PBD Podcast - Dinesh D'Souza | PBD Podcast | Ep. 202

Episode Date: November 5, 2022

In this controversial and exposing episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Tom Ellsworth, Adam Sosnick & Dinesh D'Souza to discuss his latest documentary "2000 Mules" which uncovers the facts behind the alleged election fraud of 2020. Dinesh Joseph D'Souza is an Indian-American right-wing political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist. He has written over a dozen books, several of them New York Times best-sellers. 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 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. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

I know this life meant for me. Yeah, why would you plan on the life when we got that David value payment given values contagious. This world on the panoras we can't no value that hate it. I don't know me look what I become. I'll leave it up to you. Okay, good morning folks. This is, what is it, episode two or two?

Is it two or two with Dinesh D'Souza, a special guest here today. Somebody that's loved by conservatives and hated by the opposite side. He's many would call on 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 as 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, do we did a podcast or an interview together, you're in a half ago, and it did very well.

Got a few million views. The audience loved it. So we have them 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 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 four million hits I was like wow this guy must be important yeah welcome to value baby this guy must be this guy's doing something with his life can I say one thing you do some of your studies love these hated I don't think he's hated. Cause I think maybe some of the content you do or some of the, you know, obviously, these are poovies. He knows how to poke.

He true, but there is something about your demeanor that makes you very likable, regardless of 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 can tell, I don't know if 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 let me clarify. Yes. He's hated by the last Well, let me let me clarify. Yes. He's hated by the Yes. Let me clarify. Thank you for that. But he's a like to be a doctor. I'm a likeable guy, but he's hated by the left. Correct. And that's intentional. That's intentional because sometimes you got to do that to get the other side to be riled up and you know, 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 meals documentary, I saw something on New York Times Wapol 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 gonna be doing? And what we'd wanna do today, Denys, since we've already done an interview

and people know your background, I just wanna 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 meals. 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 Pregris 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 meals? Yeah, so 2000 meals 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 bellweather 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 Truth of 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 gonna be really nice and Naples. Well, how 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 male 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 bought it to go look on the video. So, true, the vote said, look, we're going to show you some of the cell phone geotracking. We're going to show you some of the cell phone geotracking. 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 drop boxes, 10 or more. 10 or more drop boxes.

Now remember that when you're talking about a drop box, we're not talking about the mailbox. Somebody has a reason to go to a mailbox many times, right? You can say, I'm, I mail my mortgage on Monday and then I mail my utility bill on Tuesday. I wrote my mom on Wednesday, but a ballot drop box, you only have one reason to go, put ballots in it. So if some guys going to 10 or more drop boxes,

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, the few days up to the election, to 10 or more drop boxes, 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 drop boxes and there are a couple of those drop boxes that have video. So, let's just say that we know that by, from your cell phone, that you on election day or the day before the election were at all these drop boxes 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, that 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 state 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 who has said, that's not the real thing.

So this is available to everybody. It's a video. If I wanted to go get it tomorrow, I could get it. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Free them of information. Right.

That's what I'm asking. Similarly, with the cell phone geodracking, 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 8, Election Day 2020 of every cell phone in what's called the Geofence 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 that's the, 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 fooling. So let me ask you. So here's a few like it's not relevant to election fraud seems to me foolish. So, 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 were 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 video which is actually very bad because think about number one We live in a country and at a time when technology is cheap Every mall every parking lot is under video, right? And is there any good reason not to put a camera on a drop box? How many places was that was a lot of places was the necessary places the majority of places did not have video at all And they basically use the excuse of COVID. They basically said, oh, 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 in 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 and 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 into 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, but we're ridiculous. We're not gonna allow that, right? 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 gonna 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 and ballot, three Patrick bad David mail and ballots are going to all the places that you live. 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, 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 20 to 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 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 2000 meals, 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 documentary, political documentaries of all time, but his films were made a long time ago. He's not making good films today. It's 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. 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 to bait, discuss anything? Do you guys any of any relationship with each other? You know, we don't. We've actually had a little bit of like social media skirmishing, but, but it would actually be really fun.

Yeah. I wouldn't you guys have a really fun. Yeah, I would. 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 or do it. If we did a public event, it would do well. I agree. 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 2020, 2020 was an anomalous election.

And what 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 gonna 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 roles. I'm going to vote for him. That's not gonna tip in 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 used 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 Maclellan, 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 meals alleges is this. It alleges that there were these left-wing non-profits 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 non-profits 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, 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

back pack, 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 drop box and put in 500 votes, then all the other drop boxes 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. And the investment world.

That's it. 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, geotracking doesn't really work and you can't really pinpoint these people going to drop boxes. And some of them have said, well, you haven't shown us the same mule in multiple drop boxes. 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 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 complete different way where he's like, 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 that. 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, say, bezels and musks, say, take best engineers we have, they come in and they say, let's create a technology. That's a hundred percent proven that no way in the world can be, you know, cheated for anything to happen with it. Why are 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. And, 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 braze 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 it to do it. You want to travel show me our ID It's normal everybody expects it 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 a knife Oh, this is gonna be really scary blacks and his panics aren't gonna 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 in a drop box suddenly you'll hear, oh, you're gonna scare people away. They're not gonna want to vote because they're under observation.

They're under observation everywhere when they go to them all. So, whenever you find an argument that only applies to this special case, geo-tracking the same, nobody questions the 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

capital. Mr. Y was 20, 30 feet inside the front door. The geo-tracking 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 to really be on the up and up.

That makes sense. So I want to read the 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 the Nish Desosa's 2000 alleged mule sues claiming defamation. Rightly commentated, the Nish Desosa welcomed the special guest to his podcast on Tuesday, former president Donald Trump, to the two spent about 20 minutes discussing subject that has animated them both for the past two years. False claims about rampant ballots, fraud, effect in the outcome of the two thousand twenty elections trump

has seen the shows us film two thousand meals he held the screening of the film at his marlago event facility he's advocated for regularly and for good reason two thousand meals per per uh... or perpetrates to show that uh... trump didn't lose his election reelection 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 the Sosa 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 voter fraud than Trump. After declaring that he won by millions of votes, Trump praised 2000 meals as being conclusive way,

particularly useful to his effort to subvert his loss, 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 true 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 with that. One person who could who could as 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 use 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 do have some video. So let's go look at the video tape. 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 is Mark Andrews, apparently. And he is 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... It's Mark Andrews, the one with the long hair that's sitting there in its Tyler's whole picture.

Tyler can't see his 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 head. Definitely, he doesn't have long hair.

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, 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 drop boxes, geotracking of phones. I won't go into the market, Andrew's case only because he's filed a suit, so I don't actually want to address it just because it's something that might proceed to trial. And 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 that 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 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 unsupportable and unsupported claim. This is long before I even made a movie. Did you dive in, Denish, 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 wanna make as well. So address that and then go back to the point you were gonna 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, KREBS, 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. It's 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 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 meals.

We wanted to have our premiere. I've done my premieres, the Chinese theater in LA. That's my usual spot for having them. This time we decided since we're on the East Coast, we'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 watch 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 have 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 rant in 2020. So we have, we show 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.

Well, before the average person that could be a valid 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 deneshed motives are. You just go in with an open mind and your own two eyes. Now, you know, there's a cycle rotten tomatoes. And over 500 people have reviewed the movie and rotten tomatoes. What's the movie's rating? Unheard of for this kind of movie, 100%. Why? Because even liberals, even Democrats, to see the movie go, whoa, what the heck's going on over here? In other words, we don't just alleged 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, I guess the question with that is, if I'm just throwing this out there, if a hundred percent of the audience is already a Trump fan, Maga country. Of course, they're gonna 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 gonna agree. So how it's all Republicans, all MAGA, all Trump fans, of course they're gonna 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'd done with my Obama film. I told them, can you bring a bunch of people in a room who are politically independent? Now the way they decide.

How are you gonna find those people? I know, well, this is not the nation. No, no, no, this is how they do it. There's actually a metric for doing it. Like, for example they just... How are you going to find those people? I know. Well, this is not the next. 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 since... Or even in 2016, you're saying they voted Obama, then they voted Trump. Yes. Besides the people. Not those types of people. And so what they do... Those days would have been Obama and then they voted Trump, those types of people. Not 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 obviously Obama didn't run in 16, 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 2000 meals 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,

their Republicans. So, but the other 28 broke down into about half of independence at 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, independence 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 will see us in 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 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.

I'm not- Listen, I'll put 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 if I ever 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 America. That's right. Do Hillary's America. Yeah.

Yeah, and and that I kind of give you night. You go right there. It's right on the bottom. Click on that. So let's see what the scores and I don't know what the score is to be 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%. Make sense. 28 reviews. They hated it. It sucked, right? Professional experiment. 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 the stuff. 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 on the left because the critics don't know shit. Let's go with the audience knows, right? 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 as a...

Why is that? 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 right to the news to give it any credibility as if it's not a real documentary like to them it's an insult to say the niches and 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 watches document around wondering what the hell is going on So they want to know a little bit more what's going on? So let's let's 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's on the fact that they're coming back in their suing you know you for the dot work what point were you gonna make with him well mark and mark andro's a simply saying i'm not a quote mule he's not even disputing necessarily that the movies inaccurate he's simply saying he was wrongly identified as a mule out of of 2000 only one is suing you? Only one. So, so okay.

Did you, did you hear that Tom? I can clear. Out of 2000 only one is suing you. That is, that's not good for the other side. Yeah, why isn't there someone like a Gloria Al-Awred who is really good at rounding up women on hashtag me too 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? I, that's what I'm thinking.

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 2000 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 geotracking, when you sell, when you geotrack 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 the prices of all those people. Then you can go talk to them.

Now one of the ways you know that somebody's making an honest documentary is you say, all right, I'm gonna we have all these 2000 mules in 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 the left doesn't want them to do that. Philip Bump of the Washington Post who's written like 20 articles

on 2000 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, there are.

In other words, when someone is trying to block the investigation from moving forward, I would say that's on the, that's primafashe suspicious. So, so, so here's, here's why I'm asking a question. So check this out. The Sean Watson, first person comes out, right? Remember, it's like, well, you know, he was, I was'm asking a question. So check this out. Toshan 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 he's a guy I wanted to buy his best cards. 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 was what? 28.

Well, guess what? At about 20 something, do you believe that that actually happened with the Sean? Right, after all those allegations. Yeah, so 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 2000 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, pay twenty 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 to get in the nice bottle one but aside from that democrats are sitting there saying guys

to us a favor help by ten when allow us to have the senate allow us to have the house we're gonna 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 if you vote Democrat, six months goes by, 12 months goes by, 24 months goes by, nothing is going on there. Here's a scary part. If, and the development's 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? Like a week ago, 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 would call it, the person that represents for a pair. Yeah, she said that, and I came up, and, but if, what you're saying is true if you have enough you know to show data

do you think if the right wins uh... senate and a house they're gonna go investigate twenty twenty elections or no well i i hope that they do i know there are some congressman and senators 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 rear view 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 Claub or that would 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,

that 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, Mr. McConnell is all, all but said, everything you just said. Yeah, the problem with Mitch McConnell is he's a tricky character.

I mean, he, he is pulling money out from Don Boldak, who is running even with Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire. Think of it, Republicans could take a blue state and, and the polls are 50, 50, and he's putting the money to support Lisa Marcoski 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 Marcoski's on Mitch's team, Kelly Shabaka's like a Trumpster, she's a mega 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, well you move down the, I'm sorry, go ahead.

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 all crow and names like that. And I don't think you should do that to be honest, but he does do that. He ain't the only one to natch. Let's get 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. What 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 reelected, right, we're fast-forwarding, how's that relationship going to work? Because it's so beyond strain 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, you know, 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 know if they can be terrible, right? Yeah, that's right.

That is right. Yeah, I brought up McConnell simply because that's the narrative that 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 Carrie Lake will win. Her race of Mark Hamaday will win for Attorney General Mark Finchim for Secretary of State.

So all those guys are major advocates of 2000 meals. They came to our screening, they've talked up the movie. So those, 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 licks running for governor. She's not running for Senate or for Congress, but that's the sensibility we're talking about. So it's a Lauren Boberts and set 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 Scalice in 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 break down? Where do you fall in line there?

So what's happening in the Republican Party is, think of how strange it is. 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 a Dartmouth, I met a lot of leftists for the first time.

Here were their big issues. Number one, they were defenders of minorities in the working class. Number two, they care about individual civil liberties and it disupplied 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 say. Six head 78 right 78 to say six years after Vietnam Yeah, six years after Vietnam it's fresh. It's fresh And now the you talk to the left about the working class They're like oh yeah, it's a bunch of morons. 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 is an 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 their pro FBI, the pro CIA, and their pro war.

I mean, there are even things like, you know, if Biden talks about World War three, 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, you know, somewhat more working class. I mean, when I was in, 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 the establishment of just metaphors for this really big sweeping change occurring at the ground level. Fair enough. Jeff follow up? No, so where do you fall in on the MAGA Republican side of things? Well, today I think if you asked 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, do you look at my background?

I mean, I'm not some guy who like, you know, is a plumber who right decided to run for office. I mean, I came up some guy who like, you know, is a plumber who right-assider 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, I had an election, I exceeded the campaign finance laws.

I was 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 Republican, it's like you're a dead man walking. If you're on the Liz Cheney camp, Adam Kinziger, what's it do to where's the eye patch? Dan Krenshaw.

Dan Krenshaw. 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 gonna 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 wanna win elections or get money or donations

or even, you know, fulfill what my base wants to hear, I gotta get on board with the maga camp. Well I think actually that's I'd like to new onset a little bit because there's a huge difference between let's say there's chaining on the one side and then let's take Brian camp and Dan Crenshaw. So Dan Crenshaw is my congressman and Dan Crenshaw won by 75% of the vote he won the primary easily. And what state is in his in Texas?

This is in Texas. And Ryan Kemp is the governor of Georgia. Of Georgia. Yeah, and he's running in Stacey Abrams, but he's leading by over 10 points. Yeah, I get. Right? So what I'm getting on, and he entered into a big skirmish with Trump. Huge skirmish.

He was the, I mean, the whole Rafael Warnaug and the situation in the Senate was a disaster. They lost two sentencing 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's 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 and 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 glass.

They should not have, 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 there for 10 minutes, and now they're in solitary confinement. I mean, there's no excuse for that. That, if they were on the left, that would never have happened to them. That's the key point, and that's really, 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 the 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 that he's, do you think any of this January 6th or any of the RAID FBI, Mar-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 are, they are, 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 phishing expedition. Let's get him on something. And that's troubling. It's troubling because it's troubling, but it's also troubling because it's starting to happen to other people. So it's starting to happen to people who are,

you know, 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 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. Your citizen, you're sitting there, you know, I don't know if it's, you made me can't have a beer, that's your having a dive, Coke.

Nothing to prevent you from watching a Dropbox. Now, you shouldn't show up in your military fatigues, don't be cleaning your shot gun. Exactly, that's what I was gonna say. You're still cleaning your shot gun from a drop box. That's gonna be for doing that. Don't do that. You're right, agreed.

I mean, we agree on that, for sure. Right. But some people are doing that. Well, you'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. They're like a military fatigues and I was like, this is crazy.

I so we agree. Yeah. But what they're doing in the Biden, DOJ has filed documents. They're basically saying that for people merely to appear at Dropboxes and turn on their cell phones, which again, it's totally legal. Totally legal.

Yeah, is somehow voter suppression. And that's the point is, you know, you would ask the earlier Patrick about, why can we have sort of reasonable discussion about this, where we agree, yeah, don somehow voter suppression. And that's the point. Is, you know, you would ask 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 drop box. 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, 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 correct term in that instance is voter intimidation. Right. So if you see a person with a shotgun or I mean, a military fatigue, 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 gonna be like, ah, 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 you, there are pictures on social media, you can easily pull up.

There was a bunch of black panthers with like night sticks and they were patrolling these boxes, these boarding 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. So, but that was a troubling episode that was...

Yeah. So you're saying it happens on both sides? Well, I think that's BS with the black Black Panther 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 all, 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. 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 gonna be able to stop them. They're gonna try to figure out many creative ways that 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 gonna 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 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 it's just as much about is looking for vindication. I mean, for him, it's just as much about vindicating the Trump name and his sort of his, 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. It doesn't have the sum 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. One time, F. Scott Fitzgerald, a writer, was asked, do you think you have a privilege 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 our money and animal magnetism. And by animal magnetism, he was actually thinking about Ernest Hemingway. We 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, the Santa's walks in, but just say, 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. Wow, factor. It's the wild fact. So if these two both run, most likely you're thinking they're both gonna run, Trump and the Santis.

No, I think actually the Santis very cleverly is positioning himself to either run with Trump or to run the next time around. With? Yeah, with Trump or the next time around. So in other words, Trump to Santis, that would be the ticket. Yeah.

You think that's a likely scenario? Cause 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?

First of all, the base of the Republican Party is very Trump 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, you know, after the primary, or after the Republican, you know, RNC, meaning,

that was DNC 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, you're lucky little VP because I see him getting on that stage, don't you? No, I think they'll, if I, again, 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 is 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, 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.

Yeah. It's, it's because they're both vindication type of guys both of them are yeah, the Sanctus is so is Trump you don't want Those to to be your opponent for 12 years That 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 want to work in there's resume chasers, right? There are resume chasers that eventually just want to go to Oxford or Yale or Harvard to say I want to I want to work in the resume chasers, right?

The 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 as DeSantis and Trump neither one of those guys are chasing that Biden for the rest of his life will be a president That's 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 love,

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, 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 this will happen. What's your position when you're saying this? Yeah, I'm not advocating it.

I think it will happen. Oh, okay, goddess. 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, there's a 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 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. You know, 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,

I just, 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 magile mentality will now, so that the next time I run, it may be carry 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. Yeah, and let me give you my, the devil's advocate of that. Just let's have a nice, friendly, the beauty of your own 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 gonna team up with the US, Mazeable Team up with China, Israel, US, 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? The Santis or Lake? Lake. Is it even a question?

No. She said the other day, my husband is my second favorite person. She said because my favorite person is Trump. Okay, so it's fair to say she's more pro-Trump. Then the Santas. Is it fair to say that Lake more pro Trump right than the Santas right is it fair to say that lake Trump and the Santas all have similar backbones yes okay they're all tough they're not lightweight you can't push them around she's not afraid the

Santa is not afraid and obviously Trump is not afraid okay if you have to choose between those two as a VP for Trump which one would you choose I would choose the Santas but I can also see that there is a, 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 that I'd done that. I should have fired Comey on day one. I would have avoided myself a whole lot of problems that I'd done that. I should have gotten rid of Christopher Ray. 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 gonna be DeSantis. Carrie Lakers, 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 a pop-up. Not in 12 years, four years from now, six years from now.

Yeah. So I'm just saying there are options down the road, but if I were Trump, I would not go with somebody as new as Kerry Laihi. 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?

Who do you think people around the centers are telling them? You think they're telling them, 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 this 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 gonna forget about COVID in six years. Cause 2024, you got 2028. Ain't nobody talking COVID in 2028. They're gonna forget about COVID in six years. Because 2024, you got 2028. Ain't nobody talking COVID in 2028. They're gonna be like, do COVID was 10 years ago? Because in 20, 7, 20, 28, that's gonna 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 20, 27, 20, 28, nothing's gonna happen there. And then if he sits and waits, and then he runs on the, his record as a governor under Trump, they're gonna say, well, because Trump was a president, wasn't really you, it was because Trump was really the president. This is your time to run you out of run.

So as much as many Republicans, I'm sure think a Trump- de santhus ticket is game over yes i also don't know the council that's being given to de santhus behind closed doors is hey you you should be open to the number two idea what rather than the number one idea i don't know if i see that good point i don't know what the de santhus team is telling him uh... i do know

de santhus um... and uh... de santhus interestingly when uh... when de santhus But 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, this antistel is 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 gonna start up on this. And so this guy like never stops. That's right. That's what people are looking for. And by the way, we're gonna start up on this. And so this guy like never stops. That's right. That's what people are looking for. But like both of them are like that. They're both like that. Both.

So that's what will propel DeSantis. So if DeSantis is gonna 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 you the question.

Can you ever see Reagan or Trump in 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 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'll give you a pardon.

So 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 eleventh 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, where you were nothing like that. What has that work? And then how does that phone call happen? And then like, do you get to send him a thank you note? Like legitimately then how does that phone call happen and then like do you get the Senate but 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 had

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 because I want to run so she ran and I said okay I'll give you I've you're allowed'll give $10,000 in a campaign. So I wrote a check for $10,000. And then my Obama movie came out. This is 2012, but I'm traveling around the country promoting it. I'm doing all these shows and stuff. And Wendy's like, you know, when 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 a foul 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 may be given you a fine so then even 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 not a win in jail yeah I was in jail now not a not a normal prison but it's called a confinement center but yeah you can't leave and I'm in a bunk bed just like Dan Yeah, I was in jail. No, 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 was like Danbury, right? I'm in a bunk bed with like 60 hardened criminals.

Get out of here. Oh, yeah. I did my eight months. I was done with all that. I was just- This isn't what you're. This was in 2013. Okay.

Yeah. And then I'm done with that, but I'm still on probation and I still you know I if I travel like my passport gets dinged I got to go to a special room So my point is I was still quote underscrewed me so when Trump pardon 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 I mean, had you ever been to jail before in your life prior to that? Well, you I think you can kind of imagine the answer. Obviously, no.

Okay, here I mean, no, I mean, I didn't to me. I was like, yeah, but I don't know if you know enough when he got out here in R&C tattoo here. I'm 76. You want to show me? I mean, even the criminals knew that 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, what would you do? What did you do? The campaign finance law. Yeah, so I go, well, there's a campaign finance. Is that like card jacking? I go, you know, I gave away too much of my own money. They're like, Baws, you mean you didn't take somebody else's money? You're giving money, you're money?

I'm like, yeah, I'll go like, you're here for that. They couldn't even believe it. So 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 part in Dinesh.

And literary 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, didn't ask, 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 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 uses his phone and he uses a smart, smart, smart phone. I didn't expect 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.

I don't know. General John Kelly. General John Kelly. Yeah. And then we know we talked a little bit about the situation and he's like,, I mean, I know he's the chief of staff. I don't know general John Kelly general John Kelly and Then we know we talked a little bit about the situation and he's like hey listen I'm gonna sign your pardon in the morning and but you know the tweeting 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 via tweet Of course, of course Classic by the way, it's like PR.

It's under embargo until tomorrow. Yeah, it's under embargo. If Trump was president, how long would have taken before Trump got Brittany Griner out of Russia? What do you think? Well, see, this is the point. Is 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, I nearan. 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 throughout the Taliban and 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 a new real politic to the Republican Party and 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 guy stay over. I have a question on the phone. I'm sorry, I don't have a camera. So go for it. 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 Coenipiac, you got what? Marist Emerson College, you got all these polls, and then you have like... Ratchet. A little more biased polls, whether it's Foxy and NBC, what have you. But I'll tell you the poll that 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 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? 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 gonna win the masters You go on the site and Rory McAroy's favorite 1100 right then you got John Ram You got Scotty Shepler Cameron Smith cool got that then you've got even president You know you can bet on who's gonna win the president right? Yeah, I'm the president You won't do time for that right? It's. You will not do time for that eight months. Not like six, seven, eight months.

I'm going to hear with this baby. So like right now, I don't know, what is the, what are the numbers? What are the odds of who wins the 2024 election? Trump, they have, they have candidates. I'm trying to find out. Yeah, the odds are right next to them. I'm not sure. Yeah, Trump. So Trump it at right there. Right there. Right there.

It's at the top. So exactly. But read the numbers. Zoom in a little bit. So Trump at right there. Right there. It's right there. It's at the top. So exactly. But read the numbers. Zoom in a little bit. So Trump at 320 to Santa's at 410. Exactly. Joe Biden 680. Newsom 1400 hairs 18.

So my question is this, we can all agree that Vegas doesn't want to lose money. Right? They want to win. I smooth them on their twice by the way. That's what I was wondering. Yeah. Okay. Buddha, Chez and a pants. Go ahead. But 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 vagus sites. Who do you just went on to all the Vegas sites.

Who do you think was favored to win the 2020 election? Favorite. Who do you think was it Biden? Biden was favored. Correct. On Vegas and I did this, I just to show this, I don't know if it gets scrolled. 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 where Biden was 150, minus 150 to minus 180. Trump was plus 125 to plus 160. Meaning if you bet a hundred bucks on Biden, you would win minus 150. So you wouldn't even get your 150 bucks 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 were the odds. So me, removing emotion from the equation, we were in doubt at this point. I bet everybody said, name your amount, name your price, I'm taking bets.

I said, I'm to and everyone bet on Trump. I took Biden. Okay, removing the motion from the equation, pat bet a thousand dollars, someone else bet a thousand dollars. People were betting me lunches, people were betting me shirts. To the point where it was about ten thousand dollars 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 generally. Let's say, for example, now that you're talking about the Gulf tournament, right? Yes.

And you're talking about these Vegas guys. So I've taken by and large, you're 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 are who know the sport. They know the guys who are playing.

They know a lot about them. And you have them do the run, 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 And now you're deciding Whether you're gonna 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 the Vegas. Yeah, the big any sport NFL NBA MLB like you can write right this is there a world series game tonight

You can go on right now and Vegas will often times like if you watch an NFL game if the line is six I guarantee the team wins by seven that 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.

So 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, 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 as a, so I said, how concerned are you about climate change? It's not about us dying in 12 years.

People are dying right now. We're gonna, we feel we're gonna 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 gonna live up to a 90, a hundred years old. You're gonna be all right. You're gonna live a long life

because insurance companies wanna save money, right? They don't wanna 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 the 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. So go back, but go back, but go back to it, Tom. Go back to it. So with Vegas, have an odds to say, Biden was going to win it and they got it right. Yeah, that's why I was that shocked is what I'm saying is because Vegas, if Vegas had Trump as a massive favorite, massive favorite, he's gonna 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 favorite by 20%. What was the 420, 16 with Hillary? Can you go to Hillary and Trump? I'm actually curious, you know, because now we gotta go back and look at the history of it, because, look, to go back and look at the history But because look it shits happen. I mean it was 99.9% chance that in the second half of Falcons against the Patriots they were winning the Super Bowl and they came back and wanted 31 or 28 whatever the story of

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so come back. So so can you I'm actually curious at this point with that Hillary looks like and you know We all know that even even I read every three years in the Kentucky Derby that some horse that is not favorite to 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's gonna win a 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'd saw it dwindle and dwindle and dwindle, and then a week before the election, that's on November 7th. That's on November 7th.

This is day before. So I 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 2000 meals which was interesting. When typically, typically, okay, so for example, if the midterms, if it's a sweep and it's a blood bath 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 over time. Okay, so meaning, meaning, if the left's gonna lose the house and maybe lose even the Senate, and a bunch of these governors, there's all these things New York, Oklahoma, what are we talking about? They chicken potential,

very weird things that has happened 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's not good. America's not in a good place. So people are saying, listen, I'm flipping. What is that a reflection of? I think that's reflective of multiple things, but clearly the man at the top. Fair enough.

So now here's a 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 one. 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. I'm like, yeah, that's right.

I guess Vegas knew. Vegas knew no one by one. Why are people so complaining about it? Then we went and looked at Hillary. Okay, well then that's a different story. Because we're digging, we're a podcast. And now it's a flavor shocking. Which one?

The Trump came out of nowhere, Hillary. To be honest with you, I thought both of them were shocked. And we did a podcast the night with Trump. We went to sleep, saying it's over. Trump won all the numbers we were looking at. Next day we were working up saying, what the hell? Boom, this line, flat line.

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 gotta consider the alternative, right?

So here's one possibility. It could happen and it could happen this way. You have all these suburban moms, and they are right-leaning, and they have kids, and they are concerned about 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 gonna be that bad. So there is a possibility it could have happened, okay? I'm not denying that. And so the move is not very likely. That's a very likely explanation. And in fact, it seems like the Republican party is gonna 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 for our 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 gotta go, okay, in Arizona, it's Carrie Lake, and then, okay, we go, it's Blake Masters over here, and another guy over here, whereas where you go, listen, Trump is a menace, Trump is like Hitler, we gotta 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, or 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? But 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, or hanging out with Republicans. Yeah, I've been hanging out for Republicans for a decade and more. Couple 20 years just hanging out. Yeah, hanging out. But what I'm saying is the sort of the word on the street, on the right side of the street, is that we, and I hear this from candidates, I heard from donors,

is like, we have to win cleanly because they're gonna do some cheating. And we've got to make it that the margin is big enough that even if they're cheating, we're still gonna win. I mean, 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 Jaini 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 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 not what they call it a black swan event. Right. But what I'm saying is, it was an anomaly. It was not what they called 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 not 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 whatever

documentary, opinion, I mean, barring some crazy lawsuit legal allegation that comes out there, 2020's done. I mean, we're about to hit 2023 here, buddy. Like, so is it more about trying to go backwards that comes out there, 2020's done. I mean, we're about to hit 2023 here, buddy. 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. 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 example. Why? Because a lot of the processes put into place in 2020 have not been dismantled. So you'd think people would say, okay, COVID's put, 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, 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 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 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 interaction thing, same thought process, no? Yeah, yeah, I mean, my objection to January 6th is not that they're doing an investigation, but they're doing a show trial under the guise of an investigation. If they were doing a real investigation, then 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 capital, 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, it's 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 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 happened a narrative right away.

This is what often happened. Chew on. Very similar to, you know, so most secure election history. Then suddenly some facts come out, and they look at the facts and they go, oh, oh, these facts don't really fit this narrative. We need new facts. You know, 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 gonna release any of those. What do you actually think happened

with this Paul Pelosi thing? Take off your, you know, 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... 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, 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 know them at the beginning. So you got this wacky dude. David. We can all agree is 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? 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 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 did he let him in the house? Not only did the guy 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. 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 gonna 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 realized Paul Pelosi was not really scared of this guy for whatever reason. And then they realized that doesn't fit the narrative. We gotta 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 your... Like, what's this whole, like... By the way, the friend thing, like, how often do you say, like, hey, how's our friend do? And 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 And how's our friend? And he's not our friend. It's some guy 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 with the fuck 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, the national like it 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, you know. So what I'm getting at is there are a lot of

cooks, right? And you can pretty well, in an 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. Yeah. 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 case, they think they're being followed or the FBI's after them. So, I think it's something like this. This guy was an animated cook. And 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 cook that Nancy and I have been dealing with for much of his political life. Exactly. And so, he's like listen, I better see if some cops will come by and make sure I'm okay. I think at that point, he was clearly not under attack because the attack is, 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, 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. It's something's not I don't know. I mean, I still don't know why the cops didn't shoot the guy because I don't even mean shoot the kill him, but just at least shoot the disarmament 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 DC, 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, you're talking about build that wall. You're kidding me. How did he get in? Unanswered. I know 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 MB 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 net worth did not meet the standards the peace should not have aired because it did not meet NBC's news reporting standards and Editor said in place of storyline of The package from national correspondence Miguel made assertions that were attributed to on a as Miguel made assertions that were attributed to on a on named sources and appear to raise questions about the circumstances of the attack. A network source told CNN that pulled the segment after the source of the report's information was found to be unreliable.

The decision was not made to remove the segment afterwards determined. Shortly after the main source for the information was unreliable regarding the questions of circumstances that the police encountered when they 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 polosies, 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 Also told the investigators at the two engage in sexual relations over our drugs without providing proof of claim However, there is no publicly available evidence that the pay pay made these statements to officials. One Twitter user sharing the claim said,

David tells investigators that he and Paul were engaging in gay sex and an argument in suit over drugs. And but official records and statements do not support the claim that the pay pay told the investigators it was engaged in sexual violation will close to the husband of us. I'm so okay. So this is what's spreading right now.

And down lemon somebody was telling the story. Don't know what I can't believe they're doing this. And you know, this 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 the 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.

So this is the local Fox reporting station and a reporter who covered in San Francisco. In San Francisco, yeah, 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 from it. So you're thinking, wait a minute,

Paul Pelosi is in his underwear. Okay, he says house, it's two a.m. And the morning he's sleeping. He's sleeping in a suit and die. What do you, of course, you're in underwear. But the idea that the attackers 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 stop talking about it.

Now, the NBC thing 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 when when Paul Pelosi came to the door and met the cops, instead of exiting the 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 residents 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 makes them look like idiots So so so the NBC report was damaging to the cops and it was damaging to Paul Pelosi And so that's my point is is my question is when NBC doesn't meet our standards is that they don't meet your standards of truth Or they don't meet your standards of truth,

or they don't meet your standards of not fitting the narrative and the Pelosi's look bad and therefore you took it down. Can you pull up the windows? Can you pull up the glass window shatter, just type in glass window pop 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 just make sense what I'm asking. Going 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, I look, I'm a military guy, but I'm not a CSI guy. If I hit the window with the hammer to break in, class should go in, not out. But why is it coming out? It's got a little weird.

I wonder what you're looking at that. Where are you going with that? Maybe the guy was trying to get out from Paul. I gotta get out of here, Tom. I don't know, man. I'm not saying he's trying to get up all on his savings. We also can't see how much glasses on the inside. There's only a little bit of glass on the outside. I don't know. I don't know. The glass thing. I'll tell you what upset 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 the God for five decades now. There's zero stories out there. Correct me if I'm wrong. For the last 50 years has been in the public eye that he's at any weird sexual gay stuff tendencies any of that. And you're gonna wait till you're 82 years old a week before midterms with some fucking delusional guy to that's where you're gonna seize the moment

to do a little sword fighting and seem so weird to me. Maybe it's just now breaking. You've not been married to Nancy Pelosi for five years. It's not like it's married to my wife. You're not getting married to Nancy Pelosi. But the point is do you have any credibility to this gay sex story? I don't know.

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. It happened. 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 don't, they only believe their media. They believe their media. Okay, they don't believe the other side. They only believe their side. Yeah, they don't, but they don't trust the CDC. I mean, there are, you know, 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, served the public good. You know, these, you have these top scientists saying,

we, we don't know, we're not involved of gain a function research, turns out that they do know, you have these top scientists saying, 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 sheep. This is what happened and they'd be like And again, now they're in the past.

You'd have a San Francisco police sheep. This is what happened. And they'd be like, yeah, okay, that's what happened, you know, and, and I was like that, too. I mean, because science has even got politicized these days. And we've all trusted science, trusted science. Then you see what's happened with COVID or even like global warming. It's like, I will say, 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? Who is the oldest person ever? He deserves a ride to be in a Guinness Book of World Records. He's on the winners baller now. He's on the winners baller now. All I'm saying is. He's saying that.

No, no. You're acting irresponsibly lately. He's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, he's the, 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 DUI? I feel like you should be like fully fully lifted. Yeah, this is like these days if you get a DUI, especially we're talking about a different discussion. Let's not get sidetracked. But my point is, all I'm saying, I know, all I'm saying, I'm not saying gayness.

I'm not saying gayness. I'm telling you, be, no, you said does he have a track record of gain is I'm not saying gayness. I'm telling you be an irresponsible. Okay. Be an irresponsible. He has a track record of being responsible. There's no doubt he has a track record of even your responsible stocks that 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 is getting heckled at Arizona, okay? Rallying while, you know, he's a stumpin' for the Democratic candidates. I'm gonna 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, are you laughing?

It's the ratings came back. It was through the Rick Man. No, it's not. So, more recipes with Don Lemon the unleman don lemon asks a question saying to which by the way I actually liked the fact that he did this right him in his panel ask Katie hop 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 it a platform For her to spew her lies and all this other stuff and And he know what lemon set, 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 dodge debating your democratic opponent for governor. And you also didn't debate your opponent. This is well, you realize why? Because I want it's like, well, yeah, but you're dodging debates. There's not a lot of credibility when you dodge in debates. But this story, so Obama's up there. He's getting heckled on Wednesday during the rally and Phoenix for Democrats in Arizona. Obama was stumping for Markelli and Katie Hobbs, who are respectively in close races for Senate and governor and talking about the economic impact and coronavirus pandemic had on American families and communities

when he was interrupted by a heckler. The pandemic also highlighted. And in a lot of cases made worse problems that we've been struggling with in four years. And economy, that's very good for folks at the very top, which that's where he's, but not always so good for ordinary people like you, Obama, the heckler shouted before being booted 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 work 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 things 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, or just in general? Biden's numbers are this small. There's a reason why Obama's campaigning not Biden to help the Democrats, Biden's not campaigning. Okay, so is it fair to say he's the voice at 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 of million should like his tweet. Easily. Okay, let's say million people have to like twit. That's two to four percent. 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 Twitter account. Hopefully this, 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 that's his anniversary 570,000 likes fantastic. That's a month ago Okay, here's two minutes ago. We can count that because it's only two minutes 432 likes 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.

Goal at 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. I could 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, go up, go up, go up, go up, go up, keep going up, keep going up, keep going up, go 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 and 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 are like both sides. Cool. We're chilling. We're good. 682. Now go to the next one. 4200. 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. It's open, they got smoked,

they're somebody should have fixed this tights, a little bit to the right, but it's my 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 133,000,000,000 followers. Look, you lost your audience. You've lost your audience.

Celebrities go through it. Athletes go through it. You 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 post something on Instagram. You know how many likes bad bunny gets right now? 10 million likes. On fire.

Maybe bad bunny should run for president on the left, right? But the 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 these next few days this could determine whether our kids can even write a book 40 years from now and they're even lives they could even get killed. Did you know what this was the historian Michael Bechloss and what's

particularly amazing is that this is this guy was at least if used to be a well-respected presidential historian but one of the most one of the most of course and then you look at even Biden speech this is how I read Biden speech because well respected presidential historian. But he is one of the most. 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 Gini. They said there's fair election, but it's not. Right. As the, 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 the kind. So the anti-democratic rhetoric is really coming from the democratic side.

And I've seen nothing equivalent in the Republican style. 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. 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's getting at, by the way. She says extremists are gonna rig the 2024 election. Who are the extremists? The Supreme Court. And how are the extremists? The Supreme Court. And how are the extremists? Because there's a case before them coming up in this fall,

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 saying that 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 Moscow and Twitter, by the way? How do you feel about the whole concept of Moscow and Twitter? And he lost all these advertisers. I think Moscow 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 they say, Twitter's losing $4 million a day. Some number like that, he lost a bunch of guys. He said, every day we're losing how much money they 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, pression advertisers, even though nothing has changed in a content

moderation. And we did everything we could to piece the active as 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 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's it. Oh, 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 just a second. Yeah, you know what? And then, oh, go to the other side. I just found a Diri LaMoz. 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 monthly subscription going ASAP. So we can start to make up for losses of revenue. And then read Elon's reply. Elon retweet response back. I actually don't see his reply. I only see his. I don't see what Ilan said. Okay.

What did Ilan say? Basically Ilan 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 Ilan must recognize

as 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. They are 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 the big one though. Exactly. They just lost the big one by losing Twitter. Right. So they can't now all come together. By the way, you know what I told them yesterday? I said to you, LaMuani 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. Right. That's what's going to, 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 OPEC 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 not 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 from. Chris is the right guy at the top. By the way, did you hear about with 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 increased the latest and 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 accostioned 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 pro long slum during which the banks said it expected unemployment raised to rise from three and a half to six and a half percent. And if they're saying that double, 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. We, they're, you know, 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, multiple ups.

We're seeing, we were just talking about the jobs report, that the job report was really talking about low end jobs, that the 10.7 million of his low end jobs. What you're seeing there, you know, that is exactly what is happening here. We're just not willing to, to say it. 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 the things I think that are written on this. 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 in the facts. They disagreed about sometimes their interpretation, they would disagree, for example,

on the effective inflation on interest rates, but there was a body. What's inflation, by the way? This word Republicans been using lately. What is the, do you guys know the meaning of Tyler? What is this mean? Joey Reid said, you know, people, some, a lot of people don't know what this word inflation means.

Can you pull up the definition? I have to interrupt you because some of us are not from America. Here, I was born in Iran. I think it's weird. 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 increases in the price of goods and services in an economy.

Got it. Just want to verify that 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.

So for example, if you have $100 in your pocket and you can buy $100 with a stuff, and there's 10% of inflation in effect, you now have $90 in your pocket, even though you still count a hundred. That's the point of what inflation is. 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 or regime, that doesn't seem to pay any attention to economic information, and 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, 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 Saudi, 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. There it is.

15% for the big guy. Wow. This is the times nonetheless. This is the New York Times, yes. You as 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 New York Times writes that

Okay, 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 the great point. The basically Biden was implying that Muhammad biln Sultan, the prince of 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 steel. Right. Did you see what is murder? I mean, he definitely gave the order for the Kusogi. Tyler something that you really laid it on white. Can you pull that up? You know, John, I'm talking about I sent something to you last night at the like

Nearly 11 o'clock. I don't know what time it was pulled 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 New York Times, as the midterm elections nears, President Biden has increasingly made exaggerations and wait a minute. They changed the tweet, they didn't. Exaggeration and misstatements about his influence on the US 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 proffeta. This is, 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 up to Trump 50 times a day. Keep going, keep going to the bottom. Keep going to the bottom. You'll see someone to study democracy could be its and its death drones. And this is where you focus your attention on New York Times. If you haven't already done so cancel your subscription.

So the left is now canceled 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 rap. I tell you. Yeah, it was. And in other way, did you see the news some yesterday tweeted something out? I don't know if you saw my response to news some I love what he's getting a little frustrated too.

Yeah, let me send you what I if you just go to mind you'll see both of them here. I'll just text it to you. I'll just text it to you. It's just 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,

lower 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, high-sonlessness, you lost Musk, Rogan, Hollywood and sooner, Twitter headquarters, bad policies have consequences, you know, but they say that and some people are sitting there saying that's right and did you see when they pulled up, 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 like. Well, St. Louis had recently passed Detroit. Yeah, they're pretty competitive in that area. And- Although Detroit's upset about it, and I'll be back on top at no time.

Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's, I mean, this is a case. I actually wish the Republican candidates did more with this kind of thing, because I find, I mean, it's it's I mean, this is a case I actually wish the Republican candidates did more with this kind of thing because I find I Travel a lot generally to speak and so you take a take you know Tennessee you go to Nashville which is by and larger democratic city Right away you see it's very dangerous Memphis by the way the same can't walk out on the street 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. It is 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 you a city with owner of one of the largest magazines in the world. We won't name it. And the owner had moved from a California to a Boise Idaho. I think not in Boise, but it was an Idaho. And I said, so what did I in zip code in California? We won't name it. Very high in. I said, what's the safety like in Idaho?

It 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. Okay., if you get a driver's license, you have the right to carry, okay? 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 only reason I'm saying this, 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 ATM. Stop on your how they do.

There's a one in three chance you're gonna get off. 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 in 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. That's a real interesting story. That was kind of cool. Me and I were talking about it.

Anyways, the next, 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 in Amazon and elsewhere. And I have a book of the same title, 2000 mules. 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 an audio and video, all the usual places, Apple, Spotify, Google, and then Rumble and YouTube for the video. What's the name of the podcast? It's just called the Dinesh Tussuza podcast. OK, let's put the link below as well so they can find them. Dinesh, uh, thanks for coming out, Kang. We don't normally do Saturday morning podcasts, but Dinesh was here.

We said, let's figure out a way to do podcasts together. Uh, have a great weekend. Dinesh once again, thanks for coming out. Always a pleasure, guys. Take care, everybody. Bye, bye, bye. Take care everybody, bye bye bye.