likely, if he runs, he doesn't feel neither one of those stories are going to get in the way.
Right.
I think for Trump, it's really a double whammy.
Number one, this is a guy who hates to lose.
This is also a guy who's willing to lose, but if he feels that he was cheated, you know, he is looking for vindication.
I mean, for him, it's just as much about vindicating the Trump name and his sort of his that.
So this is why I think nothing will stop him.
He's going to want the only way to stop him is sort of somehow to physically prevent him from being able to do it, locking him up, something like that, which the left, I think, is willing to do.
They are terrified about this guy.
There's a little bit of hope that maybe, like, maybe DeSantis will challenge Trump.
Maybe, you know, and there are a few Republicans who take the view that DeSantis is basically Trump, but with less hassles.
He doesn't have some of the weaknesses of Trump, or he won't bring some of the baggage of Trump.
And I think that may be true.
But here's the other side of it.
And that is that it's what I call animal magnetism.
You know, one time, F. Scott Fitzgerald, the writer, was asked, you know, do you think you have a privileged life?
And he said, well, he goes, I don't have the best two things in life, but I've got the second best two things.
He goes, I've got looks and I've got intelligence.
But he goes, the best two things in life to have are money and animal magnetism.
And by animal magnetism, he was actually thinking about Ernest Hemingway, where Ernest Hemingway could go to Spain.
He's in the bullfight.
Suddenly, you know, he's on the, you know, he's there with the bull.
I mean, the Spanish are like cheering Hemingway.
He had that kind of, so Trump has that.
If you have a big room, DeSantis walks in, let's just say he just walks in as an ordinary guy.
Not a single head will move.
Trump walks in, all heads turn.
Reagan had the same.
So that animal magnetism that Trump has is very difficult.
If you don't have it, there's no easy way to get it.
The wow factor.
It's a wow factor.
So if these two both run, most likely you're thinking they're both going to run, Trump and DeSantis.
No, I think actually DeSantis very cleverly is positioning himself to either run with Trump or to run the next time around.
Yeah, with Trump or the next time around.
So in other words, Trump DeSantis.
That would be the ticket.
Yeah.
You think that's a likely scenario?
Because a lot of people say that they're both number ones and you can only have one CEO of a company.
There's no co-CEO.
Yeah, but that's only true at one time.
In other words, you can have one CEO, but Trump can only run for four years and DeSantis has his whole life ahead of him.
So for DeSantis, it's ultimately about when is the best time to make that lifetime move?
Do you want to run against Trump where, first of all, the base of the Republican Party is very Trumpy and it's going to be kind of hard to beat Trump now with that base.
On the other hand, if DeSantis went in and came in as a vice president, he would be the automatic presumptive frontrunner.
Trump would be off the stage.
So if I were DeSantis, that's what I would do.
Sure, but that's, you know, like even with Biden and Kamala, he chose Kamala after the primary or after the Republican RNC, meaning that was DNC, I apologize.
That was after the debates.
Okay.
So are you saying that DeSantis won't even go on the debate stage and just kind of wait in the wings for Trump to win and just be like, all right, I'll be your lucky little V VP?
Because I see him getting on that stage, don't you?
No, I think they'll, if I, again, if I'm the way I'm thinking, and I've been following politics now very closely for a long time, there are different ways to pick a VP.
When Reagan ran in 1980, Reagan picked Bush.
Reagan didn't even know Bush.
So why did he pick Bush?
Bush was the second highest vote getter in the Republican Party.
It was the logical choice.
It didn't matter to Reagan.
I don't know him.
He goes, I'm going to pick my number two.
He's going to be the guy most likely to carry me over the top.
So now ask yourself, who's the guy most likely to help carry Trump over the top and convince even doubting Republicans that here's a competent elected official that kind of knows how to cross the T's and dot the I's that will help Trump with some of what may be seen as Trump's weaknesses and the obvious guy is DeSantis.
He knows how to run a state.
Oh, it's so funny, Pat.
Oh my God.
If that, I, yeah, I don't know.
I don't know.
But if that were to happen, let me tell you, I mean, it's a nightmare for the left for 12 years.
If that were to happen.
For 12 years, the left will need to see their therapist two or three times a week instead of the one a week.
Because they're both vindication type of guys.
Both of them are.
DeSantis is, so is Trump.
You don't want those two to be your opponent for 12 years.
They're not the type of people that are going in just to, you know, there's different types of people in life.
There are those that are resume chasing.
Resume chasers want to be able to say, I worked at Google.
I worked at Amazon.
I worked under XYZ.
I worked under this person.
There's resume chasers that go get their PhD or masters or MBA just to say, I got a master's.
I got a this.
There's resume chasers that want to go to Oxford or Yale or Harvard to say, I went there.
I went to Wharton.
They're resume chasers, right?
They're resume chasers that eventually just want to be CPAs or CFOs or CEOs one time just to say, I was.
And then you got guys that are crusaders and true believers that are not chasing a title or resume.
And that's DeSantis and Trump.
Neither one of those guys are chasing that.
Biden, for the rest of his life, will be a president.
That's just going to be in the history books.
He's a resume chaser.
He, for the rest of his life, is going to be that.
There's people like that on the left.
There's people like that on the right.
There's people like that in sports.
There's people like that in politics.
There's people like that in churches.
There's people like that everywhere.
Not these two families.
These two guys are very weird, very different.
You do not want, there's certain people in life you don't want as enemies.
Those two you don't want as enemies.
If that were to happen, which I don't know if that would happen because in a perfect world, like are you selling this or are you saying this based on insight or are you saying this based on, I think this will happen.
What's your position when you're saying this?
Yeah, I'm not advocating it.
I think it will happen.
Okay, got it.
And the reason I'm saying it is not, again, this is not my field.
I'm not a pollster.
I'm not a, but what it is, it's just based upon the observation.
There are certain natural laws in politics, as in foreign policy, right?
For example, years ago when I was in college, a professor of mine said, look, let's look at the map of the world, okay?
And let's forget about communism and capitalism and left-wing and right-wing.
And let's just look at the world as divided into big blobs and small blobs.
They're big countries.
They're big blobs, big circles.
Then there are small countries around them.
Those are small blobs.
Now, based upon just looking at the world like that and knowing nothing about it, you're from Mars.
Can you predict how this world will shake out?
Which countries would be allied with which countries?
Which countries will be fighting with which countries?
And the truth of it is, you can have a whole seminar where you see that the big countries are all rivals and the small countries now ally with the big countries near them to become, in order to get protection.
But other small countries that are likely to be gobbled up will try to find big countries elsewhere that can support them.
And then you look at the world and it's happening like that.
So similarly, when you look at American politics and you say to yourself, everyone's thinking in terms of their own self-interest.
And if you look at DeSantis and you say, okay, I'm DeSantis.
I'm the number two guy.
Do I actually want to run against the number one guy right now?
And run the risk where if I lose, I'm bruised enough that other people now start coming to the front and the sort of MAGA mentality will now, so that the next time around, it may be Kerry Lake.
I don't want that.
I want to make sure that I am the only guy that is on the inside track and nobody will even dare to challenge me.
The way I do that is I essentially go into Trump's tent, recognizing that for Trump, there's only one more time to go around the block.
And so let me give you my devil's advocate of that.
Just let's have a nice, friendly debate here on this one here.
Okay, so, and I'm not disagreeing with you on what you're saying.
Fully agree.
I come from Iran.
I live there, so I understand what it is for certain countries have to, hey, let me, I'm not going to team up with the U.S. May as well team up with China, Israel, U.S., you know, Armenia, Russia, you know, Azerbaijan, Turkey.
I get what you're saying.
But here's the part.
So who would you say is more pro-Trump?
DeSantis or Lake?
Lake.
Okay.
Is it even a question?
No.
She said the other day, my husband is my second favorite person.
She says, because my favorite person is Trump.
Okay, so it's fair to say she's more pro-Trump than DeSantis.
Is it fair to say that Lake, Trump, and DeSantis all have similar backbones?
Yes.
Okay, they're all tough.
They're not lightweights.
You can't push them around.
She's not afraid.
DeSantis is not afraid.
And obviously Trump is not afraid.
Okay.
If you had to choose between those two as a VP for Trump, which one would you choose?
I would choose DeSantis, but I can also see that there could be a personality weakness that will cause Trump to pick Lake.
In other words, it's a personality weakness if somebody is all about the flattery.
It's a personality weakness if someone says, I need to pick the person who thinks I'm the greatest.
And if that is Trump's sole metric, and there are some people who think it is, he will pick Lake for that reason.
But what I'm saying is that if Trump is thinking in terms of his own best interest and his own best interest alone, then he will say that, look, there were things that I didn't do the last time.
I've got to be honest about my own presidency.
I should have fired Comey on day one.
I would have avoided myself a whole lot of problems had I done that.
I should have gotten rid of Christopher Wray.
I need an inside administrative guy who is a massive ass kicker.
And I need someone who has the experience of doing that and would have the trust of the Republican base that they will do that for me.
Who's that guy?
That's going to be DeSantis.
Carrie Lake is a newcomer.
She's a newscaster.
She's going to be a first term.
Let's just say she wins.
She'll be a first-term governor.
Let her get her experience.
There's probably going to be, I mean, hey, you talk about 12 years.
They could be a DeSantis-Carrie Lake ticket 12 years from now.
So, in other words, these people have...
Not even 12 years, four years from now, six years from now.
Yeah.
Yeah, so I'm just saying there are options down the road.
But I would, if I were Trump, I would not go with somebody as new as Kerry Lake.
Now, let me give you the DeSantis argument for the people that are pro-DeSantis.
I fully understand the pro-Trump argument.
I understand the Lake argument.
Let's talk about the DeSantis argument.
People who are in his ear, okay?
There's a difference between who gives me advice versus what I know what's going on.
Meaning, people can tell me, pal, let me tell you, here's who you are.
You're so this, you're so down.
Like, we're not there yet.
We're three years away.
But I appreciate the compliment, but we're not there yet, right?
What do you think people around DeSantis are telling him?
You think they're telling him, I think if Trump calls you as a VP, you take it.
I think you start negotiating right now with Trump for you to be the VP.
Or do you think people in his camp are saying everybody in America is modeling after your state?
The chances of having this opportunity again may not happen for a long time because we're going to forget about COVID in six years.
Because 2024, you got 2028.
Ain't nobody talking COVID in 2028.
They're going to be like, dude, COVID was 10 years ago.
Because in 27, 2028, it's going to be what?
Seven, eight years ago, right?
People are over it.
They've moved on by that time.
So if he runs on his record of COVID in 2027, 2028, nothing's going to happen there.
And then if he, you know, and then, you know, if he sits and waits and then he runs on the, you know, his record as a governor under Trump, they're going to say, well, because Trump was the president.
It wasn't really you.
It was because Trump.
Trump was really the president.
This is your time to run.
You ought to run.
So as much as many Republicans, I'm sure, think a Trump-DeSantis ticket is game over, yes.
I also don't know the counsel that's being given to DeSantis behind closed doors is, hey, you should be open to the number two idea rather than the number one idea.
I don't know if I see that.
Good point.
I don't know what the DeSantis team is telling him.
I do know DeSantis.
And DeSantis, interestingly, when DeSantis was in Congress, DeSantis was a guy who helped me during my case with the Obama people.
Because in Congress, you can get access to information.
Remember, the Republicans controlled the Congress.
And so they got a hold.
The Congressional Committee got a hold of my FBI file.
And they say, hey, Dinesh, DeSantis tells me, he says, inside your FBI file, even before your case began, they flag you as like a right-winger.
And what he's getting at is that, look, if you're pursuing a campaign finance case, you're not supposed to be looking at the politics of the guy because it's almost like the FBI was telling the Obama DOJ, this is one guy you may want to go after because he's one of our political opponents.
That's really what DeSantis was all about.
So I think you're right.
I think for DeSantis, the question is this.
If he wants to make this a kind of a COVID run, then he has a window of opportunity.
But I think what DeSantis is doing and what he's showing people, and the reason people really like him, is that while most Republicans come in and they sit on their hands for two years or four years and they do nothing, they just make some symbolic statements, DeSantis is like, if it's Monday, we need an election fraud unit.
And if it's Tuesday, we need to go after affirmative action.
And then on Wednesday, we're going to start up on this.
And so this guy like never stops.
That's right.
That's what people are looking for.
By the way, both of them are like that.
They're both like that.
So that's what will propel DeSantis.
So if DeSantis is going to run, he shouldn't think of himself as a COVID candidate, but he should think of himself as, let me identify the real nonsense going on in this country and become the guy that's not afraid to take all that on in rhetoric and then in policy.
Let me ask the other question.
Can you ever see Reagan or Trump being a VP?
Believe it or not, I can see it more with Reagan than with Trump.
With Trump, it's harder to see because of just the way Trump is.
I mean, Trump is, the other thing is when you see Trump, he's a little different.
You know, I've had a chance.
I didn't know Trump, by the way.
When people say, I gave you a pardon, so on.
When Trump gave me a pardon, I'd never met the guy.
So it wasn't like he was doing me a favor or he owed me or anything like that.
But since then, I've gotten to know him a little better.
And he's a very interesting fellow, but he also is like, he marches to his own drummer.
And Reagan did not do that.
Reagan, in the end, was in fact a party man.
In fact, Reagan has famous statements where he says things like, never criticize your own party.
You know, that's the 11th commandment of being a Republican.
So with Reagan, let's just say in a freak case, had Gerald Ford offered him the vice president, I think Reagan would have taken it.
Quick question.
He pardoned you.
Number one, what were you pardoned for?
How does that process work?
You were legally, you were in trouble.
You weren't in jail.
Were you or nothing like that?
How does that work?
And how does that phone call happen?
And then, like, do you get to send him a thank you note?
Like, legitimately, how does this work?
Well, what happened was my case involved, my case was a college friend of mine that I'd known for 20 years decided to run for the Senate in New York.
Her name is Wendy Long.
And so I told her not to do it.
I'm like, you're not seasoned in politics.
People, I'm going to run.
So she ran.
And I said, okay, I'll give you, you're allowed to give $10,000 in a campaign.
So I wrote out a check for $10,000.
And then my Obama movie came out.
This is 2012.
And I'm traveling around the country promoting it.
I'm doing all these shows and stuff.
And Wendy is like, you know, can you serve on my finance committee?
Hey, Dinesh, you know, I know these Indian doctors.
You're Indian.
Can you come to a dinner?
May help them give to my campaign.
So I felt really bad.
So I called up two of my friends and I said, hey, guys, you like Wendy Long?
Give her 10 grand.
That's the campaign limit and I'll reimburse you.
Little did I know this was a really stupid thing to do because this falls afoul of the campaign finance law, but it is almost never prosecuted.
Or if it's ever discovered, they send you a letter, they give you a warning, they maybe give you a fine.
So anyway, I did something stupid, but they brought the full weight of the federal government down against me.
And as a result of that, I was incarcerated overnight for eight months in a confinement facility.
You were in jail.
Yeah, I was in jail.
Now, not a normal prison, but it's called a confinement center.
But yeah, you can't leave.
And I'm in a bunk bed.
This is like Danbury, right?
I'm in a bunk bed with like 60 hardened criminals.
Get out of here.
Oh, yeah.
So I did my eight months.
I was done with all that.
This is in what year?
This was in 2013.
Okay.
Yeah.
And then I'm done with that, but I'm still on probation.
And I still, you know, if I travel, like my passport gets dinged.
I got to go to a special room.
So my point is, I was still, quote, under scrutiny.
So when Trump pardoned me, I was doing community service and I was on probation, but I'd actually served my quote sentence.
But the pardon cleared my record.
I mean, I can now vote.
I can own a gun.
Had you ever been to jail before in your life prior to that?
Well, I think you kind of imagine.
The answer is obviously no.
Okay, you're right.
I mean, no.
I mean, I didn't.
To me, I was like.
Yeah, but I don't know if you know or not.
When he got out, he had an RNC tattoo here in 1776.
You want to show Trump?
Wow.
I mean, even the criminals knew.
I mean, they were like, what are you doing here?
And these conversations to me were like laugh out loud, funny, because I'd be like, well, you know, I was, I violated the campaign finance law.
They're like, well, what would you do?
What's a campaign finance law?
Yeah.
So I go, well, there's a campaign finance law.
Is that like carjacking?
I go, you know, I gave away too much of my own money.
They're like, pause.
They're like, you mean you didn't take somebody else's money?
You're giving your money.
I'm like, yeah, you're here for that.
They couldn't even believe it.
Eight months.
So back to the Trump pardon.
He calls you, you get a letter, and then you get to communicate with him, break that down.
He calls me.
Well, Ted Cruz was the one who asked him.
He goes, you got a pardon, Dinesh.
And literally, Trump was like, hmm, done.
It was like that.
Wow.
Yeah.
And then Trump tells John Kelly, who was then the chief of staff, you know, work it out.
Now, I didn't hear anything for 60 days because they do a check, they run a legal review, they do a few things.
But then Ted Cruz calls me and he goes, Hey, Dinesh, he goes, You got your cell phone on you.
He goes, I got some interesting news.
He goes, The White House just called asking for your phone number.
So you better keep your cell phone like on because they're likely to call you in the next like 60 minutes and you can't call them back.
So sure enough, I got the call from Trump and we talked for about 10 minutes on the phone.
He called you personally.
Yeah.
Hey, Dinesh.
Yeah.
DJT here.
You know, he uses his phone a lot.
He's a guy that uses a smartphone.
He's going to tweet you that you were getting out of jail.
All right.
Well, he's also very casual.
He's like, I'm here with John Kelly.
He's like, you know, John Kelly, don't you?
I'm like, no.
I mean, I know he's the chief of staff, but I don't know.
General John Kelly.
General John Kelly.
And then we, you know, we talked a little bit about the situation.
And he's like, hey, listen, I'm going to sign your pardon in the morning.
But, you know, the tweeting, he goes, he goes, listen, don't tell anybody about it.
Let me tweet about it first.
He did say that.
And so it was announced to the world by a tweet.
Of course it was.
Classic.
By the way, it's like a PR.
It's under embargo till tomorrow.
Yeah.
It's under embargo.
If Trump was president, how long would it have taken before Trump got Brittany Greiner out of Russia?
What do you think?
Well, see, this is the point: I think that Trump would get on the phone and be like, listen, even we were talking a little bit recently about Ukraine.
And he's like, look, I don't understand.
He's like, the United States is not using its leverage to make things happen.
Instead, we're doing all these other things that hurt ourselves.
Like we start suddenly start squeezing our own energy supply, and then we got to go beg energy from Maduro and Venezuela and Iran.
And but no, I think Trump.
The thing about Trump is people think he's an isolationist, and he's not.
Trump believes the United States should have a strong place in foreign policy.
He just thinks you got to think twice before you commit troops.
You know, if you go throw out the Taliban in Afghanistan, it doesn't mean you have to rule Afghanistan for the next 10 years.
That's just madness.
So, in that sense, he's brought, I think, a new real politique to the Republican Party, an awareness of you know, under Bush, you had all this nonsense.
Like, I think Colin Powell, I once heard him say something like, Well, you know, it's like a restaurant where if you break it, you own it.
I'm thinking, nobody ever said a more ridiculous statement about foreign policy.
No, if you break it, you don't own it.
If you break it, you just get the hell out of there and let some other guys take over.
I have a question.
We break and leave all the time.
I just have a question on Trump.
Obviously, 2016 was a shocker, right?
I mean, nobody expected that.
You know, if you follow the polls, like who are the most accurate polls?
You got Pew, you got Quinnipiak, you've got what, Marist, Emerson College, you gov, you got all these polls, and then you have like a little more biased polls, whether it's Fox, CNN, ABC, what have you.
Um, but I'll tell you the poll that uh is the most credible, the most credible by far.
It's not even close, and those are the Vegas polls.
Why?
Because that's money, baby.
Follow the money, okay?
Because you might say that you know, people have bias and leanings, but like Vegas, they care about their money.
So, for instance, you're a golf guy, right?
That's your sport, uh, tennis, okay?
Oh, tennis, I apologize, golf, tennis, I apologize.
But, like, for instance, I'll just use golf as an example.
If you want to see who's going to win the Masters, you go on the site and Rory McElroy's favored 1100, right?
Then you got John Ram, you got Scotty Scheffler, Cameron Smith.
Cool, got that.
Then you've got even presidential, you can, you know, you can bet on who's going to win the president, right?
Yeah, the president.
You won't do time for that, right?
Islam.
You will not do time for that.
Eight months, not like six, seven, eight months.
I'm going somewhere here with this, baby.
So, like, right now, I don't know if you can, what is the numbers?
What are the odds of who wins the 2024 election?
Trump, they have candidates.
I'm trying to find.
Yeah, the odds are right next to them.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, Trump.
So, Trump at 320 DeSantis is at the top.
Exactly, but read the numbers.
Zoom in a little bit.
So, Trump at 320, DeSantis at 410.
Exactly.
Joe Biden, 680, Newsome, 1400, Harris, 18.
So, my question is this: We can all agree that Vegas doesn't want to lose money, right?
They want to win.
Newsom on there twice, by the way.
That's what I was wondering.
Yeah, okay.
Buddha Chiggin and the pants.
Go ahead.
So, my question, just to streamline this: how shocked were you that Trump lost the election in 2020?
How shocked were you?
I was shocked.
Okay.
I'll tell you why I was not shocked.
And Pat will back me up on this.
All I did, I removed emotion from the equation, completely removed emotion.
And I just went on to all the Vegas sites.
Who do you think was favored to win the 2020 election?
Favored?
Who do you think?
Was it Biden?
Biden was favored.
Correct.
On Vegas.
And I did this just to show this.
I don't know if you could scroll.
I did a whole board episode.
This was in Dallas.
You know how much I love doing these board episodes.
And I said before the election, the Las Vegas odds were Biden was 150, minus 150 to minus 180.
Trump was plus 125 to plus 160.
Meaning, if you bet $100 on Biden, you would win minus $150.
So you wouldn't even get your $150 back.
However, Trump, if you bet $100, you'd win $125.
So meaning Vegas had Biden favored.
And you would think, how the hell is that?
But those are the odds.
So me removing emotion from the equation, we were in Dallas at this point.
I bet everybody said, name your amount, name your price.
I'm taking bets.
I said, and everyone bet on Trump.
I took Biden.
Okay.
Removing emotion from the equation.
Pat bet $1,000.
Someone else bet $1,000.
People were betting me lunches.
People were betting me shirts to the point where it was about $10,000 and I was like the bookie in Dallas.
Okay.
And other than Ricky, everyone ended up paying up because Trump, in fact, lost the election.
Again, removing emotion, if I'm just going on Vegas, odds, followed the money, it was not that shocking because Vegas had made Biden the favorite.
Trump was not the favorite.
Now, you can factor in COVID.
You can factor in all the reasons why.
You can factor in toxic approval ratings, what all that.
But just removing emotion, removing all the pollsters, Vegas doesn't like losing money.
Well, let's explore that for a second.
It's very fascinating to me, and let's apply it generally.
Let's say, for example, now that you're talking about the golf tournament, right?
Yes.
And you're talking about these Vegas guys, who I take it by and large are going to be people who are golf fans, who like to watch golf and follow golf, right?
Now, let's say you have a separate group of 100 guys who are like top golfers.
And these are people who know the sport.
They know the guys who are playing.
They know a lot about them.
And you have them, you run the same poll with those guys, but with no money involved.
They're not putting any money in, but they are, let's call them experts who know a lot about golf.
And now you're deciding whether you're going to basically put your odds on the Vegas guys or those guys.
You're saying you'd pick the Vegas guys because they're putting money on the table, but what makes you think they even know what they're talking about?
Well, no, I mean, Vegas?
Yeah.
They pick any sport, NFL, NBA, MLB.
Like, you can write right, is there a World Series game tonight?
You can go on right now and Vegas will oftentimes, like if you watch an NFL game, if the line is six, I guarantee you the team wins by seven.
That just happens.
These guys are experts at odds.
This is what they do.
There's no emotion.
You think Vegas cared?
The Vegas odds makers.
You think they cared if Biden or Trump won?
I'm saying the odds makers.
They care that they got their money.
This is a very good conversation.
It's kind of like, you know, the two girls that threw tomato soup against the Van Gogh painting a couple weeks ago.
We had them on.
We had them on the podcast two days after they did that or three days after they did that.
And the argument I made, I said, how concerned are you about climate change?
I said, look, it's not about us dying in 12 years.
People are dying right now.
We're going to, we feel we're going to lose the right to age is the line they use.
And I said, listen, just, I'm in the insurance industry.
Actuaries are sitting there saying, you know, we're going to live up to 90, 100 years old.
You're going to be all right.
You're going to live a long life because insurance companies want to save money, right?
They don't want to pay that additional money.
So the point you're making about Vegas odds right before election is something interesting to entertain.
You know, how did they know?
Well, sure.
And applying, just following the climate change logic, you know, for example, everyone's been saying that the coasts are going to get flooded.
And so I say to myself, you know what?
If there's even a 10% chance that over the next 20 years, the coasts are going to be flooded, we should start seeing a real drop of real estate prices on the coast and perhaps a corresponding rise, relative rise of real estate prices on the interior because your property is now less safe on the coast because of climate change.
And so if real estate prices on the coast have been indifferent and continue to go up, then it tells me that not just buyers and sellers, but real estate agents and people who finance those properties are not really worried this is going to happen because their economic behavior doesn't show it.
But going back to it, Tom, going back to it.
So with Vegas, having odds to say Biden was going to win it and they got it right.
Yeah, that's why I wasn't that shocked is what I'm saying, is because Vegas, if Vegas had Trump as a massive favorite, massive favorite, he's going to win for sure, for sure.
And then Biden wins.
I'd be like, what just happened here?
But essentially, they gave Biden a 20% chance to win.
Like he was waiving.
What was it for 2016 with Hillary?
Can you go to Hillary and Trump?
I'm actually curious to know because now we got to go back and look at the history of it because look, shit's happened.
I mean, it was a 99.9% chance that in the second half of Falcons against the Patriots, they were winning the Super Bowl and they came back and won it 31 or 20 or whatever the score ended up in the year.
Yeah, three, of course.
Yeah.
Come back.
So can you, I'm actually curious at this point what that Hillary looks like.
And, you know, we all know that even I read every three years in the Kentucky Derby that some horse that is not favored, the win comes out of nowhere and blows it away.
There you go.
So it kind of, this also is more on you because here they said minus 500 Hillary is going to win it, plus 350.
But the only thing that I will fact check this is what's the date on that?
Because we all remember Hillary had a pretty big lead a month out.
And then if you were following the race, you would saw it dwindle and dwindle and dwindle.
And then a week before the election, that's on November 7th.
That's November 7th.
That's the day before.
So I'll say to you that Vegas has gotten it wrong multiple times.
Because in this case, Trump won.
In the other case, Trump lost.
But here's the question about 2,000 mules, which was interesting.
When typically, typically, okay, so for example, if the midterms, if it's a sweep and it's a bloodbath and it's like the shining when the elevator opens up, like when Rogan said that, say it's that, it's the red wave.
What's the likelihood that also that affects Biden losing 2024?
Repeat that question.
Okay, so meaning, if the left's going to lose the House and maybe lose even the Senate and a bunch of these governors, there's all these things, New York Hoca, what are we talking about?
The chicken potential, very weird things that is happening right now.
Is that a sign of the left, or is that the sign of who they have at the top that's not doing a good job because the economy is not good?
America's not in a good place.
So people are saying, listen, man, I'm flipping.
What is that a reflection of?
I think that's a reflective of multiple things, but clearly the man at the top.
Fair enough.
So now here's the kicker.
This is the part that made me think with the documentary that they made when you guys were talking.
Do you realize even though he lost, a lot of the other races, people on the right won.
You know what I'm saying?
So the part that you kind of sit there and you question things, like right now, you made me think about it where I'm like, yeah, that's right.
I guess Vegas knew.
If Vegas knew and Obama, Biden won, why are people still complaining about it?
Then we went and looked at Hillary.
Okay, well, then that's a different story because we're digging out.
It's way more shocking.
Which one?
Trump came out of nowhere.
To be honest with you, I thought both of them were shocked.
And we did a podcast tonight with Trump.
We went to sleep saying it's over.
Trump won with all the numbers we were looking at.
Next day, we're waking up saying, what the hell?
Boom, this line flatline.
We were all shocked.
The world was shocked.
But going back to it, how does Trump lose that bad?
And everybody else he endorsed did well.
That's a little weird.
Well, it's a little weird.
There are two possibilities.
And again, you got to consider the alternative, right?
So here's one possibility.
It could happen.
It could happen this way.
You have all these suburban moms and they are right-leaning and they have kids and they are concerned at what's going on with schools and they're concerned with the economy.
But they just got a little annoyed at Trump's personality, particularly in the first debate.
Trump was really irritable.
He was out of control.
And they were like, you know what?
I'm done with this guy.
You know what?
We'll give the other guys a chance because Biden is kind of a centrist.
He's not going to be that bad.
So there is a possibility it could have happened, okay?
I'm not denying that.
And so the movement is not very likely.
That's a very likely explanation.
And in fact, it seems like the Republican Party is going to do a sweep because all those people are now back.
They have buyers' remorse.
They're like, listen, we don't care about the tweets, man.
Really, $100 to fill up my car.
So what I'm getting is that is a possibility.
Now, the other possibility is this, and that is that if you are organizing an election fraud operation, it's a lot easier to do against one guy than against 30 guys.
Because if you're running a multi-state operation, you got to go, okay, in Arizona, it's Kerry Lake.
And then, okay, we go.
It's Blake Masters over here, another guy over here.
Where you go, listen, Trump is a menace.
Trump is like Hitler.
We got to do everything we can to get rid of Trump.
We don't care what happens down ballot.
We just have to fix what happens at the top of the ballot.
And that's another way to explain the result.
And there's no reason to think that both couldn't have been factors in 2020.
So with that being said, how would that work?
Meaning, like, well, A, are any other politicians claiming election fraud either on the left or the right if they lost other than Trump?
And Hillary.
And Hillary.
I'm just saying for 2020.
Okay.
Like is a senator from Maine being like, I should have won, but they screwed me.
Is some representative of Texas saying the exact same thing?
Because all you hear is Trump, right?
Nobody else down ballot whatsoever.
So how does that work?
I mean, I've heard on the Republican side, which is basically where I've been hanging out.
I've heard now.
I've been hanging out for Republicans for a decade or more.
A couple of 20 years, just hanging out.
Yeah, hanging out.
But what I'm saying is sort of the word on the street, on the right side of the street, is that we, and I hear this from candidates, I hear it from donors, is like, we have to win cleanly because they're going to do some cheating.
And we've got to make it that the margin is big enough that even if there's cheating, we're still going to win.
I mean, this is, there's a, there is a, there's a book by Hugh Hewitt, who is kind of a bit of a, not a never Trumper, but certainly someone closer to Liz Cheney than he is to me.
And it's called, it's essentially, I forget the title of the book, but it's in effect something like, we got to win big enough so that the cheating won't matter.
That's the title of the book.
So it's not that this stuff is totally new.
It's been going on.
But like I say, what happened in 2020, if you look at the percentage of the absentee ballot vote in, let's say, 2020 and compare it to, say, 2008, huge difference.
In 2008, absentee ballots are, I don't know, maybe 5% of the election, and suddenly they become 40% of the election.
Well, because of COVID.
because of covid right but what i'm saying is it was an anomaly it was No, I call it a black swan event.
No, but what I'm saying is that let's just say, for example, you're a bank robber, right?
And all the banks have a lot of security.
And suddenly they go, because of COVID, we're now going to have all these ATMs around the country, but nobody's going to be policing them.
You go, you know what?
I'm a bank robber.
Opportunity time.
Let's hit the ATMs because that's where they haven't actually put up the safeguards.
One more question with this.
Is it fair to say, like, I'm trying to think in the future because I think it's fair to say, no matter what, whatever documentary, opinion, I mean, barring some crazy lawsuit, legal allegation that comes out there, 2020 is done.
I mean, we're about to hit 2023 here, buddy.
Like, so is it more about trying to go backwards to prove something, or can we just prevent BS and fraud and menacing in 2024 and beyond?
I mean, my focus is totally on the future.
You know, in fact, when people say to me something like, let's move on, I say to them, of course, I want to move on.
But I think in order to move on, it's kind of helpful to know the truth about 2020.
I'm not trying to undo 2020, but I am trying to use 2020 as an important.
Why?
Because a lot of the processes put into place in 2020 have not been dismantled.
So you'd think people would say, okay, we're now getting over COVID.
Let's go back to having, by and large, an election day.
People show up.
They vote in person by paper ballots.
Sure, you have exemptions for people in the military, people who are sick, but let's go back to the way.
But no one's saying that.
In fact, we still have long periods of early voting.
We still have all these drop boxes.
Some of these states like California have discovered, you know, let's legalize ballot harvesting.
You should be able to go to your church and collect 400 ballots and go drop them all off.
That's legal.
So what I'm getting at is COVID was an opportunity to change the rules.
And a lot of people are trying to keep the new rules instead of saying, okay, COVID's over.
Let's go back to the old rule.
That's why the movie remains relevant.
Yeah, but isn't the same, isn't that the exact same methodology of like, hey, look, I get it.
I want to move forward, but we kind of got to address this.
Isn't that the same exact same methodology with the January 6th committee?
It's like, yeah, we would all like to move forward with democracy, but we kind of got to address this January 6th insurrection thing.
Same thought process, no?
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, my objection to January 6th is not that they're doing an investigation, but that they're doing a show trial under the guise of an investigation.
If they were doing a real investigation, then they'd have like Ray Epps out there and they'd be like, Mr. Epps, I see a video of you telling people to go inside the Capitol, but you haven't been arrested.
Do you have some kind of a deal you made with the FBI?
Are you actually an informant or an agent?
You know, all these unanswered questions are swept under the rug.
And so that's my problem.
They're giving us a doctored narrative.
And by the way, same with Paul Pelosi.
With Paul Pelosi, it's like, it's not that I'm unwilling to believe that some crazy guy got into Paul Pelosi's house and was and you know, was threatening him or was trying to harm him.
It's just that if you what happened is they put out a narrative right away.
This is what often happens.
Very similar to, you know, so most secure election in history.
Then suddenly some facts come out and they look at the facts and they go, uh-oh, these facts don't really fit this narrative.
We need new facts.
And then like edited facts start coming out.
And pretty soon then you go, wait a minute, I don't think they're giving me the full story.
And then they say, and this is just completing my thought on Paul Pelosi, yeah, we do have video camera footage and we do have body camera footage and we have the recording of the 911 call, but we're not going to release any of those.
What do you actually think happened with this Paul Pelosi thing?
Take off your Republican, you're hanging out with those guys crew and just be a fact checker.
What do you actually think happened here?
Because the stories are so crazy and the allegations are so simple.
Well, the part that's concerning is that NBC changed the story twice, took a video down, they put it up, it went down.
It's, you know, we can't talk about that.
We're learning stuff.
No, we can't.
And then, hey, this is really, you know, they're going after her.
And then, you know, Nancy.
So a lot of weird things going on there.
Here's my theory that would account for all the facts.
As we know them now, not even as we knew them at the beginning.
So you got this wacky dude, David.
He all agree is a wacky dude.
He could agree he's a wacky dude.
And we can all agree also that sometimes when you're mentally paranoid, you will pick up a grab bag of conspiracies and wild ideas.
So this guy is a Berkeley nudist.
He's LGBTQ, but he still thinks the election was stolen.
So he's not a political, you can't place him on the spectrum.
He's a paranoid, right?
Yes.
Somehow he figures out, and I don't know how he did this, but he figures out how to get into the Pelosi house, right?
He gets in.
I think what happens is, because he's a nut, he starts engaging Paul Pelosi, right?
But he doesn't threaten him.
He doesn't threaten him because that explains the NBC report.
Paul Pelosi comes to the door.
First of all, Paul Pelosi does not tell the cops he's being attacked.
He doesn't say that.
He says, come do a wellness check on me, right?
He knows the guy's name.
He goes, the guy's name is David and he's a friend.
Now, the left has been saying the reason he said he's a friend is because, you know, he had to, he had to sort of get on the good side of this guy.
But that doesn't square with the fact that the guy let him do a bathroom break where supposedly he was charging his phone.
He wasn't with the guy.
He could have told the cops anything.
But why'd he let him in the house?
Not only why did he let him in?
No, the guy broke in.
He did break in.
He did break in.
But here's my point.
You're in the bathroom.
A normal person would lock the bathroom door until the cop gets there, right?
He didn't do that.
He goes back out.
Number two, when the cops show up, apparently Paul Pelosi lets them in and turns around and returns to the house.
That's when the guy attacks him.
So think about this.
No normal person, if you're in real fear, the guy threatened you.
I'm going to smash your head with a hammer.
You would run out of the door into the protection of the cops and let them go in the house.
So all of this, I think what happened with NBC is they put this out and suddenly people realize Paul Pelosi was not really scared of this guy for whatever reason.
And then they realize that doesn't fit the narrative.
We got to take it down.
So this is what I'm only all over this because I hate to be like given a story and then expect me to like just take it because you said it.
But go deeper.
Some guy breaks into your house, right?
And I think Paul Pelosi was sleeping.
It's 2.30 in the morning.
He's in his underwear, cool, whatever.
Right.
Are you not freaking out, paranoid, trying to shoot the guy, locking yourself?
Like, what's this whole like, by the way, the friend thing?
Like, how often do you say like, hey, how's our friend doing?
How's our friend?
And we're not, he's not our friend.
It's some guy we, you know, that may be showing up like just for a meeting.
Hey, our friend, you use this term a lot.
Our friend.
Hey, how's our friend?
So I'm kind of dismissing that.
But like, if some guy breaks in your house, you're not trying to talk to this guy.
You're not getting buddy-buddy.
You're freaking out.
What the fuck are you doing in my house?
Like, what is this exchange that they're actually having?
I think that, and I only say this because, I mean, it's kind of funny.
Yesterday I was at the airport, right?
And I'm just waiting to pick up my bags.
And literally this Hasidic guy comes up to me and starts like really engaging me in intense conversation.
And not sort of like, hey, Dinesh, I like your work or something like that.
But he starts talking to me about in the Hasidic community.
He goes, we started growing vegetables on my balcony.
And he says, are you familiar with the Hasidic newspaper?
I'm like, no, you know, I'm not Hasidic.
So what I'm getting at is there are a lot of kooks, right?
And you can pretty well, in almost a moment, pick up if someone is just a nut and they want to like, and when someone is in the political domain, you get approached by lunatics.
By the way, there are plenty of lunatics on the right and on the left.
And they're always handing you material they want you to take with you.
They're always, in my case, proposing movies I ought to make.
They always want to tell me about their life story.
In some cases, they think they're being followed or the FBI is after them.
So I think it's something like this.
This guy was an animated kook and he get in, he gets it.
Now, Paul Pelosi, admittedly, he's not well.
He is over 80.
So he's an old man.
But I think what happened is he recognized right away, this is the kind of kook that Nancy and I have been dealing with for much of our political lives.
Exactly.
And so for the course.
Yeah, he's like, listen, I better see if some cops will come by, make sure I'm okay.
I think at that point, he was clearly not under attack because the attack, at least as far as we know, occurred when the cops were there.
Yeah, but it's so weird because we've all been approached by random people.
You're trying to get out of it.
You're trying to be nice, but you're also kind of like kind of got to keep it moving like the Hasidic guy at the airport.
That's cool.
Right.
I mean, you're trying to, but this is in your house at three in the morning.
That's so weird to me why you'd be friendly or whatever kind of atmosphere.
I don't know.
Something's not adding up.
I mean, I still don't know why the cops didn't shoot the guy because I don't even mean shoot to kill him, but just at least shoot to disarm him.
Because if you see a guy with a hammer hitting Paul Pelosi on the head, you would think you would use force immediately and you'd use lethal force.
But also, you're the number three in line to the presidency, Nancy Pelosi, right?
Right.
Okay, she was in D.C., I believe, at the point, so she wasn't even home.
But you're the husband.
How does some kooky dude break into your compound?
You know, we're talking about build that wall.
Are you kidding me?
How the hell did he get in?
Unanswered.
Unknown.
Weird.
Can we read two articles?
I'm sending you one of them that's coming your way, but let me read this one.
This is CNN.
NBC News pulls a report on Paul Pelosi's attack.
NBC News on Friday pulled a report about the Pelosi attack that the network did not meet the standards.
The piece should not have aired because it did not meet NBC's news reporting standards.
An editor said, in place of storyline of the package from national correspondence, Miguel made assertions that were attributed to unnamed sources and appear to raise questions about the circumstances of the attack.
A network source told CNN it pulled the segment after the source of the reporter's information was found to be unreliable.
The decision was not made, was made to remove the segment afterwards, determined shortly after it aired that the main source for the information was unreliable regarding the questions of circumstances that the police encountered when they aired at the house, especially specifically what the police saw and how far the attacker was from the door.
Okay.
I mean, that's kind of weird for NBC to do that.
And then Reuters wrote this, which is kind of weird for Reuters to even write this.
Fact checkers, existing records do not show Paul Pelosi's alleged attacker, David, told investigators they engage in sexual relations and argued over drugs.
Interesting to even put this up there for Reuters.
Some social media users are saying that David, the suspect in the 20 October 20 attack on Paul Pelosi, told investigators that the two engage in sexual relations over our drugs without providing proof of claim.
However, there is no publicly available evidence that the Papey made these statements to officials.
One Twitter user sharing the claim said David tells investigators that he and Paul were engaging in gay sex in an argument in suit over drugs.
But official records and statements do not support the claim that DePape told investigators he was engaged in sexual relations with Pelosi, the husband of U.S. speaker.
Okay.
So this is what's spreading right now.
And Don Lemon, somebody was telling the story.
Don Amazon's like, I can't believe they're doing this.
And, you know, some people are saying this was really going on.
They're trying to hide this from the public.
Well, look, I mean, the reason that this sex thing started was there was a report by Fox 10.
Now, this is not, by the way, the Fox News channel.
This is not a right-wing source.
This is the local Fox reporting station.
And a reporter who in San Francisco.
Yes.
Fox 10 in San Francisco.
And the local reporter covering the story, very reliable guy, said that not only was Paul Pelosi in his underwear, but so was the attacker.
Think about this for a minute.
So you're thinking, wait a minute, Paul Pelosi's in his underwear.
Okay, it's his house.
It's 2 a.m. in the morning.
He's sleeping.
You're sleeping in a suit and tie.
Of course you're in underwear.
But the idea that the attacker is in his underwear was like, whoa, what the hell's going on there?
So that's what started leading to the idea that this was some kind of rendezvous that went sideways or something.
Then they corrected that.
They said, oh, that's not the case.
He wasn't in his underwear.
So as far as I know, this thing got dropped.
The sex thing got dropped.
And stopped talking about it.
Now, the NBC is more telling because if you look at the NBC report, and the guy is obviously not trying to get Pelosi or get, he's just reporting, right?
He makes two points that are damaging.
First of all, he says that when Paul Pelosi came to the door and met the cops, instead of exiting the apartment, he turned around and returned to the quote scene of the crime where he was then attacked.
And that right away raises the question that was Paul Pelosi even, did he even feel threatened by this guy?
If not, why would you walk back into his vicinity?
And the second thing they said was that even though the police were at the Pelosi residence, they didn't know it was Pelosi's residence.
They didn't even know it was Nancy Pelosi's husband.
So in other words, it'd make them look like idiots.
So the NBC report was damaging to the cops and it was damaging to Paul Pelosi.
And so that's my point is my question is when the NBC doesn't meet our standards, is that they don't meet your standards of truth or they don't meet your standards of not fitting the narrative and making the Pelosi's look bad and therefore you took it down.
Can you pull up the windows?
Can you pull up the glass window shattered?
Just type in glass window Paul Pelosi.
Click on images.
There's one thing that's a little weird.
When you look at this, go click on it and go to zoom in, zoom in on that one, the one that you have, the one that you just, okay, that one right there.
If someone's breaking in, when you break the window and you hit it, glass goes the other way.
Why is glass coming out?
Do you get what I'm saying?
So I don't know if this makes sense what I'm asking.
Go on another picture.
Maybe we can have a better angle.
Like if I'm trying to break into a house.
That's a CSI question.
Yeah.
So if I'm breaking into a house and I'm cracking, look, I'm a military guy, but I'm not a CSI guy.
If I hit the window with the hammer to break in, glass should go in, not out.
But why is it coming out?
It's kind of a little weird when you look at that.
So where are you going with that?
Maybe the guy was trying to get out from Paul.
I got to get out of here.
I don't know, man.
I'm not saying he's trying to get up from Paul's.
Well, you also can't see how much glass is on the inside.
There's only a little bit of glass on the outside.
I don't know.
The glass thing.
I'll tell you what upsets me.
This is where rumors and conspiracy theories kind of go down a rabbit hole, Dinesh.
Okay, let's say they're both under something freaking weird.
This guy's 82 years old.
He's married to Nancy for five decades now.
There's zero stories out there.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
For the last 50 years, he's been in the public eye that he's at any weird sexual gay stuff, tendencies, any of that.
And you're going to wait till you're 82 years old a week before midterms with some fucking delusional guy.
That's where you're going to seize the moment to do a little sword fighting?
It seems so weird to me.
Maybe it's just now breaking.
You've not been married to Nancy Pelosi for five decades.
It's not like he's married to Mamania Trump, right?
It's Nancy Pelosi.
But the point is, do you give any, any credibility to this gay sex story?
I don't now.
When I first heard the double underwear story, I was like, hmm, that's interesting.
Look, let me put it this way.
I think that this story is coming at a time when people have developed a deep distrust of our public institutions.
And media.
Yeah, and it happened slowly, but it's now very far advanced.
People don't believe the media, I think, with a lot of justification.
They don't believe the FBI.
They only believe their media.
They believe their media.
Okay, they don't believe the other side.
They only believe their side.
Yeah, but they don't trust the CDC.
I mean, you can't trust scholarly journals these days.
Think about it.
Journals like The Lancet have admitted, this is the most prestigious medical journal in the world, has admitted that they have published doctor data, that they have known things were false and published them because they, quote, serve the public good.
You know, you have these top scientists saying, we, we don't know.
We're not involved of gain of function research.
Turns out that they do know they are involved.
You know, they're making these deadly viruses and we knew nothing about it for over a year, even after COVID.
You know, they never seriously consider where this virus comes from.
So suddenly people look at this.
And again, now they're in the past, you'd have a San Francisco police chief, this is what happened.
And they'd be like, yeah, okay, that's what happened.
And I was like that too.
Because science has even got politicized these days.
And we've all trusted the science, trust the science.
Then you see what's happened with COVID or even like global warming.
It's like I will say this.
When you say stuff like he's never had anything in the past, stuff like that, the guy just got a DUI like a few weeks ago.
I mean, you're talking about an 82-year-old guy that just got a DUI.
I'd love to know what is the oldest DUI in the history of America.
Can you pull it up?
Like, who is the oldest person ever?
He deserves a right to be in a Guinness book of World Russia.
He's on the leadersboard.
What are you saying there?
No, no.
You're acting irresponsibly lately.
So if you're saying the guy doesn't have a track record, you have a track record of just a few weeks ago getting a DUI.
Yes, you are acting irresponsibly.
That doesn't mean the short fight.
I'm not talking about that.
But all I'm saying to you is the track record is recent.
You've been acting irresponsibly, getting a DUI.
Well, you know where I stand on DUIs?
I feel like you should be like fully fully.
Uberlift.
Like these days, if you get a DUI, especially if you're a bad person.
But that's a different discussion.
Let's not get sidetracked.
But my point is nothing to do with underwear sex.
Who's doing that?
That's an analogy.
No, no.
You said, does he have a track record of gayness?
I'm not saying gayness.
I'm telling you, being irresponsible, okay?
Being irresponsible.
He has a track record of being irresponsible.
There's no doubt he has a track record of even being responsible for stocks that they're doing all.
There's so many things.
He doesn't have the biggest moral authority and credibility right now.
But let's get past this story.
Let's get past the story.
Hopefully the right people will do enough due diligence and research and we'll find out what's going on here and we'll get to the bottom of it.
And by the way, I even think it's a non, like, who cares?
But it's like, what are you doing?
Like, it's one of those stories for me.
I do want to talk about one thing here.
So Obama's getting heckled at Arizona, okay, rallying while, you know, he's stomping for the Democratic candidates.
I'm going to read the story to you.
And, you know, Katie Hobbs is going up against Lake.
And Katie Hobbs was the other day asked by Don Lemon on his latest show that's crushing it.
They asked the question about, why are you laughing?
The ratings came back.
It was a great man.
So more recipes with Don Lemon.
Don Lemon asks a question saying to, which, by the way, I actually like the fact that he did this.
Him and his panel asked Katie Hobbs saying, hey, just out of curiosity, why are you choosing not to debate Lake?
I don't want to choose to debate Lake because I don't want to give her the platform for her to spew her lies and all this other stuff.
And you know what Lemon said, which is power to him and his crew.
He says, yeah, okay.
I think the girl asked him.
He says, I get that.
But you also dodged debating your Democratic opponent for governor, and you also didn't debate your opponent.
He says, well, you realize why?
Because I've won.
It's like, well, yeah, but you're dodging debates.
There's not a lot of credibility when you're dodging debates.
But this story.
So Obama's up there.
He's getting heckled on Wednesday during a rally in Phoenix for Democrats in Arizona.
Obama was stumping for Mark Kelly and Katie Hobbs, who are respectively in close races for Senate and governor and talking about the economic impact that coronavirus pandemic had on American families and communities when he was interrupted by heckler.
The pandemic also highlighted and in a lot of cases made worse problems that we've been struggling with in four years.
An economy that's very good for folks at the very top, which that's where he is, but not always so good for ordinary people like you, Obama, the heckler shouted before being booed by the crowd.
Hold up, hold up, Obama said, young man, just listen for a second.
You have to be polite and civil when people are talking, then other people are talking, and then you get a chance to talk.
Set up your own rally.
A lot of people worked hard for this.
Come on, man.
It's okay.
So that's that, right?
Fine.
This is the interesting part.
I got a question for everybody in the audience, including yourself.
Do you know how many followers Obama has on Twitter?
Do you know the number?
Give or take.
How many followers do you think he's got on Twitter?
Don't pull it up.
I'm just asking.
We'll pull up here in a minute.
Guessing?
Yes.
50 million.
Trump's got 100, right?
50 million.
He's got 133 million.
Wow.
Okay.
Now, do you realize when Obama was on fire and he was tweeting anything, is it fair to say he's the face of Democrats?
He carries the most weight for Democrats.
Is that fair to say?
You mean other than Biden today?
No, Jesus.
Biden's numbers are dismal.
There's a reason why Obama's campaigning, not Biden, to help the Democrats.
Biden's not campaigning.
So is it fair to say he's the voice of the left?
Is it fair to say that?
I think so.
Okay, fair enough.
So if he tweets encouraging people to go out there and vote on 133 million followers, how many people should like his tweet?
Just asking a question.
Just a couple million.
A couple million.
A couple million should like his tweets.
Easily.
Okay.
Let's say a million people have to like his face.
That's 2 to 4%.
Let's go to his Twitter account.
Let's see how much the Democrats are excited about what Obama's been saying.
Go to Obama's Twitter account.
Hopefully you don't have to go fully down and, you know.
All right.
So if you go there, zoom in a little bit.
Okay.
So he's got 133 million followers.
Great.
So pin tweet to the top.
That's his anniversary.
It's 570,000 likes.
Fantastic.
That's a month ago.
Okay.
Here's two minutes ago.
We can't count that because it's only two minutes.
432 likes.
Gosh.
19 hours ago.
The only way to make democracy stronger is we fight for it.
And this starts by electing.
So vote for Democrats.
Only 48,000 likes on 133 million followers.
Go a little lower.
Go a little lower.
Look at this next one here.
Okay.
5,700 likes.
Next one while he's in Arizona.
Pictures.
It should be high.
Adam, 14,000 likes.
Go to the next one.
I will vote.
37.
This is the former two-term president, superstar Democrat with 133 million followers.
Go to Biden's account because he says, well, it's got to be Biden.
Just go up a little bit.
You'll see Biden.
No, no, don't do that.
Just go up.
It'll be Biden.
Just go up, Keep going up, keep going up, keep going up.
Click on Biden right there.
Yeah, there you go.
Go on, Biden.
He's got 27 million followers.
Let's see how he's doing.
Let's see how much his team is excited about him.
Watch this.
October 6th, as I've said before, no one should be in jail for using or possessing marijuana.
Today I'm taking steps to end our failed approach.
Allow me to lay them out.
Okay, cool.
Guess what?
With marijuana.
Most people don't like both sides.
Cool.
We're chilling. We're good.
682.
Now go to the next one.
4,200.
Go to the next one.
40 million Americans stand for student debt relief.
11,000 likes.
That's the current president, by the way.
Go to the next one.
Keep going down, keep going down.
Okay, that's 6,000 likes.
Next one.
Jobs are up.
Domestic products.
So this is a picture that should be reassuring.
Okay.
Beautiful picture.
It's a nice light.
They got smoked there.
Somebody should have fixed this tight.
It's a little bit to the right, but it's fine.
Nice shoes.
33,000 likes.
You know what this tells you?
If your own base isn't excited about you, man, you don't inspire them.
And you got 133 million, 27 million followers.
Look, you lost your audience.
You've lost your audience.
Celebrities go through it.
Athletes go through it.
Go look at Bad Bunny right now when you post something on Instagram.
You know how many likes Bad Bunny gets right now?
10 million likes.
On fire.
On fire.
Maybe Bad Bunny should run for president on the left, right?
But not American.
The moral of the story, the moral of the story is this.
They've lost their voice with their own people.
When you lose your own people, you panic on the way you're talking.
The other day, somebody, I don't know who was it that said, these next few days, this could determine whether our kids can even write a book 40 years from now.
And their even lives, they could even get killed.
Yeah, you know what?
This was the historian Michael Beschloss.
And what's particularly amazing is that this guy was at least used to be a well-respected presidential historian.
One of the most, of course.
And then you look at even Biden's speech.
This is how I read Biden's speech, because Biden's speech is like, this midterm election is about an attack on democracy, right?
And think about what he's saying.
What he's basically saying is we have two parties in America, a Republican Party and a Democratic Party.
One of those two parties is basically illegitimate because it is the party that is against democracy.
The other party, my party, Biden's party, is for democracy.
And so what he's basically telling the American people is in the midterm election, even if you don't like the Democrats, even if you don't agree with their values, even if you don't agree with their policies, you should vote for them.
Why?
Because they stand for democracy.
So what he's saying, without really saying it, is he's kind of saying we only have a one-party state.
There's only one legitimate party in the United States, which think about it.
I mean, that's basically Iran, right?
You have one party.
Yes, we'll have some candidates.
We'll have some token opposition.
Liz Chinese.
They said there's fair election, but it's not.
Right.
In effect, you're saying that the American people do not have two options before them that are both legitimate and they can choose which direction they want to come.
So the anti-democratic rhetoric is really coming from the Democratic side.
And I've seen nothing equivalent in the Republicans die.
In fact, they keep saying, you have all these people who've said that they will deny the result of the 2022 election.
I've never heard anyone say that.
I've never heard a single person say, I'm denying in advance the result of the 2022 election.
The only person who said that is Hillary.
And Hillary is talking nonsense because she's actually talking about a Supreme Court case coming up this fall.
This is what Hillary is getting at, by the way.
She says extremists are going to rig the 2024 election.
Who are the extremists?
The Supreme Court.
And how are they extremists?
Because there's a case before them coming up in this fall about whether election rules should be made by legislatures, state legislatures, or judges, or officials like the Secretary of State.
Who decides how an election, let's say in Wisconsin, should be run?
Who has the final say?
Well, the Constitution tells you it's the state legislature.
It's in the Constitution.
That's up before the Supreme Court.
Hillary is saying that if the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, that the final authority is with the state legislature, that is how we're going to rig the 2024 election.
So just think about that.
It's just downright insanity.
And she doesn't get canceled for it.
She's allowed to say that.
She's celebrated.
How do you feel about Musk buying Twitter, by the way?
How do you feel about the whole concept of Musk buying Twitter?
And he lost all these advertisers.
I think Musk lost two yesterday.
He lost General GM.
He lost Pfizer.
He lost Audi.
He lost a bunch of guys.
He said every day we're losing how much money a day says Twitter's losing $4 million a day.
Some number like that he tweeted out yesterday that they're losing $4 million a day and it's unfair that this is happening right there.
Twitter has a massive drop in revenue due to activist groups, pressure on advertisers, even though nothing has changed in the content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists extremely messed up.
They're trying to destroy free speech in America.
And then later on, he says that they're losing $4 million a day.
But how do you feel about the fact that he's buying Twitter?
Well, let me tell you what I saw today that really encouraged me.
Go to a guy on Twitter.
His name is Mike Davis.
And he tweets out to Elon Musk.
And he basically says that he has a solution to this advertiser problem.
And it comes back to Twitter followers.
So go down to Mike Davis replying to Elon Musk.
And then Elon Musk replied to Davis today.
Okay, he goes, let me see if you can find it.
I think that's it.
One second.
Yeah, there we go.
There we go.
Can you zoom in?
No, no, that's not it.
Keep going.
Keep going down.
Man, these days people tweet a lot, so it's not so easy to find.
Is it a reply or is it a tweet?
Give me a second off.
Yeah, you know what?
And then go to the next one.
Here it is.
I just found it.
Dear Elon Musk, you have 140 million Twitter followers.
Is that the one?
That's it.
Name and shame the advertisers who are succumbing to the advertiser boycotts so we can counter-boycott them and get your $8 a month monthly subscription going ASAP so we can start to make up for losses of revenue.
And then read Elon's reply.
Elon responds back.
I actually don't see his reply.
I only see his.
I don't see what Elon said.
Okay.
What did Elon say?
Basically, Elon goes.
Oh, there you go.
Thank you.
A thermonuclear name and shame is exactly what will happen if this continues.
Right.
So this tells me that Elon Musk recognizes that there is a big battle over free speech in America.
And the question becomes, I mean, he brings incredible resources to it.
What I didn't know is does he bring the will to fight this out?
Because these people are determined to protect the regime of censorship.
And he's so I'm very high on Elon Musk.
I think it's fantastic that he bought Twitter.
Twitter has suddenly become a free speech platform for the most part.
Even though Elon says our moderation policies haven't changed, I think the word is out that this is now a free speech platform.
And see, that puts pressure now on YouTube and Facebook because in the free market of big platforms versus censorship platforms, it's hard for me to see censorship platforms winning long term.
So they're able to win if they can all coordinate with each other so you don't have an alternative.
Just like you can make your product successful.
They just lost a big one, though.
Exactly.
They just lost a big one by losing Twitter.
Right.
So they can't now all come together.
By the way, you know what I told him yesterday?
I said to Elon when he was saying this.
I tweeted back.
I said, you're the right guy for the job.
I said, the hate you got with Tesla got you PhD in handling hate.
The hate you're about to get with Twitter will earn you your own planet.
And that's what's going on because he's about to get it times a thousand.
Right.
Endless.
Go ahead, Tom.
No, you've seen things like this.
It's like you take a look at OPEC.
OPEC worked in the 70s, even in the 80s.
But then all it took was one, which was usually OMAN or UAE, to be shipping oil at night, remember these days.
And they broke from OPEC.
And then Venezuela broke from OPEC.
And then OPAC was sort of a general pricing arm.
They were not a supply arm anymore.
Remember those days?
And so I think right now the supply and the pricing of social media has been, I think, has been not in lockstep, but it's been together.
And I think it's fracturing everywhere.
And also, Facebook doesn't have the new generation.
Facebook has its own problems of long-term relevancy without worrying about censorship, in my view.
And with Rumble, you now have a real alternative to YouTube.
So YouTube is still much bigger, but Rumble's been growing well.
And so the game is changing on the free speech front.
Chris is the right guy at the top.
By the way, did you hear about what Bank of England warned of yesterday?
Bank of England warns of longest recession in 100 years as it raises rates to 3%.
That's not very much of an optimistic message coming from the Bank of England.
Three-quarters of a basis point increase, the latest in a series of eight interest rate hikes since last year would not be enough to guarantee victory in a war against double-digit inflation.
The Bank of England said as it cautioned further action would be needed.
The UK economy faces a very challenging outlook with a recession that began this summer, now expected to last the middle of 2024 with the possibility of a general election being held in 2024.
The Conservatives face campaigning to remain in government at the tail end of a prolonged slump during which the bank said it expected unemployment rates to rise from 3.5% to 6.5%.
And if they're saying that that's going to happen here as well next year in unemployment.
We're not there yet, though.
But Tom, what does that mean if Bank of England is saying this?
Well, I think what you see here at the Bank of England is you have a frank assessment of what is actually happening in our economy.
They say, oh, don't call it a recession.
We're not going to do that.
We're going to change the definition.
Look, what's going on over here?
We're already seeing the interest rates raise.
We've already had the multiple ups.
We're seeing, we were just talking about the jobs report, that the jobs report was really talking about low-end jobs, that the 10.7 million is low-end jobs.
What you're seeing there, you know, that is exactly what is happening here.
We're just not willing to say it.
We're just not willing to say it.
We're not willing to say it.
Yeah.
It's things like that are happening.
Yeah, I mean, I think that, again, my mind flashes back to the in the in the in the late 80s, 90s, we had this profession called the economics profession.
And you had economists on the left and on the right, but they weren't all that far apart on the facts.
They disagreed about sometimes their interpretation.
They would disagree, for example, on the effect of inflation on interest rates.
But there was a body.
This is inflation, by the way, this word Republicans have been using lately.
Do you guys know the meaning of Tyler?
What does this mean?
Joey Reed said Republic, you know, people, some lot of people don't know what this word inflation means.
Can you pull up the definition of inflation?
I have to interrupt you because some of us are not from America here.
I was born in Iran.
I think it's a conspiracy.
What is the definition of inflation?
Go to definition of inflation because apparently only the folks on the left know what the meaning of inflation is.
And economic inflation is increases in the price of goods and services in an economy.
Got it.
Just want to verify that so our audience knows that.
But go ahead.
Right.
I mean, the key thing about inflation is that you have the same number of goods that then cost more across the board.
And that's inflation.
Because essentially what it means is your money is losing value, right?
So, for example, if you have $100 in your pocket and you can buy $100 worth of stuff and there's 10% of inflation, in effect, you now have $90 in your pocket, even though you still count 100.
That's the point of what inflation is.
But what I was saying was that this body of economic knowledge appears to have almost vanished.
And I don't know if it's because the economists are now muted and their influence is reduced.
But suddenly you have, I think with the Biden administration, a regime that doesn't seem to pay any attention to economic information, at least in the old sense.
You think it's in their top five list of concerns on a daily basis, economics?
No.
I don't know.
I think if a president doesn't make the economy at the top of their issue, it's just a pathetic move a president can make.
And who would.
Look at the way he deals with his idea of bringing gas prices down is essentially releasing all the oil in the strategic reserve.
And so his point is, and even with the Saudis.
The artificial supply spike that he does, which now limits the options that he would have to handle a real energy crisis.
And then his second move, which failed, but was again very insidious, a secret agreement with the Saudis to temporarily increase oil production for three months till he got over the midterms.
So they were fine to then go back to their old policy.
It's to give him an artificial electoral boost.
15% for the big guy.
Wow.
This is the Times, nonetheless.
This is the New York Times, yes.
U.S. officials had a secret oil deal with the Saudis, or so they thought, after Saudi leader pushed to slash oil production despite a visit by President Biden.
American officials have been left fuming that they were duped.
That's pretty embarrassing that the New York Times writes that.
That's what happens when you call the Saudis pariahs and then you try to cut a deal with them on oil.
They have all the leverage here.
What do you expect to happen?
This is a great point.
Basically, Biden was implying that Muhammad bin Sultan, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, is a murderer.
So you go around saying that, and then he's the guy you have to go to to cut this deal.
Right.
Did you see what?
Well, he is a murderer.
I mean, he definitely gave the order for the Khushogi.
Tyler Smith.
I tweeted something at you really late at night.
Can you pull that up?
You know what I'm talking about?
I sent something to you last night at nearly 11 o'clock.
I don't know what time it was.
Pull this tweet up.
It's such a funny tweet, if you can pull it up.
Okay, so check this out.
New York Times, as the midterm elections nears, President Biden has increasingly made exaggerations.
Wait a minute.
They changed the tweet.
No, they didn't.
Exaggeration and misstatements about his influence on the U.S. economy and his policy record.
Look at the title on that article.
As elections approach, Biden spins his economic record.
New York Times.
By the way.
This is the propheta.
This is so.
By the way, I went just to read the comments.
Okay, so go below it and read some, zoom in a little bit.
Look what they say now.
Did you say the same or as much about the former president?
I don't remember seeing it.
Yeah, like New York Times didn't go after Trump 50 times a day.
Keep going.
Keep going to the bottom.
Keep going to the bottom.
You'll see some of it's a stutter.
Democracy could be in its death thrones.
And this is where you focus your attention on New York Times.
If you haven't already done so, cancel your subscription.
So the leftists don't cancel it.
Because they printed truth.
I'll buy it for once.
Because Biden's going around talking about untrustworthy rag.
Isn't exaggerating for missing anything.
It's fish strap, I tell you.
Yeah, it was.
And by the way, did you see the Newsom yesterday tweeted something out?
I don't know if you saw my response to Newsom.
I love what...
He's getting a little frustrated too.
Yeah, let me send you what I, if you just go to mine, you'll see both of them.
Here, I'll just text it to you.
I'll just text it to you, which is so funny because the way he tried to spin California yesterday, it's like a great place to be.
There you go, right there.
So he says on the bottom, life in blue states, lower murder rates, lower gun death rates, longer life expectancy, higher GDP, higher minimum wage.
Don't believe the GOP lies.
And I said, life in California, higher utility and gas price in America, highest poverty rate, highest income tax, highest housing cost, highest homelessness.
You lost Musk, Rogan, Hollywood, and soon Twitter headquarters.
Bad policies have consequences.
But they say that, and some people are sitting there saying, that's right.
And did you see when they pulled up?
Matter of fact, I think we even did it this Tuesday on the podcast or Thursday when we pulled up the top cities in America with murder rate.
And I think, I don't know what the number was.
Well, St. Louis had recently passed Detroit.
Yeah.
They're pretty competitive in that area.
Although Detroit's upset about it, and they'll be back on top in no time.
Yeah, I mean, it's...
I mean, this is the case...
I actually wish the Republican candidates did more with this kind of thing because I find, you know, I travel a lot generally to speak.
And so you take Tennessee.
You go to Nashville, which is by and large a Democratic city.
Right away you see it's very dangerous.
Memphis, by the way, the same.
Can't walk out on the street.
It's trash everywhere, homeless everywhere.
Then you go to Chattanooga, which is just a couple of hours away by driving.
Republican-leaning city.
On the Georgia border.
Totally different.
Very beautiful landscapes.
There's a huge bridge.
You look under the bridge.
There's not one guy lying on a homeless guy there.
You can walk around pretty safely.
There's a kind of a festive atmosphere in the evening.
People going to restaurants.
So there's a noticeable difference depending on who's running a city of what that city looks like.
Tom, you and I had a call yesterday with the owner of one of the largest magazines in the world.
We won't name it.
And the owner had moved from a California to Boise, Idaho.
I think not in Boise, Idaho, but somewhere it was in Idaho.
And I said, so what is the high-end zip code in California?
We won't name it.
Right.
Very high-end zip code.
I said, what's the safety like in Idaho?
He says, well, in Idaho, you can carry a gun with a driver's license.
So in Idaho, if you get a driver's license, you have the right to carry.
And if you look at Idaho's numbers, it's unbelievable where they rank the amount of people that murder all of those stats in Idaho, very, very low.
And you can carry there with just a driver's license.
And the only reason I'm saying this is because he's thinking about moving to Boise, Idaho.
Nightlife is amazing there.
10 times better than Miami.
You can't compare California to Idaho, though, right?
Hey, it takes the fun out of an ATL.
There's a one-in-three chance you're going to get offed.
Just can't tell you anything.
But anyway, so he moved to Idaho, and you're hearing a lot of stories like that.
I mean, Julia Roberts moves to Nevada.
Mark Wahlberg is moving to Nevada.
That's very weird.
Julia Roberts just came out with a story.
I think her book is coming out.
And she told a story about how Martin Luther King helped her parents when they were going through financial needs.
I don't know if you saw that story or not.
It's a real interesting story.
I thought it was kind of cool.
Me and you were talking about it.
Anyways, Dinesh, before we wrap up, is there anything you're working on that you want to share with the audience?
Obviously, we're going to put the link below to 2000 Mules.
I think it can be found on locals, right?
It's on locals.
It's also on the platform called Salem Now.
And of course, DVDs.
You can get DVDs on Amazon and elsewhere.
And I have a book of the same title, 2000 Mules.
Did they finally allow you to publish it?
Because I know it was like a challenge you were having.
It was delayed.
It's out now.
And I think what's new with life since I last saw you is I'm now doing a daily podcast.
It's kind of fun.
I do an hour a day, and it's on audio and video, all the usual places, Apple, Spotify, Google, and then Rumble and YouTube for the Rumble and YouTube for the video.
What's the name of the podcast?
It's just called the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Okay, let's put the link below so they can find them.
Dinesh, thanks for coming out.
Gang, we don't normally do a Saturday morning podcast, but Dinesh was here.
We said, let's figure out a way to do podcasts together.
