Feb. 11, 2021 - Dennis Prager Show
10:01
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Currently, a colleague of mine on 560 AM, The Answer, in Chicago, WIND. I'm coming out for Cigar Night, I think, was it in April? | |
| Coming out for Cigar, my annual Cigar Night for the station, Steve. | |
| I hope I'll see you then. | |
| Do you smoke cigars? | |
| Of course I do. | |
| If you remember... | |
| You accuse me of being a cigar mohel because I do a straight cut. | |
| Oh, that's right. | |
| I did accuse you of that, I remember. | |
| This is Steve Cortez, who to the best of my knowledge is not Jewish, and yet knows the word for circumciser in Hebrew. | |
| That's impressive. | |
| How many Gentiles know the word for circumciser in Hebrew? | |
| That's right. | |
| I'm a Catholic boy, but have a lot of dear Jewish friends and have been to plenty of circumstances, so I know the turmoil. | |
| You accuse me of that. | |
| I prefer a straight cut of the cigar. | |
| But however we cut the cigars, having them with you is always a treat and one that I anticipate. | |
| You're a solid man. | |
| I really am a big fan of yours, as you know. | |
| So now I have a number of questions with regards to the impeachment trial. | |
| You are on record as advocating that they do, in fact, in the defense, make the case for why a sober, rational human might believe there was voter fraud. | |
| Is that correct? | |
| Correct. | |
| I have been strenuously arguing with Team Trump and advocating to former President Trump and others on his team. | |
| So far, I will say unsuccessfully so. | |
| To be quite honest, Dennis, but I've been arguing that, look, the Democrats included in this sham impeachment, in this resolution, not just the ridiculous charge that he incited violence, but they also put in there the allegation that he made, quote, quote, false statements regarding the November 3rd vote. | |
| Well, if those are false statements, that that is the accusation. | |
| He has every right to then litigate that charge in a trial-like setting before the American people. | |
| And I think not only is it important for him... | |
| I think it's important for the country because I think in so many ways, Dennis, this conversation has been ignored by corporate media and it's been actively suppressed by big tech. | |
| And so what we've had are people in their respective echo chambers sort of shouting about it, those of us who believe there are material problems with the vote, shouting to our own echo chamber, and then a lot of folks on the left. | |
| Who are saying anyone who has any doubts at all is a seditionist. | |
| And what I'm saying is, unwittingly, Speaker Pelosi, not that she meant to do this, but I think she provided a platform where the president and his team can, as you mentioned, in a very sober, methodical, courtroom-like setting before the Court of Public Opinion of America say, you accuse me of false statements. | |
| Let me show you why these statements are not false, or why they're at least reasonable to have these suspicions about the election. | |
| And I think it would be actually very healthy for the country to litigate the election in the well of the United States Senate. | |
| So far, the team Trump is not grabbing that attempt, but I implore them to do so. | |
| And I'm, I've not given up trying to convince President Trump to follow exactly that course. | |
| It seems to me that your argument is very powerful. | |
| I have said from the beginning that on this issue I'm agnostic. | |
| I don't know how much... | |
| I have no doubt that there was some fraud. | |
| I don't know if there was enough to change the election. | |
| I'm truly in the middle. | |
| I read a lot. | |
| I am close to people who do believe that it determined the election. | |
| Anyway, I am in the middle. | |
| So I am the perfect person for you to tell this to. | |
| There will be no other chance in the foreseeable future to make the case why a rational person might believe fraud was determinative if it is not done now. | |
| Correct. | |
| That's 100% the case. | |
| Yes, effectively, this trial, if you will, this should have happened in the respective state capitals, in my view, okay? | |
| It was incumbent upon these state legislatures and these contested states to say, where our own rules followed was the United States Constitution followed, where these done fairly and justly. | |
| That did not happen for a variety of reasons. | |
| And I think that's a real shame. | |
| And I think those legislatures, five of the six are Republican, by the way, so I'm criticizing my own party. | |
| I think they abdicated their duty. | |
| I do not believe, I would disagree with President Trump on this score, I do not believe it was the job of the United States Congress to then step in and overrule those legislatures. | |
| But I now believe, again, given what the House has done, what the United States Congress has done, I think that they unwittingly provided a platform for President Trump, and I think it's important for his political viability going forward. | |
| But I think more importantly, it's critical for the country. | |
| This is an open wound that is simply not going to heal. | |
| I mean, I really believe that. | |
| And while Nancy Pelosi didn't mean it as an opportunity, you know, I've used this illusion a couple times to the Old Testament. | |
| Joseph, when he confronted his brothers in Egypt, he said, you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. | |
| Well, in this same regard, Nancy Pelosi meant it for evil, but it can be used for good. | |
| There can be an opportunity here. | |
| And again, the House managers will have a chance to retort anything that President Trump and his team would put forward. | |
| So this would not be, you know, simply a speech. | |
| This is not a propaganda opportunity. | |
| This would be the chance in an adversarial, countervailing strategy to actually litigate this before the American people. | |
| That's right. | |
| Even those who believe it's a lie should be advocative of what you're advocating because then it would be exposed as the lie that they claim it is. | |
| Why would anybody oppose? | |
| And as you say, with the ability of the Democrats to then refute it. | |
| Right. | |
| I want it just as a citizen who loves this country. | |
| I don't know that the case is airtight. | |
| I would like to hear one. | |
| Right. | |
| No, you make a great point. | |
| You know who should want this most of all, perhaps paradoxically, is Joe Biden. | |
| Because there are tens of millions of Americans. | |
| I'm one of them, but it's not just people like me who are highly partisan and in the game, so to speak. | |
| There are tens of millions of Americans who do not believe that he's a legitimately elected president of the United States. | |
| According to polling, and it ranges anywhere from CNN or CNBC, which is the lowest I've seen among Trump voters, they show only 3% said Biden was legitimately elected. | |
| The highest I've seen is CNN. They say that 19% of... | |
| Trump voters believe Biden was legitimately elected. | |
| Let's say it's somewhere roughly in the middle. | |
| You're talking only 10% of 75 million people who believe he won fairly. | |
| Now, if he does believe that he, in fact, legitimately won the vote, he, more than anyone, should want to have a full and fair airing of the circumstances. | |
| And to me, the most compelling, by the way, which I will admit is not court of law kind of evidence, but it is still compelling to me. | |
| Are these statistical anomalies which were required for Biden to win? | |
| And a lot of this, Dennis, comes from my background, 25 years of trading on Wall Street before I got into politics. | |
| Probability analysis was my entire professional life. | |
| When I look at the confluence of statistical anomalies that were required for Biden to win, and by that I chiefly mean that he outperformed only in the exact places that he needed to outperform and nowhere else, geographically and demographically. | |
| When I look at that, it is so improbable. | |
| That, in my mind, it is impossible. | |
| But admittedly, again, I think it's compelling, but that is circumstantial. | |
| But that points to, then, the actual courtroom-type evidence that can be presented by a team. | |
| And what I would argue and what I've written about in my op-ex should be used effectively as the manual for this defense is the Navarro report. | |
| Peter Navarro put together what I think is the best and most academically rigorous compendium. | |
| Of all the problems in all six states with the election, his defense team could literally take the Navarro report, they could call him as a witness, and they could contest these states. | |
| Unfortunately, Dennis, look, again, I'm admitting here to the public that I'm not winning this argument right now. | |
| But I still think it's an important argument to be made, and it's not too late. | |
| So, what do you believe? | |
| I don't care what they say to you. | |
| I care. | |
| What do you believe is the reason they will not address this issue? | |
| Well, and I understand this part from the defense lawyers. | |
| Look, a good defense lawyer says take as little risk as possible and get the heck out of there, right? | |
| With a not guilty verdict. | |
| Rather than, you know, you never want to enlarge the case, right? | |
| You want to diminish the case. | |
| Let's get to the least amount of subject matter to argue about, and let's get to the quickest possible victory. | |
| So I understand that, and I think that is certainly the case of the defense attorneys. | |
| You know, regarding, I have not spoken directly to the president about it. | |
| I know he's read my articles. | |
| I've not spoken to him about it. | |
| So I don't know his thinking. | |
| I think part of it from his perspective, and this is my supposition, I don't know this. | |
| But, for example, he said he wouldn't testify. | |
| And I think it would be incredibly powerful if he would go into the well of the Senate himself. | |
| I think he doesn't want to dignify the proceedings to a certain extent, that it is such a sham, it's so farcical, that, again, let's get it over with as quickly as possible. | |
| Let's not dignify it with a lot of But again, I think it's a missed opportunity for him and for the country. | |
| And to your point, I just can't foresee another opportunity down the line. | |
| Where are we going to have this kind of stage, this kind of setting, where we can litigate this? | |
| And again, so that we can reach some degree of agreement. | |
| It may not be that I'm going to say, okay, fine, I think the vote was legitimate, or people on the left are going to say, okay, you're not a seditionist. | |
| But we might at least say... | |
| It was adjudicated, right? | |
| And we may not love the results, but it was adjudicated, and now we can all work on 16 elections. | |
| Just a couple of questions, if you could stay on. |
Export Selection