The Dana Show with Dana Loesch - Monday March 4 - Full Show

Episode Date: March 4, 2024

Rich Zeoli sits in for Dana.The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Trump can remain on the Colorado 2024 ballot. Donald Trump gives a statement from Mar-A-Lago on his court victory. Biden still claims he has no authority to take executive action to secure the Southern Border. What did we learn from the Biden family depositions? SNL makes fun of Joe Biden’s age.Please visit our great sponsors:Black Rifle Coffeehttps://blackriflecoffee.com/danaJoin the Coffee Club today and get 30% off your first month’s subscription.ExpressVPNhttps://expressvpn.com/danaKeep your online activity private and get 3 months free with code DANA.Fast Growing Treeshttps://fastgrowingtrees.comUse code Dana at checkout to save an additional 15%.Goldcohttps://danalikesgold.comGet your free Gold Kit from GoldCo today.Hillsdale Collegehttps://danaforhillsdale.comVisit today to hear a Constitution Minute and sign up for Hillsdales FREE online courses.KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSign up for the KelTec Insider and be the first to know the latest KelTec news.Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/danaGet free activation with code Dana.Wise Food Storagehttps://preparewithdana.comSave $50 on your 4-Week Survival Food Kit plus free shipping when you order today!

A unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Unanimous, that's right. Even the three lefty judges joining in to say Colorado cannot block Donald Trump from the ballot. A unanimous ruling. Welcome to the Dana's show. Dana's off today. It's me, Rich Zioly with you from Dana's affiliate, WPHD in Philadelphia. Yeah, you know, it's funny.

Keith Oberman wants to cancel the entire Supreme Court. Just cancel it. Just dissolve the entire court. He's so angry, even at the three lefty judges. who joined in the ruling. I mean, look, you had to know it was going to go this way. You had to. Just if you listened to the oral arguments that day, which I did, I listened to all of them because I'm kind of a Supreme Court nerd.

So I enjoyed what list. I love to watch them, but they don't allow cameras in the courtroom. So you have to listen to the oral arguments. But I mean, it was obvious. There were, there were a couple of major red flags for, for Colorado in this. And a couple of definite, definite, definite, definite, here, I love my love is there. definite, excuse me, signs that Trump was going to win. Trump was going to win this one in a big way.

First of all, let's think about, number one, what Justice Katanji Jackson said, all right? Justice Jackson came out and said that if there's any ambiguity, any ambiguity whatsoever, you should err on the side of democracy. That's what she said. She said you should err on the side of democracy. So that's what the court did. Because the question of whether or not Donald Trump would be excluded or any

any president under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, does it apply to presidents? And her point was, look, you know, it's not clear. I mean, you just admitted. And she questioned, she grilled one of the attorneys for Colorado in that. And they explained how it was presumed to be. And then they talked about how the conversation had come up when the amendment was first tested out. And she said, well, that proves my point. There's ambiguity here.

And if there's ambiguity, you got to go on the side of democracy. I remember the day that that case happened because I wound up playing clips from the lefty judges more than the conservative judges. I mean, and Justice Elena Kagan, too, was asking a lot of questions regarding this and how would this work and doesn't this disenfranchised people and why not leave it to the voters? And then what happens if you get into a situation where some states say that Trump is ineligible and other states say he is? And what if other states say this candidate is and another state says this candidate isn't? I mean, it could turn into an absolute circus, and they were right about that. I mean, they were right with that interpretation. The fact that it's unanimous, though, sends a clear and convincing statement across the country,

hey, listen, this has to stop, this nonsense, because you know they're trying this in Illinois, obviously Maine, and it's got to stop. Like, enough, it's over, it's done, move on from this. So the Supreme Court weighing in unanimously, you can't even have the usual talking heads. I mean, they'll try to come out and say, well, it's a conservative Supreme Court. But it's not. And Justice Barrett's concurrence saying, for present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity. It's a unanimous ruling.

And so while they may have had some different takes on this overall, the justices, the bottom line is it was a unanimous decision that they cannot keep Trump off the ballot. That's what's the key takeaway. The nine nothing ruling. overturning the Colorado Supreme Court decision, removing Trump from the state primary ballot. Remember, too, in that case with Colorado, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, there were three judges who dissented from that, three of the state justices. And they're all Democrats. I mean, the whole Colorado Supreme Court, they're Democrats.

But even there, it was a four, three decision with three dissents. And one of the more liberal justices on that court was the one who wrote the dissenting opinion. and the unanimous ruling holds that only Congress has the authority to restrict ballot access based on a candidate's alleged violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Quote, the case raises the question whether the states, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3. with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. That's a big deal. That's a big deal.

Because remember, they said in Colorado, well, it's self-enforcing Section 3. Like, you know it when it happens. You just know it. Because they said, well, how do you know if somebody's actually disqualified? I said, well, you just know. They said, well, that doesn't seem to make any sense. It's kind of like obscenity. You know, you know when you see it.

Well, how do you know what a candidate would be disqualified under Section 3 of the 4? the amendment. Well, you just know. It's just so obvious. What we saw on January 6th is just so obvious that for that reason that it's self-enforcing and the amendment is just, it automatically kicks in. Now, that's ridiculous, obviously. And if states were to be able to do that, then you'd have states disqualifying Joe Biden from being on the ballot. I mean, Texas has already said, why don't we disqualify Joe Biden because he's just allowing the border to be wide open? You know, he's allowing this invasion to occur. We could, we could say he's allowing an insurrection. He's giving aid in comfort to those who are committing an insurrection against the United States of America, and therefore we we hold it

to be self-evident that Texas can keep him off the ballot. You would have chaos is what you'd have. You'd have absolute chaos. And the other point, too, is that, you know, for all the talk that Donald Trump is trying to destroy democracy and Donald Trump is trying to be a tyrant and dictator and everything else, all these efforts by the Democrats to keep him off the ballot are truly what's disenfranchising voters. I mean, you had guys. guys like David Axelrod, who was Obama's guy, come out and say that. You had James Carver will come out and say that, too. It's like, all you're doing is just disenfranchising people and telling them that their votes don't count. You're disenfranchising millions of people. And people don't like that. Newsflash, they don't like to be disenfranchised. They like to be able to make decisions for themselves. I know. I know that's crazy, right, that people would like to make their own determinations. And for a couple of people in black robes to say to millions of people in Colorado, you can't choose the candidate you want. Well, that's not democracy. And for so often, we hear that too. We hear, don't we hear that? Democracy's dying, the death of democracy.

I love the Washington Post, too. They still have that democracy dies in darkness, is their slogan. Well, democracy also dies, even though we are a republic. But the concept of democracy dies if you don't let people vote for who they want to vote for. I mean, that's just kind of basic democracy 101 right there. In a democracy, you're supposed to be able to elect the person you want to elect. But I also knew that this case was doomed from the start for Colorado because their basis essentially was, well, we gave Donald Trump due process. I mean, he had the opportunity to weigh in on the state trial, and he never did. But you turn around to go, well, why does the state of Colorado, what gives them the right to try somebody for a federal crime that he was never even

charged with? And I remember it was Justice Neil Gorsuch who asked that question. You know, we have an insurrection clause. There might have been Kavanaugh. I forget one of them. And we have an insurrection statute. Trump was not charged with that, let alone convicted of that. So how does Colorado get the right to do that? And isn't it funny, too, as this is all playing out, we're being told simultaneously that Texas cannot enforce federal immigration law.

You know, that's up to the feds. But somehow the state of Colorado thought it could enforce a federal insurrection. law? How does that work? On the one hand, you've got federal judges telling Texas, you don't have the authority to be able to enforce federal immigration law. That's up to the feds. At the very same time, though, they're turning around and saying, well, some justices were, in Colorado at least, we can enforce federal insurrection law, even though it's a federal crime, even though there's been no charges around it, and even though there's been no conviction around it, we can enforce it and we can imply the penalty as well.

is crazy. Come on. And then the other point, and this is a part that scares me, though. What scares me about this is that Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, this guy is so hell-bent on getting Trump. I mean, he just wakes up every day and he dreams of it. He lives it. It's what he wants to do more than anything. It's very possible he may upgrade the charges against the former president with regards to January 6th and say that he gave aid in comfort to those committing an insurrection. meaning the proud boys who were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, which was a ridiculous over prosecution. They never committed seditious conspiracy.

Nobody was actually ever going to overthrow the United States government on January 6th. Nobody was ever going to do that. They were never going to achieve that. The best case scenario they may have achieved that day would have been a totally legal one under the Electoral Count Act, which was still the law of the land as of that day, in which case Congress would have sent the results back to the states. something that people like Jamie Raskin have tried to do on multiple occasions. I don't know if you know this or not, but they tried to reject the electoral results of George Bush in 2001, of George Bush in 2005, of Donald Trump in 2017.

Members of Congress using the Electoral Count Act to say, nope, this should go back to the states. And those claims were rejected by the Congress, but, I mean, it was within their legal right to do so. So I mean, Trump had every right to ask people to go lobby the Congress. Presidents do it all the time. I mean, Joe Biden's in the process of doing it right now with regards to the fake border bill, which is not about our border. It's about Ukraine's border, obviously. It's not getting our money over the border of Ukraine.

But Biden's out there all the time telling people, call Congress. I want Congress to do this. Presidents tell Congress what to do. They try to anyway all the time. When Biden gives his state of the union address coming up, if he's able to stay awake through it, he's going to tell Congress what he wants them to do. Nothing illegal about that.

There's something illegal about asking Congress what you want them to do. And there's nothing illegal about asking people to go and ask Congress what the president wants them to do. It's called the bully pulpit. It's the power of the bully pulpit. It's really one of the few powers the president actually has besides signing or vetoing legislation or, you know, ordering a military strike. beyond that the powers of the presidency are supposed to be pretty limited and the power of the bully pulpit is not actually a power it's obviously influence it's persuasion the president stands at the podium the bully pulpit was teddy roosevelt who really gave that that that that moniker to it

and lobbies and advocates a position completely legal completely constitutional totally within lines of the First Amendment, obviously, of the United States of America. So Trump didn't do anything wrong on January 6th. I mean, other people did things wrong on January 6, but he didn't do anything wrong. Telling people to fight like hell is not a, that's not illegal. You know, that's political speech. It's protected political rhetoric. And politicians use it all the time.

We're going to take back our country. You'll, you'll unleash the whirlwind. Remember when Chuck Schumer said that to the justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, He said, well, you've unleashed the whirlwind, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh. You're allowed to make claims like that in politics. There's nothing wrong with that. You can't make a specific thing like go kill that person, but you can certainly say we're going to fight like hell. Trump said, well, march to the Capitol peacefully.

He didn't have to say peacefully. You know, there's no asterisk in the First Amendment that says you've got to always use the word peacefully. Whenever you're giving a fiery political speech, you better remind people it's got to be peaceful. See, in this country, we, we understand that if people take actions on their own because they've been inspired by a politician and those actions that they take are illegal, well, that's on them. Then they've broken the law, not the politician who inspired them with their rhetoric, whether it's the whack job Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up Steve Scalice or it's people on January 6th. If you, if you decide you've heard something that makes you do something that is illegal, well, congratulations, that's on you. we don't we don't prosecute politicians for their rhetoric not in this country we don't that's what they're trying to do to trump but that's not what we do and then we certainly don't have a state

disqualify them from the ballot based on a federal insurrection charge that he was never charged with so now the only question is will jack smith up the ante will he come back and and add charges on to trump's already sitting indictment the guy's been indicted more times than like charles Manson, I think they said today was indicted 10 times. Trump's been indicted like 93. There's 93 counts or something. So I would not be surprised if they try to do more to try to get him. It may not work, but now they're trying to still get him. Don't forget on the classified documents thing, even though Biden, not him, but still trying to get Trump on that. All right, we got a lot to talk about. We'll hear what Trump is going to say live from Mar-a-Lago and Palm Beach, Florida, as he reacts to

the unanimous Supreme Court victory. It is the day in a show with me, Rich Zioly, for Dana. We'll be right back. Have you seen any of those viral videos, the ones that show aisles stacked with emergency food supplies and stores? It kind of makes you wonder. Like, what do they know that you don't? Well, you already know how I feel about being prepared myself. So why bother with the hassle of stores, which you know just mark up all their prices when you can order directly and save? With Wise Food Storage, your guaranteed access to delicious high quality food exactly when you need it the most. Visit Wisefoodstorage.com and enter code Dana in the search bar to unlock accessible. exclusive deals just for you, like their current offer.

The buy one, get one free on their 72-hour survival food kit. Not only that, but Wise Food Storage offers fast and free shipping on most orders. With their remarkable 25-year shelf life, these provisions will be ready for you whenever. The need should arise. So instead of endlessly stoomscrowling through all the videos, wondering what catastrophe could be next, take action and secure your food supply today at wisefoodstorage.com. Type Dana in the search bar for exclusive deals. That's wisefoodstorage.com and use code Dana. And now, all of the news you would probably miss.

It's time for Dana's Quick Five. And as we are still reviewing the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court, five other things to share with you. First of all, if you're in my neck of the woods, Philadelphia, South Jersey, the wildfire scent that you're smelling is not due to the massive Texas wildfires. There are people getting complaints in Philadelphia. They were saying, what's going on?

It stinks. but it's not because of the wildfires that are burning in Texas. It's actually because the state of New Jersey is doing controlled burns in several South Jersey counties. And so you're smelling that if you're in my region of the country. However, if you are in the Texas region, the wildfires are still burning in a big, big way. So we hope everybody is safe down there. Obviously, it's going to continue. And so is that monster blizzard, which battered Tahoe, mammoth, Sierra, and there's

avalanche warnings and it happened on Donner Pass, which of course, if you remember the famous Donner Party that was trapped in a snow blizzard and obviously one of the most historic moments ever. Sorry, lefties, but sex is binary, says a majority of scientists. So now it's science, you know, science. The difference between sex and gender, this topic now, but now they're saying sex is in fact binary. It just is. and all those of us with common sense, well, we've known that for a very, very long time, obviously.

A Wharton Professor sees $34 trillion debt triggering a 2025 meltdown as mortgage rate spike above 7% saying it could derail the next administration. The housing market is going to be a huge issue in the next election, mark my words. And finally, Oregon lawmakers are passing a bill to recriminalize drug possession. That's right. They've had such luck decriminalizing them that now they're saying, well, maybe we should, you know, make some of those, I don't know, what's the word for it again, illegal. It's a day to show. We get a lot to talk about. Big Breaking Newsday. Don't go away. Hi, I'm Erica, an English major at Hillsdale College. Here's Hillsdale President, Dr. Larry Arne, with the Constitution Minute.

The human soul is made to learn, and the highest things of life are the best things to learn. One of these, it turns out, is the one of the ones. we govern ourselves, and one of the best examples of that is the Constitution of the United States. It explains what our government should look like and how it should function to best protect our rights. It was created to give us the freedom to make choices about the way we wish to live. Unfortunately, most colleges and universities today fail to teach our Constitution. When they do, they often denigrate it. This is dangerous because it is impossible to preserve our liberty if we don't understand where it comes from and how to protect it. Having a proper civics is essential to preserving our freedom.

To learn more and get a free pocket constitution, visit constitutionminute.com. Don't believe the BS. What's next for the Biden propaganda machine? Bidenomics won over like a lead balloon. Ahead of Biden's state of the union address, he plans to address shrinkflation while blaming grocery store chains for gouging its customers.

Check out the watchdog on Wall Street podcast on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. for the drive-through version of the Dana Show? Check out the best highlights from every show and Dana's absurd truth podcast posted daily from the Dana Show. A unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court. Welcome back to the Dana show. It's me, Rich. Zioly in for Dana today. 9-0 ruling with a couple little twists and caveats. Obviously, as you can imagine, there's already outrage from a lot of people on the left. But let's think about what the court said today as it slapped down Colorado. And also, what is a Colorado Secretary of State, Jenna Griswold saying in response to this. Well, obviously, as you can

imagine, she's not happy, not happy at all. We are waiting Donald Trump to speak from Mara Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, his residence there. You've got the big gold crest in the background, all the flags. But it's a big deal. I mean, this ruling is a big deal. The fact that the lefty judges were all on board with this is a sign that you can't say this is the conservative court giving Donald Trump a pass. You can't say it's a conservative court overstepping democracy as unanimous ruling. There's a couple of things here that I want to want to mention. So before disqualifying someone under Section 3, the court observed there must be a determination that the provision actually applies to that person. So that's number one. How do you make the determination? Now, Colorado and Maine

had argued that, well, it's just, you just know it. You just know it when you see it. You just know it. It's just self-affecting. It's just there. Court disagreed. Court said there has to actually be a provision, a process by which we can determine that that actually applies to that person. You can't just say I saw something on television that day, and therefore we can disqualify somebody from being on the ballot. And they noted correctly, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives the power to make that determination to Congress by authorizing it to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment. Nothing in the 14th Amendment, the court stress, gives states the power to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office, nor was there any history of states doing so

in the years after the amendment was ratified. Number, section three is what's an issue here? That's the part of it that says, hey, if you've been involved in an insurrection, we can keep you off the ballot. You're ineligible for being in office. So the court's point is, hey, look, you've got to have a process here by which you make that determination. And that determination has to be made by Congress. It can't be left up to an individual state to make it because that would be madness and chaos. Moreover, the court added allowing states to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office,

could create a variety of problems. First, although Section 5 requires Congress to tailor any legislation that it enacts to implement Section 3 so that it specifically targets the conduct the section was adopted to prevent, states' efforts to enforce that provision would not face the same limitation. But the notion that the Constitution grants the state's free or reign than Congress to decide how that provision should be enforced with respect to federal federal. federal offices is simply implausible. You have 50 different states here with different political biases and priorities and

legislative bodies and it would just be a disaster. I mean, it could result in a scenario in which a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct and perhaps even the same factual record. And that could create a patchwork that could dramatically change the behavior of voting. voters, parties, and states across the country in different ways and at different times. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos. So the court is correct here in saying what would ensue would be sheer insanity and nothing less than insanity?

Because you'd have, you know, maybe 30 states have Trump on the ballot and 15 don't. And then, you know, the other the other 15 states decide that they're going to, put him on the ballot, but only like his first name, not his last name. I mean, stupidity would just ensue, ensue. So, no, you can't do it that way. Now, the court did not reach some of the other issues that Trump had urged them to decide in his brief, such as whether or not he had actually engaged in an insurrection on January the 6th. Now, to that end, Justice Amy Coney-Barratt penned a one-page opinion,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. In her view, the court's holding that states cannot enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates was sufficient to resolve the case. The court should not, she suggested, have weighed in on the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced. And in a relatively rare move, according to SCOTUS blog, she appeared to criticize the tone of the joint opinion filed by justices so to sonia sodomayor elana kagan and justice katanji brown jackson asserting that this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridentcy

the court has settled a politically charged issue in the volative season of a presidential election particularly in this circumstance writings on the court should turn the national temperature down not up so what is she referring to In a six-page joint opinion, the three lefty judges agreed with the result that the opinion of the court reached, that Colorado cannot disqualify Trump, but not its reasoning. The three justices acknowledge that permitting Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot would create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork. So they acknowledge that point. It would create that patchwork that would happen. Here, let's take a listen to what Donald Trump is saying live from Marlago.

Go ahead. in Colorado because people thought people in Colorado thought that was a terrible thing that they did and while we're on the subject and another thing that will be coming up very soon will be immunity for a president and not immunity for me but for any president if a president doesn't have full immunity you really don't have a president because nobody that is serving in that office will have the courage to make in many cases what would be the right decision or it could be the wrong decision It could be in some cases the wrong decision, but they have to make decisions and they have to make them free of all terror that can be reigned upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office.

And some decisions are very tough. I can tell you that as a president that some decisions to make are very tough. I took out ISIS and I took out some very big people from the standpoint of a different part of the world, two of the leading people. two of the leading terrorists, probably the two leading terrors ever that we've ever seen in this world. And those are big decisions. I don't want to be prosecuted for it. Another president wouldn't want to be prosecuted for it. It had a tremendously positive impact. It stopped everything called. And sometimes you have to make it. They were tough decisions. Sometimes you have to make decisions like that.

When you make a decision, you don't want to have your opposing party or opponent or, or even somebody that just thinks you're wrong, bring a criminal suit against you or any kind of a suit when you leave office. I have that right now at a level that nobody's ever seen before. I have rogue prosecutors, and I have rogue judges. I have judges that are out of control. And it's a very unfair thing for me,

but serving perhaps as a sample to others of what should not be happening. When you make good decisions, and in my case, the economy was great, We didn't go into any wars. We totally defeated ISIS. We provided the largest tax cuts in history. We provided the largest regulation cuts in history.

But think of it, no wars. We beat ISIS 100% of the Caliphate. And there were no wars. We did a job that was great, but maybe I wouldn't have done that. The Caliphate defeating them was very powerful. It was going to take four years. It took me four months. But it was a very strong dictum that I gave.

I said, get them, defeat him, end it. We were fighting for 20 years against ISIS, and we did it very quickly. I don't want to be prosecuted, in that case it worked out very well. There will be some things that perhaps don't work out so well, but I don't want to be prosecuted, because I decided to do something

that is very much for the good of the country and actually for the good of the world. The president shouldn't have that on his mind, and he has to have a free and clear mind when he makes very big decisions. Or it's going to be nothing more than a ceremonial post. You'll be president. It'll be a wonderful thing, and you won't do anything because you don't want to be hit by your opponent or hit by somebody else. Because who wants to leave office and go through what I've gone through? I'm being prosecuted by Biden, my opponent.

Because every one of these things, whether it's Fannie Willis or Bragg, these are local and state, but they're in total coordination with the White House. You can't do that. It shouldn't be done. I mean, a thing like that, in the case of the DA's office, they put one of the top people, maybe the second person, in the Manhattan DA's office to get Trump. They had a Hillary Clinton lawyer leave the law firm, very prestigious. big law firm, leave the law firm to go into the DA's office to get Trump, Pomerance.

It's the Pomerance. So he goes in to become a prosecutor, worked for the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, goes into prosecute Donald Trump at a local level in total coordination with the Department of Justice, meaning Biden. And then you have the Fannie Willis, or as she would say Fawnie, Fonnie, Fonnie, Fannie and I, but Fani. And she hired somebody, knew the person long before this horrible prosecution took place. And she went out and she paid him an unbelievable amount of money, more money than he ever had dreamt possible, much more money than other people that do that for a living.

He never did it at all, had no experience in it at all. And they had obviously a conflict. We don't have to go into that. but they were able to get a lot of money because it was a high profile person. Me, I'm a very high profile person. So they were able to pay him close to a million dollars when he was not equipped to do the job. And she's not equipped to do the job. And that case should end immediately.

That case is so conflicted, nobody's ever seen anything like it. And then you have deranged Jack Smith, who's a trumpeter and represents all the Trump haters. And he's going wild. He's just a wild man. He's been overturned unanimously by the support. Supreme Court went after other people over the years. He's had great failure, but he's mean, he's nasty, is unfair. And the judges on these cases, they're all Trump haters,

other than we have maybe one or two that I think can be fair. But you look at New York what's happened. I mean, these people have tremendous hatred. You can't do this to a president. And again, I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about in the future. A president has to be free. A president has to be, if the president

president does a good job. I did. Some people would say a great job. But if the president does a good job, a president should be free and clear and frankly celebrated for having done a good job, not indicted four times and not gone after on a civil basis and not demanded to be to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines on something that was absolutely perfect where there were no victims where the financial statements were absolutely flawless, where you have disclaimer clauses. I mean, nobody's ever had a thing like this. I wasn't given a jury. And I had a clubhouse judge just come up with this number on a perfect loan and very conservative financial statements. But even at that, if you look, the disclaimer says don't rely on the financial statements in any

way, shape, or form. Go out and do your own work. The banking question had the most sophisticated lawyers in the world, frankly, a very top, one of the top law firms anywhere in the country. And they can defend themselves what guys like Bragg and Letitia James and Fawney and deranged Jack Smith, what they should be doing is fighting violent crime. And that would lead me to the end. I will say that President Biden, number one, stop weaponization. fight your fight yourself. Don't use prosecutors and judges to go after your opponent,

to try and damage your opponent so you can win an election. Our country is much bigger than that. The other thing I say to President Biden, close the borders now. This is not sustainable for our country. It's not sustainable for our cities. Our country is under siege. This is a violent,

violent thing that you've done. And many people are dying. Many, many people are dying. They die on the trip up. They die going through the border. And they die in our country. But many of the people coming up are from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. All right. We're going to take a break here on the day of show. But that's Donald Trump. Obviously, very happy with the ruling by the court. But he still has a lot of legal challenges to go as you can imagine. All right, quick break coming right back. I'm a Dana show. Don't go away. All right, folks. So new sponsors over at Fast Growing Trees, the biggest online nursery in the United States. And they have more than 10,000 different kinds of plants and over two million happy

customers in the United States. Get lemon, avocado, olive, fig trees. You can have all of these at your home on top of the wide variety of house plants that they have available. And fast growing trees makes it really easy to order online and your plants are shipped directly to your door in just one to two days and along with their 30 day alive and thrive guarantee they also offer free plant consultation if you are not like me i have a green thumb but if you're not like me then you can always ask them questions about whatever it is that you need any trees any plants they make it really easy and so you don't have to like drive around and look at different nurseries you can take advantage of their consultation and then you can get your stuff in just one to two

days. So right now they have the best deals online up to half off on select plants. And plus, when you use Code Dana at checkout, you're going to save an additional 15%. So go to fastgrowingtrees.com and be sure to use code Dana at checkout for an additional 15% off. That's fastgrowingtrees.com code D-A-N-A. Offer is valid for limited time. So tell them we sent you. Follow Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, because knowledge is your ultimate superpower. And you know, when Trump was speaking, he also brought up the presidential immunity case. I'll talk a little bit more about that in the next hour with you here on the Dana show. But he's right. I mean, presidents need to be able to do their job without fear of being criminally

prosecuted when they leave office. It would also open up another just disastrous can of worms. But on that one, though, there are some conservative pundits who think the court is going to uphold the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion that Trump does not in. enjoy immunity for January 6th. I disagree. I'll give you my thoughts on that. But Jack Smith, the special counsel, is trying to push for a July trial date for all of this stuff. July trial date, at least for the classified documents portion of things. Now, that would upend the presidential election in a big way. It would also violate the Department of Justice's own guidelines on when you can bring a trial, close to an election. It would violate the DOJ.

own guidelines, but they don't care about that, obviously. And even if they were to kick the, the trials till after Trump is out of office, say, you know, they kick it until after he gets elected, and then they wait until he leaves office because you can't try a sitting president. What will happen is the dangerous effect of that is that you're going to have people questioning the legitimacy of Trump's election by saying, well, they should have, they should have disqualified him, and they should have allowed the trials to go forward. in which case that he wouldn't have been elected. So you see, either way, what Jack Smith, the special counsel is doing here is he's setting up the country to turn around and say, if Trump wins, he's an illegitimate president.

But have the trials been allowed to move forward, it would have been a different outcome. Therefore, he's illegitimate and just sowing the seeds of absolute, the usual kind of chaos that you'd imagine and disunity in this country. But that's what the special counsel, Jack Smith, wants to do. I mean, he's not looking to bring America together. he's looking to destroy Donald Trump. And meanwhile, the border is wide open. The invasion continues. The latest on that.

Second hour of the Danish show, straight ahead. Our friends at Caltech, the sub 2K. Before you go, I've heard about the sub 2K. No, you don't. You don't have the Gen 3 version. I promise you, you don't. You got what I do. It's like when you take up, when you fold up your gun,

your 9mm carbine, you've got to take all your optics off and everything else. You don't have to do that with the Gen 3. it's like magic you bippity bobbity boo the thing in half and it folds up in half and just as quickly and easily deploys as well simple twist and fold motion of the patent pending for rotating fore end in either direction folds it up nice and neat but that was just one of the upgrades they've made to this they have the upgraded aluminum trigger they redesigned the mechanics you've got a light and five pound pool and that provides more precise feedback improved accuracy and follow up it's nice upgraded action redesigned operating handle for added comfort lightened action so you can rack it easy, ambidextrous bolt hold open. You got a new chamber indicator, all kinds of stuff from KELTEC, the Made in America Family Own Company that you know and love. You can learn more about the sub 2K, Gen 3 at Reed Sub 2,000 at Keltakweapons.com. That's KELTEC Weapons.com.

Tell them Dana sent you. You don't do more forces on the border. That's Biden saying he doesn't have the authority he needs to do anything on the board. border, which of course is a gigantic lie. Welcome back to the Dana show. It's me, Rich Zioly, in for data. Thank you for being here today. I broadcast from WPHD in Philadelphia, one of Dana's affiliates, or I do the afternoon drive show from 3 to 7 p.m. every day. Speaking of the border, and appeals court has reversed the order blocking Texas from enforcing their immigration law, which of course now sets up a Supreme Court showdown. But the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals late Saturday reversed a lower court's ruling that halted a new state law, which you're familiar with, of course. I know Jane has talked a lot about it, allowing Texas police to arrest people suspected of crossing the Texas-Mexico border illegally. The New Orleans-based appeals court immediately paused its order for seven days to give the federal government time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the higher court doesn't intervene, the new law could go into effect on Saturday as the legal battle continues. Now, the question, of course, is, will the Supreme Court intervene? My sense of it is, is they probably will, and I think the reason why is because of that ruling on Arizona years ago, which said states can enforce federal immigration

law. But of course, this particular law that we're talking about here is I think Texas is not saying that they're going to enforce federal immigration law. What they're saying, though, is that Texas is going to enforce the laws within its own states and within its state. And doesn't a state have the right to do that. I mean, if a state has powers under the Constitution, which it does, to protect itself from an invasion, if the federal government does not, then isn't the state doing that? Isn't the state just doing what it is entitled to do under the United States Constitution? Governor Greg Abbott noted, of course, Texas's attempt to deter people from crossing the Rio Grande, and it makes illegally crossing the border a Class B misdemeanor, carrying a punishment,

of up to six months in jail. It requires state judges to order migrants return to Mexico if they're convicted. Local law enforcement would be responsible for transporting migrants to the border. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico voluntarily. Now, to argue that Texas is enforcing immigration law, I think would be saying if Texas was handing out green cards or something like that, or if Texas was deciding on work permits on the federal level or something. That might be, you could argue that they were trying to enforce federal immigration law. What this is doing is this is just Texas protecting Texas from an invasion that's occurring. And the governor's done a great job. I mean, a great job of laying that all out.

How Texas is empowered under the United States Constitution and how if the federal government is not doing the job that it needs to do, then the state has the right to do so. The state has the right to do what it needs to do to protect itself. And I'm glad that at least, for now the law is allowed to go into place. Will the Supreme Court weigh in? Most likely, I would imagine so, and we'll see how they rule on that. But I think, like I said, I think the governor's done a very good job of making the case. Look, what are we supposed to do?

I mean, the Constitution's clear. We've got the power to deal with an invasion if the federal government won't. So what are we supposed to do? I mean, just sit back and take it? No. Why would we? If the power's there, look at the Constitution. Look at the text of the Constitution.

look at the text of Article 1 and it's very it's right there boom it's there you know the constitution was not meant when the states decided to create the federal government and not the other way around the states did so but they didn't decide that they were going to just turn around and let the federal government be able to ensure their own safety and security or the safety and security of their people the federal government has a part to play in that but the states weren't stupid enough to turn around and say hey well listen you know if the federal government's not doing that, then we're, you know, we're just sitting ducks here and that's okay. No, and that's why states have militias and it's also why states have the ability to call up those militias. And it's also why

we, the people, are the militia under Article of the Second, under the Second Amendment. And that we are, we are the militia, which is why we are allowed as per what's enshrined in the Constitution, of course, by our God-given creator, of course, to be able to be armed. We are the militia. We make the militia. We create the militia. We create. created. We are the militia. And so a state shouldn't just have to sit back and take it if the federal government's not doing its job to actually enforce what is a role that it does play in ensuring the safety and security of the United States of America. And the states have a role to play in that too. And that's very obvious here based on what the governor has outlined and Abbott's done a great job

with that. The other issue, of course, the Supreme Court's going to have to make a determination on is whether or not presidents have immunity, criminal immunity from what they do while in office. So obviously, if you're just joining the show, the big news of the day today is that the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that Colorado cannot keep Trump off the ballot. Now, it's a little nuanced in the ruling, and I can get into that in more details as the show goes on here. There was a concurrent opinion by the three lefty judges, and then another concurring opinion by Amy Coney-Barrett. But the court was unanimous in saying Colorado can't do it. They just had different reasons for why Colorado can't do it. And one of them, of course, is the question of whether or not a state can determine a president has

committed an insurrection or not. So I'll get into that. But let's talk about what Trump was just mentioning with Marlauga. We're talking about the immunity claims. So now you have a president of the United States who leaves office and you have the new guy comes in there and hates the old guy. You know, hates the former president, beats him an election, wants to. to really, really go after him. And his United States Attorney General, or one of the various United States Attorneys General for the District of whatever, you know, the U.S. attorney for D.C., decides he's going to charge the former president with a crime. And he may not think he's going to get a conviction, but what the heck? I mean, this is a career maker here. He gets to do

the press conference. You get to have the former president arrested, fingerprint, do the perp walk, maybe. and all you got to do is get a grand jury to indict and that's not hard to do as you know grand jury can indict a ham sandwich as the old saying goes from this it's a it's a cliche but it's a cliche because it's a true cliche i mean cliches are true it's why they're cliches you know so yeah a grand jury can indict him especially in dc take trump's case for example trump lost the dc primary the jury pool that will be created are not going to be very isn't not going to be a bunch of mega people on that jury so he's got to deal with that. But again, the case I keep coming back to is when Barack Obama ordered the death of American citizens with drone strikes during the war on terror. His argument was,

in the case of Anwar Al-Alochi, hey, look, he's not a U.S. citizen because he's decided to side with ISIS, therefore I can kill him. All right, well, that's an opinion. I mean, it's not a, not necessarily an agreed upon fact. Congress didn't pass a law saying that, and you didn't have a trial in absentia. So, I mean, you can make the argument that you have the right to kill the guy, but somebody else can make the argument that it was murder. You murder the guy. You know, you said he's a terrorist, but you didn't prove it. And the Fifth Amendment requires that before you take somebody's life, liberty, or property, you have to actually have due process. So you can't just whack the guy.

This isn't the mafia here. Don't get to just whack him. Got to have due process. So now, I'm a budding United States attorney for the District of Columbia or whatever state. I could argue that murder has, first of all, murder has no statute of limitations. I could argue that the actions of the president, even though that person didn't live in my state, still affected all the residents of my state because it's a chilling precedent when a president can kill an American citizen. So I charge him with murder. And I charge Barack Obama with the crime of murder and I have him arrested.

The FBI comes to his house and, you know, puts him in chains and perp walks him. like they did to Mark Halk. Mark Halk's a guy in Pennsylvania, and they literally put him in chains. I mean, they had the whole, the whole deal, you know, for the photo op, chained his feet, chained his hands, all for the photo op. What was his big crime? Well, the jury acquitted him, but the crime that the government alleged was that he physically encountered a protester at an abortion clinic. And for that reason, then he committed assault and got to throw the book at him. So they raided his house early in a Sunday morning. So you take the former. president of the United States, you make them, you perp walk them, orange jumpsuit,

you chain his feet, chain his hands, the whole deal, fingerprints, mugshot, a whole kitten caboodle. Whether I get a conviction or not, the old saying is the process is the punishment. And a lot of these prosecutors love to do it. Like I remember when Chris Christie was, was the United States Attorney for New Jersey. He actually did this to a guy named Charles Kushner. Put him in chains and had him do the perp walk. He was a big Democratic. donor back in the day, Jared Kushner's father, actually. And they did the whole thing. I mean, the whole thing for the cameras, you know.

Big press conference. These guys use these moments in their prosecutorial life to launch campaigns for governor, U.S. Senate, the presidency. And, I mean, to get a former president on criminal charges, now that is the big fish. You know, that's the big get. That's the one you put on the mantle. Am I right? I mean, that's the one on the mantle right there. So you would open that up to where every former president would be subject to the intense scrutiny of the Department of Justice of their political enemy.

And there's an old saying, you know, if the government wants to get you, the government can find something to get you. And I mean, if the president made any issues with his taxes, well, he was president. you know, any deductions that he shouldn't have taken or anything like that? Well, you know, charge the guy. What the heck? And do the whole thing, criminally charge him. All you got to do is just allow that to be the norm. And then somebody's going to indict Joe Biden.

Somebody's going to try to get a conviction against Joe Biden for allowing the invasion of the United States of America to occur. Dereliction of duty. Say he added and he aided and abetted, gave aid in comfort to criminal gangs. MS-13, drug cartels. Lake and Riley's killer, you know, by not deporting him. And then you just get an arrest. That's all you need to become a hero. You just have to get the arrest.

I don't have to get the conviction. The conviction is, that's, you know, because convictions even get overturned, you know. So the United States Supreme Court needs to jump in right away here and say that, no, you can't charge former presidents criminally. We already know that we can't go after former presidents civilly, that was decided in a case involving Richard Nixon. And a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said, no, you can't, you can't go after presidents civilly for their actions as president. That would be

insane. Well, same thing with you can't go after former presidents for their actions criminally. And how do you determine what is a presidential action and what isn't? You're always president. Even when you take a day off like Biden does every day, basically, you're still president. You still have all the powers of the presidency. You still have the national commander. authority. So does the Supreme Court want to weigh in on that too and say, well, we consider this to be official presidential conduct and this to be private conduct? No, it doesn't. All the Supreme Court of the United States has to do is turn around and say, there is a remedy to deal with presidents who break the law. It's called the impeachment clause. And in Trump's case, with regards to January 6th,

they already had that case. I mean, they impeached him in the House, and then they tried him in the Senate and he was acquitted. So although it doesn't violate double jeopardy in the classic legal sense, it certainly impugns double jeopardy, it certainly is a rejection of the concept of double jeopardy to say that we can now go after a president criminally, even though he was tried in Congress. But you already have a remedy for dealing with presidents who break the law. And the question becomes, well, then what happens if the information comes to light after the president's already left office that he broke the law? Well, tough noggies. I mean, you know, that's just the way it goes. Tough nogies. It's the

tough noggies clause of the Constitution. You had a chance to get them. You didn't get them. Too bad. Congress has the impeachment power, period. The courts do not. And the court, it's not on the courts to turn around and say that we can now apply criminal laws to the presidency because that would also be a violation of the separation of powers. All right. More to come here on the Dana show with me, Rich Zioly, in for Dana. We're just getting warmed up. Don't go away. metals. The gold IRA field can kind of seem really overwhelming and confusing. And finding a company that you can trust and understand isn't an easy task. You need to turn to the folks at Goldco because adding gold and silver as a hedge against inflation is always a good idea. They have a free

2024 gold kit and you can learn how to possibly get $10,000 in bonus silver. One of their, one of their unique qualities is their education first position and the thoroughness of the information. that they provide. They have this one-of-a-kind gold IRA kit for individual buyers. And it explains the economy and how gold IRAs work. They want to make it easy for you to get the benefit of owning physical gold or silver. They have great zero complaint record, unmatched customer service. And this is, they understand, this is an important part of your overall retirement and savings, and they want to help you. No pressure, and you can ask about their highest buyback guarantee. Protect your family's financial future and freedom and get started today at Dana likesgold.com. Get your free gold kit from Goldco,

and learn how to get $10,000 in bonus silver. Dana likes gold.com. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five. Well, a father has been charged with DUI after two children were rescued from frigid water in New Hampshire. He was canoeing with his young kids, and the canoe capsized and the kids were dumped into the water.

Thank God the kids are okay. But the father was charged with DUI, tipsy canoeing is actually a thing uh do i have a vessel and other charges are expected as well probably child neglect but thank god the children were okay um at least as of this writing so you know let's hope that stays that way uh a restaurant gets revenge on an angry influencer who said she deserved to eat for free these people are annoying aren't they everybody's an influencer today just have to just be an influencer i influence people on angry instagram influencer claimed she could eat where she wanted for free and call the restaurant owner arrogant

after being told she had to pay for her meal. This is a scam, of course, to get free food. It was at a sushi place in Manchester. And the restaurant gave it right back, right back to her. Personally, I think you're being out of order. How dare you try and expose us like that? So you think people like us don't deserve to eat for free? That's what the influencer asked. And the restaurant says, we're truly sorry for attempting to uncover your behind-the-scenes tactics. And as you know, we're so sorry for trying to make a living. And people did not like the fact that the influencer was trying to scam free food. As Chevy Camero theft skyrocket more than a thousand percent in Los Angeles,

police unlock a secret of car thieves. Apparently, there is a way, I guess, to particularly steal this particular kind of car, something with the key fob, by unlocking Camaro's and bypassing the vehicle's existing security system. It'll be interesting to see whether or not the state tries to make Chevy responsible for this, because that's what they did in New Jersey, by writing to the automakers of hundas and Kia's and saying, hey, we're going to blame you the victim. You've got to do more to make your cars harder to steal. They actually did that.

A main man has been indicted for lacing ice cream with THC at a New Hampshire cafe. Indicted for that, it sounds like he was doing people a favor, right, as he gave them free cannabis. Plus is New Hampshire. I mean, live free or die, they probably loved it. And finally, a school district, Deer Creek, they're responding after a viral video showing students licking toes. Disgusting the tactics they'll think of in schools. All right, it's a data show. More to come.

Don't go away. Patriot Mobile. The only Christian conservative cell phone service in the country, and Patriot Mobile wants to make sure that in this Biden economy, you can still afford to stay in touch with those you love. And also, you know, be active online and get the news and all of that. For 10 years, they've been the only Christian conservative provider. They have a plan for you, no matter of the size of your family, or whether it's your business. Maybe your business wants to switch over and have a new network and provider. That's what Patriot Mobile does.

And they offer dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks, so you get the best service in your area without funding the left. Free activation using Code Dana. And you're supporting U.S.-based jobs because that's 100% their team. And they make switching easy. Keep your phone, keep your number, upgrade the choice is entirely yours. Visit patreonmobile.com slash Dana or call 972 Patriot and use promo code Dana to get free activation. Make the switch today.

Patriotmobile.com slash Dana 972, Patriot. Elevate your commute, workouts, or downtime with the Dana Show podcast. Unleash the power of knowledge at your fingertips by following Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. The right to vote is still under attack. And that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. That is why one of the first things I did when I came into office was to double the size of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. That is why we are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot,

including those related to mail-in voting, the use of dropboxes and voter ID requirements. That is why we are working to block the adoption of discriminatory redistricting plans that dilute the vote of black voters and other voters of color. So you see, voter ID is racist and it's got to be something stopped. Also things like, you know, postmarks on ballots. That's also discriminatory. Why should you have to put a postmark on your mail-in ballot when you mail it in and prove that it was actually mailed? Welcome back to the Dana show. Glad you're here to be Rich Zioly in for Dana today. There's actually a case going through the courts involving Pennsylvania and whether or not ballots have to be postmarked properly and dated properly.

In the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court said, we really don't care that the law says the time, matter, and place of the election is decided by the legislature. And we don't care that the legislature requires ballots to have postmarks and that they have to be legible and they have to be postmarked prior to the election. election. We'll override all those things and we'll let all these ballots count. Part of the reason why people don't trust the process anymore. And there you have the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick-Arland, saying voter ID requirements are discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary. What about all the other things you need an ID for? Are they also discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary? What about all the other things you need postmarks for? I mean, if you send in your taxes is late. And it's not postmarked by the 15th or 16th or whatever the day is. The IRS will assess

fines and consider your taxes to be late. That postmark is not on tax day. Just saying, it's technically late. They get it a few days later, but the postmark is not on the 15th, or whatever the date is this year. It was change it. It's like depending on that Monday, right? It's considered late. Well, isn't that burdensome? Isn't that unnecessary? Isn't that discriminatory? I'm always late when I mail things out. You're discriminating against me. But this is the efforts by Democrats going into 2024

to try to make sure that they can sow as much chaos as possible because they know that they can use mail-in ballots and drop boxes to cheat. I mean, we've seen the evidence. Remember the one video of that woman who was, she was the secretary of the county, he was a county clerk. She was stuffing the ballot box, and she was caught on camera. stuffing the ballot boxes that her office is in charge of.

And the only reason why we knew about it was because there was a whistleblower in the office who blew the whistle on it. Because there were her cameras right over the drop boxes to monitor them to make sure people don't cheat. And there's the clerk stuffing the ballot box. So, of course, all these things are rife for chaos and rife for cheating. And the Democrats want to do everything they possibly can to make sure that they're able to cheat if necessary. part of that is the requirement that a ballot has to be dated as the old thing you know how many ballots you need uh we're about 115 shy and then all of a sudden 125 ballots just magically appear in order to make sure that doesn't happen you make sure that the mail and ballots were actually

mailed in prior to election day and not just dropped off after the fact because you need the extra votes this is why people don't believe the process is legit this is why people have their confidence in elections undermined. But they're going to try. They're going to keep trying. And I have no doubts that something is coming involving a reason to have people do more mail and balloting. And Republicans need to embrace it. They do. Republicans need to embrace mail and balloting and drop boxes. I don't like it. You don't like it. We don't like it. But it's a huge advantage of the Democrats are seizing the opportunity. And Republicans are far too often just letting it play out an election day. And the problem is that if the Democrats have such a head start

doing the early voting, the early in-person voting, the drop boxes, the mail and ballots, if they have such a head start doing all those things, well, then they're going to, they're going to be able to do what they have to do to be able to pull this off. And even if that involves cheating, they'll do it. But also, Republicans are leaving it up the chance that everything is going to work out just fine in election day. You don't want to be in that position. You're driving home and something goes, wrong, you get a flat tire, meeting goes late, kids are sick, can't go out and vote, all those things. So you wind up having your vote not count. And the truth is, I can't go to my polling

place and get there at 805 and say, well, listen, I hit a red light. And there was traffic. And you're disenfranchising me if you don't allow me to vote now. I can't do that. But if my mail-in ballot is received after election day without a postmark on it, the Democrats are arguing that that ballot should still be counted. I mean, why? If you didn't do it right, if you didn't fill it out right, you're an idiot. It's not that hard. You got to sign and date it and then mail it back.

You can't do those simple things. I don't want your vote counting because you're an idiot. You're probably voting for an idiot person because you can't read simple instructions. Hunter Biden As you know The Hunter Biden issue is not going away for Joe Biden It's a real problem for him The question of whether or not

The President of the United States of America is corrupt Is weighing on people's minds heavily But it's not just that It's all of the things That's just one piece of it People are looking at Biden right now Through the lens of an old guy who can't stand trial for the classified documents thing because a jury would just say,

oh, he's elderly and forgetful and just the kindhearted old man. They're looking at him through the lens of the special counsel turning around and saying, Biden can't stand trial. His memory is too bad. And you know the special counsel is covering for Biden with that statement. I mean, he wants everybody to focus on that and not focus on what he really found, which is that Joe Biden had classified documents in his possession. the same time that Hunter Biden was doing all the work with Ukraine.

And Hunter was coming up with charming missives about Ukrainian national security and the threat the Russians pose and Ukrainian energy. At the same time, the guy was high as a kite on crack and having orgies with Russian prostitutes. So the point is that Hunter could not have come up with those things on his own. He's an idiot. He was a crack idiot's son. So he was getting the information from somewhere. And it's logical to conclude that that that information was given to the vice president of the United States of America in preparation for his meeting with the Ukrainian prime minister.

And those documents were classified and Hunter had access to them in order to help look good for his client, Burisma. And then, of course, we now know that Joe Biden was, of course, the big guy. So all this is happening in the context of the American people turning around and saying, you know, I don't really think this guy is doing a great job. job. And it's one thing if everybody's getting, getting rich. And they think politicians are corrupt. They turn around. They go, well, you know, I mean, they're all corrupt. The economy's great. People are struggling. And when people are struggling and they see the corruption of politicians, it particularly irks them. You and I are struggling, but these guys are getting rich off of us. No, no, no, no, no. So what do we learn from the Biden family depositions?

Wall Street Journal had a great piece on this. How's Republicans have a least transcripts of their depositions with Hunter and James Biden, and we've read them, so you don't have to trust what other papers don't want to report. Far from Democratic claims that they show nothing wrong. The testimony confirms the story of political influence peddling and family profiteering. Even if he didn't get a dime himself, Joe Biden willingly assisted his son Hunter and his brother James in schemes to cash in on the Biden family name. Under hours of questioning, Hunter and James acknowledge unsavory facts revealed by prior witnesses. Hunter finally admitted that former partner James Gilear was indeed referring to Joe when he envisioned an equity partnership that included 10% held by H for the big guy. The big guy is Joe Biden.

That was part of the 2017 deal of the Chinese energy company, CEFC. This is notable after years of Democratic claims that the laptop in which the email was found was Russian disinformation. I remember those days, the good old days of Russian disinformation, the Hunter Biden laptop story. New York Post publishes this in-depth reporting on this laptop that the idiot crackhead son left at a repair shop in Delaware, a repair shop owned by John Paul Mack Isaac. And big tech, social media and the government, the unholy trekked, riot did their thing, they all colluded together, to tell you that it was Russian disinformation. Fifty former national security hacks all came out to say this has all the earmarks of Russian

disinformation. And we know the CIA started the whole thing. We know that Big Tech was more than happy to suspend the New York Times, New York Post account, not let you share the story with your friends. We know that the corporate media ran in, didn't come to the defense of the New York Post or their reporting, but mocked the New York Post. accused the New York Post of peddling Russian disinformation. This was October of 2020. This was right before the election. They had to do everything to cover this up.

Why? Because the laptop showed a whole lot more than just nude pics of Hunter. The laptop confirmed that Joe Biden was in on it. And at the time, they wanted everybody to believe that Joe is just a kind old man in the basement, trying to keep you and your family safe from COVID and mean tweets. He wasn't a corrupt D.C. swan. Hunter also confirmed former business partner Tony Bobbalinski's testimony of a meeting that same year in Los Angeles with Hunter, James, Tony, and Joe in the midst of the Chinese energy deal-making

talks. He didn't contest former partner Rob Walker's testimony that Hunter introduced Joe to the Chinese energy chairman at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York. He conceded that former business partner Devin Archer's testimony that Joe showed up. at business dinners that Hunter hosted in Washington's elite cafe Milano with Kazakhstan and Russian oligarchs and that he put his father on speakerphone during other meetings. Several witnesses have explained Hunter's role as selling the Biden family brand, that is, his father's influence in Washington. Devin Archer, who sat on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, told the committee, committee quote barisma would have gone out of business if it didn't have the brand attached to it

the brand being the biden's mr bobolinsky said hunter speakerphone calls were engineered so joe could impress would-be clients enabling the transaction a recent political piece about james biden's ill-ventured ill-fated venture with a hospital operate excuse me sort that again his ill-fated venture with a hospital operator cited executives who said James invoked Joe while wooing potential business partners. Well, of course he did. My brother's the vice president. My brother's a very powerful man. And my brother's president. I mean, all these things going on for years with the Biden crime family. Yet, even as the duo confirmed all this, they want the public to believe that testimony by the same witnesses about influence peddling. Is this a

honest. Hunter said his father's calls were merely, you know, bonding moments. That's all. They were coincidental. They're just bonding moments. I mean, doesn't everyone put their dad on speakerphone during business meetings? He said the big guy email from his partner, Gilear, was pie in the sky dreams of working with a former vice president, and then Hunter shut it down. He explained that Joe sojourning over to Cafe Milano to say hi and order spaghetti. was different than Joe coming for dinner. I just happened to walk in. Oh, hey, there's my son Hunter and a bunch of prominent Chinese energy people.

By the way, you're not getting spaghetti at Cafe Milano. Come on. Maybe caught you a pepe, but not just spaghetti. James claimed not to recall his specific interactions with Tony Bubbolinsky during the Chinese energy deal, even as he insisted that Mr. Bubblinsky never met Joe, a claim contradicted by Hunter. Hunter blamed his faulty memory and his behavior on being out of his mind on drugs and alcohol, yet he suggests his substance abuse never caused him to cross ethical lines when it came to his father.

And Joe's involvement with Chinese energy and the big guy email occurred shortly after he left the vice presidency, suggesting that Joe thought his political career might be over and was out to make money. But what about 2020? You see, it was obvious that Joe was looking to run for president in 2020. Finally, the interviews verified that Hunter and James made a bundle from their overseas work, though both struggled to describe what they provided in return to their clients. They failed to provide compelling explanations for their financial accounts, which often involved odd payments, wires, business entities, LLCs, and whatnot.

The committee has found more than $20 million from foreign sources, that went to Hunter, James, and his business associates. Amazing stuff and good money if you can get it. This is the day and a show. We'll be right back. It's his life mission to make bad decisions. It's time for Florida man. Well, I tell you, you got to stay away from cocaine sharks.

You know that, right? Cocaine sharks, it's a real thing. It's true. It's a real thing. There was a story from scientific. American about this, that there are cocaine sharks scarfing down drugs off Florida coast. Because people truck drugs overboard when they think they're going to be seized by the Coast Guard or the Navy or something.

So they have massive doses of cocaine. And there's a reality show about this now, too. But if you don't have the ability to get a cocaine shark, you can do what this guy does. This Florida man, known as Hood Fishing Entertainment on social media, documented himself carrying a large shark as if he had just caught a catfish. he walks around with a gigantic shark and in the video the man proceeds to hold the large fish by the tail and take it for a modest walk in the shallow end of the beach

all while sporting a wide grin and acting seemingly unconcerned about the fact that he was handling an actual live shark but this guy seems very very confident that he's holding a shark he doesn't seem at all concerned But this Florida man should just be careful because if that shark is high in cocaine, I'm just saying. You know, there was White House cocaine dogs. Those are the commander and major. They got, I think, whoever's cocaine was at the White House.

We don't know whose. We could guess. But the sharks are, I mean, if you're a drug dealer and you've got to throw cocaine overboard and there's a shark there, sharks can eat anything. You saw Jaws, you know this, they just swim around. They eat anything. their mouse wide open tires and cocaine whatever it is but this guy doesn't mind holding a shark this car your call your county man though in florida this guy crashed into a canal i know all these people being dumb on the water right uh high on drugs high on booze high on something or other

had a police chase with the police boats while ride and ultimately then he crashed into a canal and swam made a run for it. He kind of was like a triathlon here. He swam, made a run across the street to the Home Depot parking lot. Then he jumped a couple fences, hit out in some bushes until a canine found him soaked and covered in mud. I would recruit this guy. I mean, this is a guy who could play for a team. I'm just saying, does all the things, the running, the jumping, the evading, the swimming.

It's not easy to be a triathlon. on. It's not easy to be a triathlete. So just sign this guy up. Don't let him go to waste, just simply putting him in jail where he belongs. Maybe they'll be an Olympic spot for him. You never know. All right. Third hour coming up, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in

Donald Trump's favor. What is the outrage by the left? As you can imagine, it is palpable. And why are some of the justices not agreeing, even though it's a unanimous opinion? It's a day in a show. Don't go away. Our CBS News poll out this morning shows the former president with a four-point edge over the current president among likely voters

nationwide. That is Trump's largest general election lead yet in our surveys this cycle. Wow. Imagine that. Plus, Trump is winning in all the seven key swing states that actually matter, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada. Welcome back to the Dana show. Glad you're here today. It's me, Rich Zioli, from one of those swing states of Pennsylvania. where I do the afternoon drive show on Talk Radio 1210, WPHT, one of Danish's affiliates. So what is the White House reaction to that? Well, Corrine Jean-Pierre today, trying to explain to everybody, this is a president. I mean, this president has done more in three years than most presidents have done in two terms.

He's done so much. That's what they're trying to convince everybody right now. So here is Corrine Jean-Pierre. Cut number 10. What I can say is, look, you. You're going to hear the president all Thursday speak to, speak about the state of the union, obviously, speak to Congress, but also millions of Americans who are going to be watching. This is a president that has done more in his three years as president than most president has done in their two terms. Oh, yes.

And the results have been amazing, staggering. He has done a lot, though. He has. Let's understand that he has done a lot. I mean, it's been destructive, but he's done a lot. As soon as he got in there on day one, he starts undoing all the things. that Trump did to keep the border secure. All the executive actions he took, 92 of them, 92 executive actions. In fact, there was a flashback clip of Mayorkas from, I think it was

2021 who's talking to Cole Wallace, bragging about how he doesn't even have time to name all the executive actions they've taken to undo all the things Donald Trump has done to secure the border. So I guess you got to just go with the idea then that part of the reason why people might be upset is because 2016 Trump used the border as one of his pivotal issues that and the fact that the

establishment had sold out the American worker and then what's Biden doing he gets in there? Well he turns around he opens the border and now you have this invasion and they keep whining about it. The Border Patrol they have been very outspoken here. The president does not care. In fact, here's

former Biden Border Patrol chief Raoul Ortiz. I've never had one. Sorry, cut 11. I've never had one conversation with the president or the vice president for that matter. And so I was the chief of the board patrol. I commanded 21,000 people. That's a problem.

Yeah, and he never had a single conversation with him. So then you have Joe Biden talking about he needs to have more authority, he needs to have more offenses, blah, blah, blah. Mayorkas is repeating all these claims, too. Impeached Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who has done a great job of opening the border and a great job of not enforcing immigration laws in this country. Here's Biden, here's my orders, excuse me, going on about how Biden has no authority. There's just no authority.

Can't do anything. The guy's got no power. What are you going to do? Cut six. Is there anything he can do without Congress to act now? Margaret, we as an administration have taken executive actions. Those executive actions are being litigated. we do need Congress to act.

For more than three decades, our system has been broken. You see, the system is not what we're talking about. This is what the Democrats do. They keep trying to talk about the immigration system. The system has to deal with when you go through asylum, when you go through court, getting your green card, getting your citizenship, all that. That's the system. We're not talking about the system.

We're talking about the border. Two separate things. Now, the border is part of the immigration system in the sense that there are ports of entry there are legal border crossings but again that's not what we're talking about here hey listen you want to have a conversation about how to make crossing the border legally more efficient and in terms of ensuring commerce can move more more smoothly between nations and and how people who are returning from Cancun can go through him fine you want to do all that I'm have at it but that's

not what we're talking about here we're talking about people crossing illegally that is a national security issue and that's not what this border bill does it doesn't address that the whole thing is a scam it's a scam but democrats know what they're doing they use language deliberately the immigration system is broken but that's not what we're talking about we're talking about the southern border being wide open they just have no interest in actually fixing it although bidean is apparently very detail oriented even though he doesn't talk to border patrol and hasn't had any conversations with them in years. He's very detail-oriented.

Cut number seven. They should spend a bit of time with Joe Biden like I have done. Let me share something with you. I prepare a lot for meetings with him and engagements with him because he's remarkably detail-oriented, probing, and operationally focused. And sounds like you did not in any way, shape, or form rehearsed that prior to saying it. Mayorgas also read directly from his notes the shocking murder of Lake and Riley by an illegal immigrant who should have been deported, a man who should have been deported, but reap the benefits of sanctuary city policies that enable criminals who should be deported to have asylum from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. These are criminals in jail who should be deported, but instead the Democrats protect them even though they're criminals. asylum doesn't refer to stopping ice from going to people's houses you're literally dealing with people who are in jail and then ice says we have a detainer on that guy we want to go get him and then the sanctuary policies turn around and go uh no so lake and riley's death was shocking and it absolutely broke people's hearts and it woke people up to what's happening in this country in fact that you have illegal immigrants yes but you have illegal immigrants who've committed crimes and they're not being deported because of sanctuary city and sanctuary state

policies. So here's my orcas reading directly from his notes. Such compassion. Cut eight. Should this man have been deported? A few thoughts. First, Margaret, first and foremost, an absolute tragedy. And our hearts break four and our prayers are with the family. Number one. Number two, and importantly, as a prosecutor, having prosecuted violent crime and other crimes for 12 years, one individual is responsible for the murder, and that is the murderer. And we work very closely with state and local law enforcement to ensure that individuals who pose a threat to public safety are indeed our highest priority for detention and removal. But are you saying there that the federal government had been informed about this individual and the alleged crimes he had committed in those states? Because he could have been deported if that was the case.

Was there a breakdown in the system? So, Margaret, there are a number of cities around the country that have varying degrees of cooperation with the immigration authorities. We firmly believe that if... New York did not? We firmly believe that if a city is aware of an individual who poses a threat to public safety, then we would request that they provide us with that information so that we can ensure that that...

individual is detained if the facts so warrant and did they and that's the point they didn't and that's the other point because they brag about providing sanctuary for these criminals who are in their jails philadelphia where i broadcast from years ago when the mayor of philadelphia jim kennie did the white man's overbite in the hallway dancing literally dancing and singing a song we are a sanctuary city yeah and then he high fives his chief of staff in the hallway they're bragging about it. The mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, came out last week and said, the sanctuary policies, the sanctuary policies of New York State are not allowing him to deport people who should be deported, who are criminals. Mayor is this full of crap. They know damn well who these

people are. They just don't get the cooperation from the cities and the states. And this administration is certainly not pushing, obviously. And don't forget, the sheriff of that county in Athens, Georgia, ran on a platform of not cooperating with ICE. The mayor, who was screamed at by his own constituents over the murder of Lake and Riley, that guy also was defending sanctuary city policies and has no intention of changing them. And you still have Democrats making stupid decisions. Lancaster City, Pennsylvania, adopted a resolution that they are going to be a sanctuary city in the year 2024. So you understand, and the American people can see what.

their own eyes to how different the two parties are on this issue. And immigration is still ranking as a top issue for the American people. Not abortion, immigration and the economy. And here's J.B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, who sympathizes with all these states. Now, as you listen to this, so ask yourself this, does he sympathize with Texas? Because Texas is the state that started to say, hey, listen, we can't bear the burden of this by ourselves. you're going to take some of the fair share here. We're going to put these migrants on buses and we're going to ship them to you.

Good luck. And you see, they don't like that. They want America to be open borders. They want sanctuary cities and states. They just don't want it in their state. They want open borders as long as nobody comes to their city. The minute people start showing up, they turn around and go, oh, we don't really want you here. We want you to be able to come, but you got to stay in Texas.

You shouldn't be able to come anywhere else. shouldn't be allowed to leave Texas. They probably would favor a border wall if it was a border wall around the state of Texas to keep all the illegal immigrants in Texas. They would favor that wall. Not a wall between Mexico. Think this, the barbed wire. You know, all these Democrats are against Texas putting up razor wire.

But if Texas put up razor wire to keep illegal immigrants in, oh, then they'd be cheering it on. Bravo, yes, don't make them come to our states and our cities, even though we embrace the very policies that led them here. Here's Pritzker. But listen, I sympathize with every state that is receiving asylum seekers and even undocumented immigrants who can't manage those. And I suppose that is what Governor Abbott is trying to tell everybody by shipping folks across the country.

But what we've seen is that the inhumane way in which he's done it, first of all, it's been completely political. It's the inhumane way of doing it, you see. totally political to put these people on buses and what if they want to leave texas that's a question what why do they have to stay in texas maybe they want to go to illinois they want a good uh... chicago hot dog i don't know why they'd ever want chicago pizza because it's not real pizza but come on maybe they don't want to stay in texas have you ever thought of that maybe they

want to actually go to some of these other places i want to go to new york i want to see the big apple these democrats are exposing their own hypocrisy here because they don't like the idea of america closing its border but they want texas to close its border and not let anyone who's illegal leave the state of texas here's idiot senator chris murphy of connecticut who is talking about the best interests of our country cut thirteen as the whole sanctuary city movement did it did it go too far are we seeing a rollback of that should there be a rollback of that well you know we treat immigrants compassionately in connecticut as well um and

listen i think that speaks to the best of this country. Ultimately, this solution has to be on the border and in the countries that people are fleeing. I don't think it's in the best interest of this country to push immigrants into the shadows once they are here. Well, they are going into the shadows because you give them a court date of seven years from now and they go, all right, see ya, and they disappear. There's absolutely no incentive for them to not go in the shadows. If you don't want them to go in the shadows, you re-in-state remain in Mexico, which is a policy that Trump put in place and then Biden undid. Of course they're going to go into the shadows. They're crossing the border illegally for the

purpose of disappearing into this country. What idiot thinks they're going to actually show up for their court date in seven years? They're not going to. That's the point. And they don't, they don't really sympathize with any of these, uh, of these red states that are dealing with the border issue. They don't care. They want them to keep all the people there and then feed them and house them, clove them, all of it. All of those things. All right. More to come here on the Dana show.

We got a lot to chat about before three o'clock comes around, so don't go away. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five. Well, because Hollywood isn't woke enough. There's now a climate reality check test for movies. Yes, a climate reality check for movies. It's a new test directed at writers, producers, and other entertainment. industry creatives, it aims to measure the presence of climate change by evaluating 31 feature

films nominated for an Academy Award. And this year, three Oscar nominated features passed, including Barbie, Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning, Part 1, and some other stupid movie. I don't know. They all properly show the impacts of climate change, the more you know. Mark Zuckerberg is worried about the end of times. He's among other millionaires. who are prepping by hoarding gold. Yes. Prepping by hoarding gold is election and cell outages spark end of time sphere. I think Little Zuck is also one of those guys who's building a gigantic bunker, a big bunker for himself.

The bunker is probably bigger than most of our houses. But it's one of those underground bunkers. All the rich guys always have that and properly stocked with a good amount of fine wine. Because, you know, wine only continues to age, obviously. What's with all these grenades? A thrift store called the cops after someone donated a World War II grenade. They've been using as a paperweight. The local police said the grenade was decommissioned.

And the donor said he's been using it as a paperweight, but the thrift store was nervous. He called 911 and officers proceeded to evacuate the store and the surrounding businesses out of an abundance of caution. But the experts determined that it was, in fact, decommissioned. But in New York, anti-Israel protesters stopped. Stoped cops from reaching an actual grenade in an Uber during a Times Square March, according to sources. The grenade was inert, an inert grenade, but not decommissioned, was in the back of seat of an Uber and Times Square Saturday. The NYPD bomb squad struggled to reach it due to anti-Israel protesters blocking traffic. Can we start arresting people, please, for blocking traffic?

It's not a constitutional right to block traffic and to stop the authorities from being able to do their job. and also making me late for work. You're never going to win hearts and minds by blocking traffic. Just FYI. Heads up, just so you know. Another thing for your health, just two cans of soda a week, maybe too much, even if you exercise, according to a new study. I'm not a big soda guy myself.

I prefer something called beer. But nevertheless, if you do drink soda, know this, the corn syrup, the sugary sodas, or if you mix it with bourbon or something like that, which you should never do. could turn out to be majorly, majorly problematic for your help, even just two cans a week. Imagine that. All right, as the show goes on, Nikki Haley says she is not bound to back Donald Trump. There'll be no unity with the RNC.

In addition to that, Donald Trump says we're going to have a big win so that nobody can even contest the election. It's the Dana Show. Don't go away. Ready to grow your intellectual RolidEx? Download the Dana Show podcast and join the ranks of those who refuse to settle for the same old boring content on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. And I will secure our elections. Our goal will be one day voting with paper ballots and voter ID. But until then, Republicans must win. We have to win to get it done.

And we want a landslide that is too big to. rig. Too big to rig. That's what we... Too big to rig. Welcome back to the Danish show. In order to do that, one of the ways that the former president is trying to do that, he's going on the radio waves in some of the most important swing states. So right now Trump has the lead in all seven of the key swing states that matter. In Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they're starting a radio campaign aimed at black voters. Taylor Buttovich, who is the CEO of Make America Great Again,

Incorporated, tells Axios, this is a first step in a sustained effort to reach every voter in every corner in America. Voters who traditionally vote Democratic are switching their support to Trump because they want a secure border, growing economy, and safe communities. President Trump will protect our daughter's sports teams,

a narrator who is African-American says, according to the minute-long spot, Trump will declare war on the cartels and stop the flooding of drugs and crime into our communities. President Trump delivered for us before and he'll do it again. Interesting that they're talking to moms and dads about keeping their daughters safe in sports. Inside Biden's plan to shore up black and Hispanic support in 2024, he's losing. I mean, he's hemorrhaging black. voters. He really is. He's hemorrhaging them. And they're nervous about this. They really are. They're really nervous about this. Now, they can't win these people back. The ones who've already, there are

voters who've decided they're back in Trump. No matter what, they're back in Trump. The best thing that the Biden campaign can hope for is that a lot of the voters stay home. Now, they're, they still lose, though, if they stay home. That's the problem. Best case scenario for them is a lot of these voters just stay home, but they still lose. If you look at the next time, they're not. numbers in the swing states. They basically need to have African-American and black voter turnout to be as high as it was in the past in order to have a shot at winning this election. And if you don't think black voters are fed up with the immigration crisis, if you don't think black voters have had it with dudes identifying as women and competing in women's sports, then you're nuts. Because these voters

have had it. And then, of course, the crime in the economy and the crime in the cities and these prosecutors who were all turning around and deciding the criminals are the victims and going after cops and choosing to allow crime to pour into the streets. There's no question in my mind. The Democrats are terrified that Joe Biden's going to lose. So then the question becomes, what do they do? Moments after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump cannot be stopped from being on the ballot, Jamie Raskin and some of the other idiots came out with a bill. They're working on federal legislation to remove Trump from the ballots. In the name of democracy, they're going to take Donald Trump off the ballot on the federal level. That's what they're trying

to do. And I told you, I think Jack Smith, the special prosecutor is probably going to come back in hand Trump more charges related to giving aid and comfort to an insurrection. Thereby, they can properly remove him using the 14th Amendment Section 3 by finding him guilty with a jury in D.C. That's what they're going to try to do. But the other scenario, of course, is that they just decide to swap out Joe Biden, which I'm not convinced is not going to happen. I think it's very likely

they swap Biden out at the convention. I really do. Maybe even before. But they want to wait as long as possible. Whoever they swap in to take Biden, and it's not going to be Kamala Harris because she's even worse.

She's even more unpopular than Biden is, if you can believe that. Otherwise, Biden would have been gone already. They also have a problem, which is they can't just swap Biden, Kamala Harris out with another white dude like Gavin Newsom, because woke won't like that. Woke will be very, very upset. And Kamala Harris is not going to win you any black voters.

Her record alone as a prosecutor in California would disqualify her. She went after so many black people for drug crimes. Something that Trump has effectively been doing to ingratiate himself with the black community is talking about that. The weaponization by the Department of Justice against him is something that people relate to they see with their own eyes and now s n l is even mocking joe biden on his age over the weekend bill mar came out and said by didn't you just acknowledge he's old acknowledge that he walks around like he's a toddler who pooped his pants acknowledge it and walk around and just

say the truth but i think you're all saying these things because they want by the out of the race i i do i think that this is their way of trying to get him out because they know he loses to Trump. And Trump is the ultimate threat to the swamp. They're not worried about Nikki Haley. I mean, Nikki Haley is no shot of winning, but they'd be fine if Nikki Haley wins because Nikki Haley will keep the war in Ukraine going. And that's really, let's face it, that's what these people care about. The establishment, the swamp, the military industrial complex, as long as the war in Ukraine gets fully funded, they don't care who's president. But they know it won't with Trump, and that's the problem. They knew Trump wouldn't start any more war, so they tried to stop him from becoming president in

2016, and then undermine his presidency when he wasn't there. But here's SNL mocking Joe Biden over his age and their cold open. Cut 22. Hello, Dana. Pleasure to be with you to talk about the most vigorous man I've ever known. Joe Biden. Really? Absolutely.

I was just with him. And behind closed doors, he's a whirlwind. I mean, Dana, look at his schedule. 7 a.m. Soul cycle class. And I'm not talking about taking one. He leads it. 8.30 a.m. play speech hess in the park.

8.32 a.m. wins chess game, points at opponent and says, next time, young blood. 9.30 a.m. meets with Joint Chiefs for a military strategy meeting and push-up contest. 10.02 a.m. wins contests. points at the head of the Joint Chiefs and says, next time, young blood. The fact that they're making jokes about Biden and Saturday Night Live, something they haven't done for years. Remember early on in 2020 when they had Jim Carrey played Joe Biden as the cool guy who, who wore aviator sunglasses. They've never really made fun of Joe Biden before. So now that they're mocking him and mocking his age,

and doesn't that sound a lot like the clip I played you earlier in the show about my orcas? When he goes on, he goes, oh, trust me, this guy, he is operationally focused and detail-oriented and probing and blah. It sounds exactly like that. Behind closed doors, Biden is just, he's totally with it. It's just when he gets in front of the camera, that he just looks old and dottering and out of it and it's not going to work for them. I mean, they've got a major problem here. No, they'd be fine if Nikki Haley were the nominee.

And Nikki Haley seems to be saying in the race, although there's all these stories today that she hasn't bought any more media. That's a problem because you have deadlines to buy media. And if you don't buy it by those deadlines, then your ads are not going to run. So Nikki Haley may finally see the writing on the wall. I just think that the establishment is going to try to keep her in just in case,

just in case somehow they get, lucky and they lock up Trump in Georgia, just in case they get lucky and lock them up in New York or just in case they get lucky and lock them up on the federal level. Just in case, and then maybe the convention, they can move her in. You see, I think so many Republican voters hate her at this point, even if that were to occur where they had to swap Trump out, and I do not see that occurring. Let me just make that point. I do not see that happening. But they're not picking Nikki Haley if it does. No way. They'll get to Sanis back in the race. They won't get, they won't. He'll, he'll, He'll unsuspend his campaign and then he'll become the nominee.

Or Tim Scott or whoever is running, whoever Trump's running mate is, but it's not going to be Haley. But I think she's staying in the race because the establishment is still pushing her, hoping against hope, but somehow something will happen to Trump. And she says she doesn't feel bound to support him anyway. And she won't. Who cares if she does? She has no juice. The only primary she's won is the Washington, D.C. primary that doesn't even count. Here's Haley, cut 24.

Let me try it this way. You did sign a pledge, an RNC pledge, to support the eventual nominee. Do you still feel bound by that pledge? I have always said that I have serious concerns about Donald Trump. I have even more concerns about Joe Biden. So is that a no? Are you bound by the RNC pledge? The RNC pledge, I mean, at the time of the debate,

we had to take it to where would you support the nominee? and you had to, in order to get on that debate stage, you said yes. The RNC is now not the same RNC. So you're no longer bound by that pledge? No, I think I'll make what decision I want to make, but that's not something I'm thinking of. Who cares? Who cares if he supports him or not? Trump doesn't need Nikki Haley's support and her five friends.

He doesn't need that. Give me a break. But speaking of Biden and the problems that he has, he twice announced airdrops into Ukraine instead of Gaza. despite reading from a note card directly in front of him, he still manages to mess this up twice in the course of 20 seconds. Cut four. In the coming days, we're going to join with our friends in Jordan and others

and fried in airdroaps of additional food and supplies into Ukraine and seek to continue to open up other avenues into Ukraine, including the possibility of a Marine corridor, deliver large amounts of humanitarian assistance. into ukraine you create not gaza ukraine he said it twice and i don't even know if he caught himself but but then the problem is this what do you do

you gotta get rid of the guy is you know he's gonna lose to trump you you make comma harrison nominee no why not because she's even more unpopular than biden's she makes people even more nervous and it's stuff like this cut number one fundamental freedoms under assault

The freedom to vote, the freedom from fear, violence, and harm, the freedom to learn, the freedom to control one's own body, and the freedom to just simply be. Simply be, just to be. You don't have the freedom to just simply be, to just exist and simply be, man. Sounds like she's having a little, some of that Jamaican stuff, if you know what I mean. But the other problem the Biden campaign has right now is you've got a lot of young voters that are very, very angry about his support for Israel. Now, I personally don't think his support for Israel is there at all. Think about it.

He doesn't call for a ceasefire with regards to Ukraine and Russia. He just keeps writing checks. It tries to, anyway. With Israel, though, he tries to tell Israel what to do. And he demands ceasefires. And so does Kamala Harrison. The reason why they're doing this is you've got so many whack jobs, all these pro-Palestinian whack jobs. in the Democrat Party like Rashida Talib and Ilan Omar and Primalah J. Pal and others.

But Biden is worried that that part of the base is going to stay home. And look what just happened in Michigan, where you had two uncommitted delegates were elected. Two in Michigan. In key counties that Biden needs to win, if he's going to win the state of Michigan, which he's not, Trump's going to win Michigan. The election around today, he wins Michigan hands down. But a lot of those young people, they're angry at Biden not only for Israel, but they're angry because they don't think he's doing enough on climate justice.

They don't think he's doing enough. That's how kooky the Democrat Party is today. But here's Kamala Harris calling for an immediate ceasefire cut two. And given the immense scale of suffering in Gaza, there must be an immediate ceasefire. For at least the next six weeks, which is what is currently on the table. You hear? And then the cheers, the cheers in support of that. Why is that? Well, because of people like Jamal Bowman and Rashida Talib, leading a chant of free Palestine, which of course implies that Palestine is somehow under the control of Israel and therefore Israel's the bad guy and Israel's

the oppressor. And this is what the Democrat Party is dealing with right now. This is who they are. Cut 16. free. Now, those are your people right there. Those are your peeps. Here's Senator Tina Smith, confused to why Israel would want to eliminate Hamas after all they've done in the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust on October 7th. She's a little confused by this, as you can imagine. Cut 15. And if that doesn't happen, then the president can exercise his full power to halt military aid. So I think this is an important bit of leverage that the president has with Netanyahu, who, as I said in the beginning, seems sort of hell-bent to continue this terribly

destructive to civilian life battle in Gaza. And see, this is what they think. Israel's the bad guy. Israel's the oppressor you see. Democrats have a major problem right now. I can't emphasize enough to you, the kook factor within the Democrat Party and how that hurts Joe Biden's reelection. And then you add that together with all of the fact that people who are angry about the

border and the economy and everything else, you got a problem. And then the fact that the guy's so old and not old in a good way, old in a way that he doesn't know that he's saying he's going to drop food into Ukraine and not Gaza. It's a problem. It's a real problem. This is the Dana show. Final moments straight ahead. Don't let FOMO get the best of you.

Stay in the loop and ahead of the curve by following Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. Well, the big story today, of course, is the unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court to say Colorado cannot block Donald Trump from the ballots. But there's a little caveat here. It's actually a five, four decision, as Andy McCarthy puts it. Basically, what you have here is you have a majority of the courts' justices, five of the six of them, who went beyond the question about state power and rule that section three can only be enforced by congressional legislation under section five of the 14th amendment and that the only existing statute along those lines is the penal law against insurrection which is section 2383 of the federal code what that means is

that if donald trump were to win the presidential election congressional democrats would not be able in the next January 6th joint session of Congress to refuse to ratify his victory on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist, which is good. Under the court's holding, it is now a prerequisite to enforcement of the Section 3 disqualification that a person must have been convicted under the insurrection statute. Now, Justice Barrett did not join in this part of the court's opinion, however, but she doesn't necessarily disagree with it. The three progressists, justice is clearly dissent they don't buy into the illusion that the court is speaking unanimously they refer to the opinion of the five justices as the majority and they don't

mince words about exactly what their colleagues have done they said they decided novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner donald trump from future controversy basically even though it's unanimous it's not unanimous and so what you're going to hear is you're going to hear that from people screaming up the left, it's still a conservative court trying to protect Donald Trump from the future. What I worry about, what I worry about going forward is that the Supreme Court decision today is going to inspire the special counsel, Jack Smith, to turn around and add charges against Donald Trump for insurrection so that they can get a jury to convict him and they can say,

okay, he definitely is not allowed to be on the ballot as per the 14th Amendment Section 3. I hope I'm wrong, but this prosecutor seems hell-bent on getting Donald Trump. All right, before we conclude the Dana Show, I know Steve's got some dumb audio the day for, Steve. What do we got? Oh, famed lawyer and view co-host, Sunny Austin, which we have on this segment a lot, had a hot take when it came to the Supreme Court decision, and you can probably guess where she went with this one. The Supreme Court should just answer the question before it. And I had far too much hope that the court would be united in this,

not overstep in favor of Donald Trump. And I think what we saw was a court where justices that behaved in a partisan manner and that disappoints. Aw, that's a shame. Oh, that's too bad. All right, well, listen, thank you for listening to the Dana Show. I appreciate it. You can follow me on Twitter at Rich Z. Oli. I'll now go do my afternoon drive show on Talk Radio 1210 WPHD in Philadelphia. We'd love to have you join me. Got a lot of stuff to talk about, don't we? I'll be back with you tomorrow. Have a great rest of your day. Thank you.