The full transcript

What is not a lie? Wasn't that a lie? What is not a lie? Wasn't that a lie though?

When he put— when he held up the sign, didn't he lie to the American public, to you and me and everybody else in here and the entire world when he said these are the tariffs that every other country has on us? That was a lie, right?

↳ P-38 raised again here · first raised at U-642

Well, it was a negotiating tactic.

It was a— so it was a lie to negotiate?

It's a negotiating tactic, and you actually know it. The cost is too high. I do know it. Because you just admitted it. I didn't admit it. I was giving—

I was giving a simplified answer to somebody who found out they just— who just found out what fractional reserve banking was.

Please welcome to the stage, Dinesh D'Souza and Destiny!

How you doing tonight?

I'm good.

So I think we were given pretty broad leeway over, I guess, what to chat about tonight insofar as kind of like Trump and MAGA and the current state of the US and kind of like where we've come, where we're going in relation to that. Do you have any strong thoughts you want to start us off with, or do you want me to just get right into it?

Well, let's get right— let's get into it.

Okay, so I don't know how much you know about me, but I've been kind of like a YouTube political commentator influencer guy for maybe about 10 years. I followed with great detail a lot of the political, factual, legal, whatever stuff going on with both sides, especially over the past 5 or 6 years. And one of the most kind of troubling things that I've seen develop is we are totally and completely separated in terms of factual reality, in terms of where, like, the left is living and where MAGA is living. And I mean, my argument is that I would say the conservatives and MAGA, and even people in positions like yours, have contributed really heavily towards that, like, deliberate muddying of the record so that people aren't aware of what's actually happening in this country. And I guess, like, the first event, I guess, I think I would kind of like to center on is I'm curious, what your understanding is of, like, the Mar-a-Lago documents case for the classified information that Trump took from the White House and refused to return.

I'm happy to get into it. But before we do, let's— if I can explore the idea you just mentioned a moment ago about alternative realities. I assume what you're saying is that the left lives in a certain type of a bubble, but it's a reality-based bubble. The right lives in a bubble that is fake and not reality-based. And so, according to you, one half of the country is essentially deluded and the other half of the country is sane. See, I think this is a very poor way to try to conceptualize politics in general. It's— the reason it's a poor way is that if you look at any political divide, particularly the really severe political divides, if we go back, for example, to 1860, you could take the view that which was the view of the South. Lincoln was a moron. Lincoln is a dictator. Lincoln's an idiot. And the Republicans in the North make no sense at all. Or you could take the opposite view, that everyone in the South is a moron. They're living in a bubble. They don't understand reality. And therefore, one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. To me, the reason this is a very poor way to comprehend reality is that it requires you ultimately to believe that virtually one half of the entire country lives in delusion. Democracy would make no sense if this were truly the case. In reality, the complex thing to do, particularly when there is a divide, and I think this is what we have to work toward, and it'd be really interesting if we did that in this debate, is if I can advance a theory about Trump that explains not just the 75 million people or so who voted for him, but also the 71 million or so who voted against him. And if I can account for both, and similarly, I would demand of you the same thing. You advance a theory that is a little more sophisticated than simply saying, Everybody who votes for Trump is a dummy, or they're listening to other dummies and swallowing their dumb stuff. This does not do justice to our fellow citizens. So I'm just objecting to this framing of reality. We can discuss specific aspects of reality, and I'm happy to start where you want, and then I'll take you where I want to go. But I'd like you to comment, first of all, if you agree with me that each of us needs to advance tonight a theory that is good enough not just to feed the prejudices of the people on our own side, which may be the majority of the audience here, but genuinely accounts for the other side.

So, I would agree, but I would disagree that a genuine accounting for both sides requires you to admit or requires you to concede that both sides have a similar factual foundation. Sometimes when you go to the hospital, sometimes you get diagnosed with a really bad disease. Sometimes the prognosis is it's untreatable. I would be uncomfortable if the doctor told me, well, we're looking at 2 different diagnoses, but this one is really bad, so we're just going to favor the other one instead. Unfortunately, that's not how the real world works. It might be that at times in our history, there are certain sides of our country that are deluded. Now, you used the word dummy. I would say they're not stupid. I think that The capacity for even an ordinary person that, you know, a pretentious liberal or some online guy might say, oh, this guy is an idiot. They're not stupid. Like, people have a tremendous capacity for a ton of information. But I would argue that there has been an entire conservative media apparatus that has been aimed at engaging in the delusion of these people for the purposes of trying to make the unappealing appealing or the indefensible defensible. And that's the thing that I'm kind of attacking. Like, is half the country deluded? I would say right now, To a large extent, yes, but that's not because they're stupid, and it's not by accident, it's by design. And I think part of what I would really like to dig into is part of it is not even being able to agree fundamentally on, like, things that are factually true. You brought up that North-South divide. The difference that you were talking about there was one of legal perspective, was a conceptual perspective difference on do states have the right to secede from the union, you know, how much right does an individual state have over the federal government.

Right.

That same debate taking place today, you know, it would be somebody saying in the South, oh, we don't even have slaves. All of the people here live equally. And, you know, people in the North saying, you know, in the South, they literally torture these people and throw them in the river for fun, and they don't even use them for work, right? That's the level of— assuming both sides are being deluded, right? That's the level of delusion that we're on today. We don't have disagreements in law or disagreements in concept or idea or narrative about the country. very foundational disagreements on things that we shouldn't have that much of a factual disagreement on?

↳ P-02 raised again here · first raised at U-014

↳ evidence for the P-01 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-014

Well, so I take it that what you're saying is that in the Civil War, there were genuinely intelligent people on both sides, and they actually disagreed about what kind of America they wanted. They disagreed about their economic interests. They disagreed about— on constitutional interpretation. They disagreed about whether they wanted to retain the status quo or go into a new type of America. Now, I would argue that we're having very much that exact same kind of fundamental debate right now. Let's just take, for example, the phrase, Make America Great Again. Bit of a cliché, I grant. But I would say that the implicit in that is a big idea, that there was an America that we lived in. You could say it's the America of the '50s, the America of 1965, the America of 1980. You can kind of pick your own preferred date, but that things worked better in this country before, in the past. We have messed up. We have become more polarized, more hateful, more violent. Our goals have begun to pull further apart. I would argue that in the Reagan years, for example, the debates were not so much about goals, but about means. We all agreed that America, if you were to take a poll in 1980 or the early '80s and ask Americans, do you think America should be strong, prosperous? Do you think we should have law and order? Do you think America should be an example to the world? Do you think that most people, given the chance, would want to come here? You'd get yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now, you might disagree if we create a prosperous pie, how should that pie be shared? The argument was about that. But on the need for prosperity, on the principles of the founding, no disagreement about goals. Now, we are in America where we can't agree about goals. And I would say that One half of the country, my half, Trump's half, we think that there's a better America we want to go back to. You don't. You want to take us into some progressive utopia. So right there, this is hardly a disagreement about facts. I mean, I guess it could be a disagreement about facts if you want to argue the facts of what life was like in 1980 or what the GDP was. I'm happy to discuss that. But I guess what I'm really saying is it is a conflict of visions. We want a society in which immigrants come to assimilate. We want a society in which affirming your identity is not— takes a subordinate role to our identity as Americans. We want a society in which free markets are the engine to prosperity. We want a society in which we recognize that the world is made up of very dangerous people, and sometimes you have to smash in a few heads in order to protect your own interests. We want to live in a society where there's rule of law, and if you come here illegally, there's every right to send you home. There's no such thing as a good lawbreaker or a bad lawbreaker any more than there's such a thing as good discrimination and bad discrimination. So these— I've just articulated several, and I could keep going, principles. This has nothing to do with whether Trump had a bag of documents in Mar-a-Lago. It is a conflict of visions. And it seems to me that you are denying that. Either that or you just agree right now that all the principles I've articulated are yours as well.

↳ P-01 raised again here · first raised at U-013

Yeah, I mean, I would say exactly that, that the issue that I have with the more abstract, high-level conceptual conversations is that everybody agrees with these things. that people should— yeah, of course people should be here relatively, you know, legally, as far as you can be. People should be here—

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground · Destiny

As far as you can be? What is it? This is kind of like saying I, you know, I favor lawbreaking. I don't favor lawbreaking unless it's—

Sure, I say as far as you can be because some immigration stuff is hazy. So for instance, sometimes conservatives seem like they're okay with asylum seekers, like they suddenly are with South Africans who are white. Other times they seem like they don't believe in asylum seeking at all. So I'm cutting out a little bit of a on the edge here for presidential things like TPS, Temporary Protected Status, things like DACA. For the most part, broadly speaking, I largely agree that everybody should be here in as legal process as possible. I think that people should, as far as they can, try not to break any laws. People get speeding tickets. Obviously, you shouldn't be shot for this. But broadly speaking, everything you say, everybody agrees with. But the issue is that when we have these high-level conceptual disagreements, say for instance, we should have a president who doesn't commit crimes, and then we have a president who has clearly committed crimes, and one side sees that very plainly, and the other side screams lawfare, that's not true. There is a factual distinction there that's not a difference of ideology or a difference of vision. It's a difference of understanding factually of what's in the record. And the unfortunate thing is we're not talking about complicated physics or chemistry or biology. It's very simple facts. If you can read a simple indictment, you can see how things are laid out. And it should be a thing that 95% of the population can grasp and understand. Like, for instance, that Donald Trump took documents from the White House that he didn't have authorization to keep. He showed them to multiple people at Mar-a-Lago. He refused to cooperate first with the National Archives and Records Administration, and then with the FBI, and then eventually his home was raided. Some documents were never recovered. The whole time, he was in the complete and total wrong in multiple levels, but the right refused to acknowledge this, screamed lawfare over and over again. And then when you push them on things like, don't you think it's good to have like a rule of law, they appeal to these high-level concepts like, well, freedom and the past was good and all this. And it's like, well, if we can't talk about any particular instances of anything happening, it's a pointless conversation.

↳ P-02 raised again here · first raised at U-014

Well, I find that this habit is hardly confined to the right. I'm something of an expert on the 2020 election, and I've given talks about it. And every time I talk about it, someone goes, well, there clearly is nothing wrong in the 2020 election because there were 50 cases where these things were adjudicated. Now, there's not a single case in which the actual allegations of fraud were adjudicated on all kinds of procedural obstacles, or issues of standing, these cases were dismissed. You should have brought the case before the election. It— you had to do that. Obviously, the fraud was not obvious then. If you brought it after the election, it's moot. Or this is brought at the state level. It needs to be at the federal level. And so the procedural adjudication is considered adequate to establish the veracity or the validity of the 2020 election.

↳ P-07 raised again here · first raised at U-025

↳ evidence for the P-02 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-013

Just as a quick thing.

I mean, I'll just finish my point and you can jump in.

We can do the 2020 election. So are we— do you concede on the whole Mar-a-Lago thing that Trump was retaining documents? Then we can move to the 2020 election.

We haven't addressed Mar-a-Lago. I'm setting up the intellectual groundwork by saying that on the 2020 election, statements are made that are accepted as gospel by the left. Let's take a simple one that was repeated ad nauseam. The 2020 election was the safest, most secure election in US history. To which I ask, where is the evidence that there was less fraud in 2020 than in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004? Where is that demonstration? Who has actually done a comparative evaluation of the amount of fraud In recent— forget about old elections— and shown that there was less in 2020? The answer is, not only has this never been demonstrated, it has never been attempted. And so an utterly idiotic statement, almost preposterous on its face. We know that this election we just had, and we're proclaiming it to be the safest ever, with zero empirical evidence produced to support that. And yet the entire left, to my knowledge, without exception, went along, nodded its head, accepted this as true, became very scornful of any attempts to show the contrary. So doesn't this show factual dogmatism on the left that is just as corrosive as anything on the right?

↳ evidence for the P-02 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-013

No. So, I mean, we can go through any of these statements. I'm still putting a pin in the Mar-a-Lago thing because I think it's important to go back to. But I'm very familiar with the 2020 election. Okay. The issue is that, one, when people say, well, it wasn't adjudicated on the facts, it was tossed on standing or procedural grounds, that's bad for the person bringing the case. If you're losing on standing, then you must have never had a serious case to begin with, because that is literally—

Okay.

The easiest part of a case to survive, to build a prima facie case saying that I have authorization to bring this case in front of this court, this court has subject matter jurisdiction, and it's the appropriate venue to hear the case, and here are my complaints where I'm alleging that a law was broken. In half these, they didn't even have the remedies that they were looking for, was to toss the entire outcome of that election, which is an insane remedy. If you're looking for that, a court's not even going to bother to hear the case, because the whole point of a court hearing a case is that they're going to grant you some kind of relief. If a court can't do anything about it, then the court's not going to listen to it, number one. Number two, for the evidence that was made public, we know that for a lot of this, it was a blatant lie. For instance, when we watched Trump's lawyers show and we watched Trump talk about the hidden boxes in the State Farm Arena that were pulled out from under the table and put back, and we don't know where they came from. We do know where they came from. And you can tell because if you watch the full 6-hour video where she's giving a presentation to the state election board or state legislature or whatever, you can see her fast forward 10 minutes where they were counting. They finished counting for the night. They take the boxes, put them on the floor, slide them under. 10 minutes later, they get a call saying, actually, we're going to resume counting because we want to get these results out faster. They take the same boxes out. They put them on the table. Not only was that a complete and total bold-faced lie when it was first presented in court or presented to the public, It was a lie that Trump repeated up to and including his speech on January 6th, where he encouraged his, his followers to go and riot at the Capitol to try to delay the outcome of the election. So every single case has been some variation of them not knowing if a law was broken. You can listen to hours and hours of deposition. You can read the subpoenas. You can read the judge's decisions. There's a reason why you guys will say, well, all of them were thrown out. None of it was adjudicated on the merits. Trump, you know, was president for 4 years. He had Barr look into all of these claims. Barr said that all of them were BS. Trump is president now. He has the ability to go back and look at stuff. Nothing has been been dug up. In fact, the first time Trump was president, when he also made claims that the election was rigged, he put together an election board to look at if there was any impropriety or fraud that happened in any of the states. And they found nothing. They disbanded it in like a year. For the final point, you bring this point up that like, well, it's crazy that they say this was the safest election ever because there hasn't been a comparative analysis on fraud. I think the point of the statement was to say that there were more people, more cameras, more systems that were looking at this election than in any prior election. And I would argue that just like how DOJ went through the entire government and massively failed at discovering any waste, fraud, or abuse. Donald Trump and all of his cronies have been looking at so much election-related stuff, and the only fraud, weird stuff we've seen has come from the Republican side. Tina Peters being a great example of that. Trump trying to steal the election with his false elector slates being another great example of that.

↳ P-08 raised again here · first raised at U-026

All right. So, so let me offer a couple of thoughts. Number one, if you're right, that a bungled legal effort failed on account of the incompetence of the people who tried to prove the fraud, I would argue by the same token that the Democratic goofballs who launched 90-plus charges against Trump in multiple jurisdictions were equally dumb because they made claims that they were unable to sustain. The cases were thrown out, made moot, exposed to the public for their prima facie idiocy, or they were— or they capsized of their own weight. They were withdrawn. Fannie Willis was basically— had her own problems and had to withdraw. The successors Basically decided that's the end of that. So what I'm getting at is either we rely on the legal process as a pretty fair adjudicator of these kinds of claims, in which case you got to grant that the case against Trump ended up— think of it, you didn't have one shot. You had like 7 shots at this guy. You failed in all of them. Even in the one place where you, quote, got him on the ultimate bogus case, which was in New York, the judge himself was too timid to impose a verdict and basically says, Mr. Trump, you can go. I wish you well. Even the judge knew that he was part of a political game and he had to fess up. Because if he was really enforcing the law, think of it. If you or I were found guilty of 34 felonies, the judge would have said, I'm imposing a sentence. My sentence might be overturned. or maybe held to be invalid. But this man has broken the law 34 times. In fact, think of the stupidity. This was 34 different checks. So apparently it's 34 different felonies. The lawfare of it couldn't be more obvious or blatant.

↳ P-06 raised again here · first raised at U-037

↳ evidence for the P-08 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-021

Now, why did the jury convict him in New York? What's that? Why did the jury convict him if it was just lawfare?

Because a jury in New York, like a jury in D.C., is going to be Well, all right.

Aren't you saying then that half the country is living in delusion if you can't even trust a jury of every single person, that a single person could say, I don't agree with the verdict here?

You think the O.J. jury got it right? They—

the O.J., that's a totally different case.

Well, if you trust the jury, then they were— they got it right.

I can say that juries might agree. Wait, wait. I can disagree with juries sometimes. You just said that there are 2 sections of the United States in New York and D.C., and I'm willing to bet you'd say other states where there is no jury that could hear— well, I'm curious, actually. Fine. There are things in the O.J. case that I think it seems like he was clearly guilty of something. What law in New York State that he was convicted of breaking, that he received almost 34 felony counts for, do you think he didn't actually break? Did he not lie when he paid his lawyer, Cohen, a fee that was actually just a money transfer to Stormy Daniels, and then commit a bookkeeping fraud in the furtherance of that lie, which is why the misdemeanor was upgraded to a felony? Do you think that's not true? No.

↳ P-09 raised again here · first raised at U-030

One of the problems with living in this kind of society today, and one of the essential defining elements of lawfare, is simply to ask this question. If anybody else did that, or if Trump himself did it, but was not running for president, would these charges have been brought? And again, we're all watching this. We're not on the jury. We're watching this as spectators from the outside. We've got to use a certain rule of common sense. You have this guy Trump. He's in the thick of New York real estate. He's in the thick of all these claims, of bombastic claims. My Mar-a-Lago is worth X. This is worth Y. My assets are worth this. Everybody does this. Now, if all of this was so fraudulent, how does the man go 75 years of his life without a single charge? Then, interestingly, he enters politics as a Republican. 93 charges are dropped on his head. Now, if you genuinely think— and look, this— we could very well in this audience be exploring the delusions we're talking about. If you genuinely, genuinely are a smart guy and you think, you know, I think that's right, the guy was squeaky clean for 75 years, then he became a habitual criminal. and committed 93 offenses warranting the guy being jailed for life, a guy who just happens to have been the President of the United States and on the verge of being reelected a second time. But you don't have to worry about that if you can put him away. And this doesn't raise any issues of political targeting, Stalinism, find me the man and I'll find you the crime. If you genuinely don't think any of that is an issue, then we are at a little bit of an intellectual breakdown here.

↳ evidence for the P-09 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-033

So, well, this isn't an intellectual breakdown. This is a bad conversation about politics with your family at Thanksgiving. There has to be a better factual analysis than, isn't it weird? Isn't it weird that— so, yeah. So the 34 felonies that he was charged with and convicted of in New York State, he did those. For the Mar-a-Lago documents case, you know, well, this is the thing. He couldn't have possibly been charged with a crime like this before having a security clearance or being in a job with security clearance because he wouldn't have had access to these documents. So for the Mar-a-Lago case, he took classified material from the White House, stored it in an area where classified material is not to be kept. He showed other people some of that classified material, and then he resisted efforts from the— from NARA and the FBI to retrieve said material. And he was directing his employees to hide it and lie to the FBI when they were requesting information about this material.

↳ P-03 raised again here · first raised at U-020

↳ P-09 raised again here · first raised at U-030

This is incredibly unique. The first part of that is true, and all the rest of it is not true.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Dinesh D'Souza

Which part of it was not true?

The first part of it, that he took the documents, is true. The second question is, how does a president who takes his own documents, which he has the plenary power to declassify, how does he prima facie violate the law, especially when you consider that pretty much every other president going back to Nixon had documents? Mike Pence had documents. Joe Biden had documents in his garage, including a bunch sitting in his car. These documents were fully exposed. There were documents at the Penn Biden Center accessible to everyone. And yet the guy who looks into it goes, I don't think we should charge this guy because he's kind of forgetful and he won't really withstand trial because he tends not to remember things. I mean, since when does somebody get a pass from a serious offense because they don't have a very good memory of the stuff that they manifestly did? So, when you suddenly develop this kind of selective aggression, Trump has done all these things, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and you conveniently forget that presidents have routinely taken their own stuff. Then again, I have to say that this looks to me quite clearly a case of isolating Trump. The way we know—

↳ evidence for the P-03 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-039

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Destiny

well, here, real quick, just on this, because you laid out some facts and the facts—

You said he obstructed. You— he—

well, wait, real quick. So the— you say these words prima facie. Prima facie means has, has the person who is under the jurisdiction of someplace, has he met the prerequisite elements to have committed the crime? So the crime of retention of classified materials requires intent. So one funny thing that conservatives like to do is they like to say that, well, Hur said that Biden was forgetful and he wouldn't be able to stand trial because of his forgetfulness. That's not true. What Hur was speaking to when he was speaking of Biden's state of mind was that he probably forgot that he had these documents here or that he was storing these things. The crime that speaks— the federal statutes that talk about the retention of classified material that makes it a crime is knowing that you actually have them. That's why when Pence— that's why when Biden contacted NARA, contacted the FBI and said, hey, we have classified documents here, we think you guys should come and grab them. They weren't convicted or charged with any crimes because it seems like they weren't trying to intentionally store classified material.

As opposed to Donald Trump.

who was showing documents to people, and you say, well, they were his, right? Why did he say twice, I could have unclassified these, or I could have declassified these, but I didn't? And also, as a second quick thing, the president does not have plenary authority for declassification of everything, especially when it comes to the Department of Energy, which has nuclear secrets, especially when you're talking about TS/SCI SAP, separate access programs, or special access programs that are part of our nuclear secrets that Donald Trump was keeping at Mar-a-Lago. So even that he couldn't have declassified on his own.

↳ P-05 raised again here · first raised at U-041

Well, here is the problem. I mean, had, had this case proceeded all the way and these elements of the crime that you're describing been proven, we could then debate what was going on. I'll give you the Trump side of it. I took these documents. I was contacted by the National Archives, NARA, I guess it's called, about the fact you need to give some of these documents back. What does some mean here? Trump is like, some of them may be mine, some of them I may have to return. And so a process now begins of bargaining back and forth. At one point, the FBI comes to Mar-a-Lago. Remember, Mar-a-Lago is a protected facility. Comes to Mar-a-Lago and puts a padlock on the storage facility where the documents are held. So what are we dealing with here? We're dealing with a President who finishes his term. People come into the White House, clear all the stuff out. Where are they going to move it? They move it, not surprisingly, to the residence, Mar-a-Lago. And then begins this process of negotiating over these documents. If you're saying based upon the fact that you think that laws were broken, I would say, what? Because, because— I'm not saying that. Destiny thinks that the president broke the law. We should lock him up. No. If you can show me a legal process where these elements of the crime were proven, we could look at it.

↳ P-11 raised again here · first raised at U-063

↳ evidence for the P-03 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-039

+7.5 R-3.2 · Asymmetric rigor (assembled pattern) · Dinesh D'Souza

Well, there is. That's what an indictment is, is showing these are the laws that we're saying that he broke. This is the evidence we're presenting to the grand jury. Okay, well, then you know that the grand jury returned an okay to charge Donald Trump with these crimes.

Okay.

Also, you said that Mar-a-Lago was secured, not secured for the storage of classified information, And if Donald Trump truly had nothing to hide and he was cooperating and returning things as he should, why was he having his employee hide boxes from his own lawyers so that they would not be fully truthful? Not of their own fault, but of their— of because they had no idea when they were communicating with the FBI about documents that Trump was retaining and that he was having brought to his room, going over, taking some back, keeping others, and then telling Nauta, his employee, to lie to the lawyers about what they were hiding.

↳ P-03 raised again here · first raised at U-020

↳ P-04 raised again here · first raised at U-044

When Look, whenever you have an indictment, the prosecution— in this case, it was the Biden administration.

It was Jack Smith. It was a special prosecutor.

Jack Smith, who was a special prosecutor appointed by, by the Biden regime.

It wasn't appointed by Biden. It was appointed by Merrick Garland.

The attorney general. By Merrick Garland.

It's not part of the Biden regime. Trump wants to directly control his attorney general, but most presidents don't do that because it's seen as corrupt.

↳ P-14 raised again here · first raised at U-112

Oh, Merrick Garland was an objective, fair-minded— he was not making any kind of political—

Why wasn't the special prosecutor appointed on day one?

You're actually trying to get me to enter into your dream world here.

And I'm only talking facts.

I'm not. There are no facts.

There were facts.

No, because an indictment is allegations. Unless the indictment is presented in court, the other side gets to fight back. It's like if I were to take any indictment and read it, and then I think, oh, the guy obviously did it because he did this, he bought a gun, this and that. I haven't read the counterpoints. I haven't seen the cross-examination. It hasn't gone to court. But if you accept all the claims in the indictment as, quote, factually true and consider that there's no other side of the matter, then it's easy to go, I got the facts.

So then wouldn't it be easy for you to just say, you know, if everything in the indictment is true, Donald Trump would be guilty of those crimes rather than try to make excuses for what was in the indictment? Because there's another weird game that I noticed the conservatives play where conservatives will do this thing where they'll defend a thing And then after they've defended the thing, they'll say that the thing that they were defending is indefensible. But if it did happen, they give justifications for it anyway. Why not just say, well, I don't believe what's in the indictment, even though you say that they're just allegations? They're not. You have to show evidence to a grand jury to secure the indictment. So there is at least some evidence that's presented.

↳ evidence for the P-11 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-048

Look, the indictment contains elements of factuality and elements of subjectivity. So the factuality would be something like this. Did you take a document? Did you put it in the garage? Was it found in your Corvette? The elements of subjectivity are things like this. Were you authorized to take it? Even if you were not authorized to take it, did you follow the procedures to return it? If you didn't follow those procedures, how culpable are you, let's say, for not doing that? Because there are all kinds of people who break all kinds of laws, and they're given a pass because—

They're human.

As you mentioned with Biden, you said that his forgetfulness had to do with the documents. Wrong. It was very clear from the special counsel's report that his forgetfulness had to do with trial. We cannot take this guy to trial. He deserves to go to trial. He did break the law. But we don't think that he can withstand trial because basically his brain is fried. And so hold on.

↳ P-10 raised again here · first raised at U-075

I heard him say anything like that.

Yeah. Is that a fact or not?

No.

That's not a fact.

No, the forgetfulness had to do with the crime. The elements of the crime is the willful retention of classified material. If you walk out of a SCIF and you have something on you by accident, you might get fired. Depending on your job, you'll definitely get fired. But to charge you with a crime, you need intent. Now, for every single element that you described there, well, you would have to— you'd have to take them and you'd have to know that you didn't follow the right procedure. An example for showing that subjective argument might be Donald Trump showing something to somebody saying, I should have declassified this, but I didn't. Don't look too closely. That would be an example of like a subjective thing where, hmm, sounds like he maybe didn't have the authority to do that. Also, the SAP-level classified stuff he had from the Department of Energy, he could have never on his own declassified, and he didn't go through any proper procedures there. And I think one of the most telling things— this is subjective evaluation— but one of the most telling things is that Donald Trump never denied the behavior. He never said he didn't do a thing. Instead, all the conservatives started to switch to psychic declassification as the reason why Trump could actually take anything he wanted out of the White House. Oh, hold on.

↳ P-04 raised again here · first raised at U-044

No, look, you have this staccato style of mixing elements of truth with elements of pure garbage. Wait, wait.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Destiny

What was the one thing? What was the one thing I just said that was pure garbage? Oh, that's not true.

So Biden started taking classified documents when he was in the Senate. Okay. No one even thinks that Biden was non compos mentis then. So according to you, the special prosecutor didn't bring charges Because, not because Biden is gone now, but because he was gone before. And I'm saying, was he gone in the '80s? Was Biden mentally gone in the '90s when he took those documents? Why not prosecute him for those? But quite clearly, the special counsel was not talking about Biden's mind in 1995. He was talking about Biden's mind today.

↳ evidence for the P-04 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-065

No, it doesn't have to do about being forgetful or competent.

↳ evidence for the P-10 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-044

You are misstating why Biden went off the hook, pretending that it was an objective, fair-minded decision by a neutral guy. And I'm saying no. Now we turn to Trump.

Wait, wait. Why? For her, I'm just curious. Walk me through this. Why would you have a special prosecutor and then authorize him to release a report that's damning to Biden and report all of this stuff publicly if it was all politically partisan in the first place? Why not just lie about everything from the start? If they control the DOJ, the special prosecutor, and the FBI, why even report publicly that Biden had turned in documents?

↳ P-12 raised again here · first raised at U-082

Well, the scandal of Biden's documents became extremely embarrassing to the Mar-a-Lago case. And so there was an immediate need. Okay, we now have to cover for our guy to make it seem like the other guy is the only guy who did something wrong.

No, no.

Why would they want to— Okay, let me give you my theory and then you tell me why it's wrong. So what does the DOJ do? They pick a guy in Delaware, nominally a Republican, but nevertheless, he's under the thumb of the Biden DOJ. He's reporting to them. He has to ultimately survive their scrutiny. Merrick Garland is still in charge. And so this guy conveniently comes out, you know, Biden, you know, he did some bad things, but you know what? He's a little forgetful. We can't really go ahead anyway. What you do is you get an official imprimatur. Biden's off the hook. All right, let's now proceed to get the guy we always set out to get, namely Trump. And what I'm saying is you're supposed to be like a sophisticated political guy. But you can't see that there is a clear effort here. How do we clean up the crimes of our guy? Because we want to stick the classified document offense only on the other guy, even though our guy did the same thing and arguably worse, certainly for a much longer period of time and much more carelessly, because the documents are sitting not only in his damn garage, but they're sitting at the Penn Biden Center where anybody can wander in and have a look at them. And not only that, If you look at all the reports that Hunter Biden made to Burisma, I'm talking about—

↳ P-10 raised again here · first raised at U-075

↳ evidence for the P-12 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-079

Okay, before we go to Burisma. So just to be clear, so I can understand. Well, because we started off in Burisma. You're saying that the same FBI that supposedly orchestrated January 6th, that worked as a deep state check on Trump's power, even when Trump was in office and was capable of doing all of these grand things, this Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is totally under the thumb of President Biden, despite the fact that he dragged his feet on all the prosecutions of Trump and waited way too long to appoint Jack Smith and is one of the number one center of complaints of every center-left Democrat. You're saying that that same institution's FBI was making it publicly known that they had found documents at Biden's house? Why? If they could suppress— if Merrick Garland could control a special prosecutor, which I don't know if you're aware of or not, the whole point of having a special prosecutor is that he's not directly under the thumb of the attorney general. Otherwise, we would just call that a DOJ prosecutor, right? You're telling me they had so much power to cover this up that they were influencing this 300-page report that Hur puts out that has a lot of damning testimony, a lot of stuff that makes Biden look bad. But they couldn't just cover up the initial FBI claim.

↳ evidence for the P-10 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-044

All right. So notice how this debate has shifted from the factual.

Okay.

Okay.

Wait, hold on.

Wait, wait, wait.

Let me, let me, let me just finish. Hold on. This is not— you're doing the rhetoric thing. So everything I've stated thus far relating to Donald Trump's indictments was a pure fact. You are—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dinesh D'Souza

+2 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Destiny

It's a repetition. It's a repetition of a charge.

↳ P-11 raised again here · first raised at U-063

It's an indictment. Yes.

You're giving me conspiracy theory of an indictment.

You're giving me conspiracy.

Now, let's come back. I'll answer your question. You're like, this FBI, how is it that they would have— the truth of it is simple. You have a case against Trump. Trump is not going to have 75 attorneys on his side that are going to be looking into who else had classified documents.

Why? That wouldn't help him win his case. That doesn't make sense.

That's one of the ways you defend, is you show that this crime has been widely indulged in. by other people and was not seen to be a crime.

No, that's not how you defend against a crime. It doesn't work that way.

No, no, no.

If that was the case, no one in the United States would get a DUI or traffic ticket ever again, because plenty of people drive drunk and get— and speed, and they don't get traffic tickets. The reality is, is the facts of the Mar-a-Lago indictment are unique to Trump.

↳ evidence for the P-06 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-038

No, no, they're unique to Trump. You want to play attorney here? We can pursue the point. Okay. It is frequently the case that if somebody can show— in fact, this was part of my own campaign finance violation case. where we basically said Dinesh gave $20,000 of his own money to a college friend who ran for office, and he was $20,000 over the limit. Part of my defense was no American in the entire country's history has ever been prosecuted on a first-time basis for giving that amount of money with no quid pro quo and no benefit to himself and prosecuted as a felony with an attempt to put him away for years.

But if we're going to go with that, you lost that case. But you lost that case. So this is an example of that defense not working.

↳ evidence for the P-06 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-038

Okay. So, so in your, in your fluid metric, if, if the case, if I lost the case, I must be guilty. Just like if O.J. was acquitted, he must be innocent. But oh no, that wasn't the case.

So I'm just trying to talk about the facts of what are laid out.

You have a fluid barometer.

It's not fluid.

It's very, it's very, very solid. So according to you, because I, quote, lost the case, let me tell you why I, quote, lost the case. Here I am, an immigrant. I'm sitting in the offices of the Southern District of New York, and I'm looking at guys. And it's very clear from what they say That they're like, if you don't plead to this case, we're going to charge you with bank fraud. I go, bank fraud? They go, yeah, because you took your money out of the bank. And they go, if you don't plead to this case, we'll charge you with mail fraud. I go, mail fraud? They go, yeah, because you put your check in the mail. These are the kind of people you're dealing with where they take what you did, they redescribe it 7 other ways, They then basically find a way to say to you, look, you want to take your chances with a Clinton appointee judge in a New York courtroom where you're facing years in prison? Or are you willing to plead guilty? Now, again, if you live in an imaginary America where you don't think that if they want to get a doctor, they charge them with illegally administering pain medicine, and if they don't want to get somebody, They find something on your tax return. This is something that happens in this country, sadly, every single day.

↳ P-13 raised again here · first raised at U-099

And when you say something happens—

It's kind of hard for me to believe that I, a conservative, have to tell you this when the left at one time would have been nodding vigorously and saying, yeah.

Okay, the left is not in the room with us right now. Okay, so just focusing. I mean, like, if you want, we can go through the details of your case. I don't know if you want to do that. I don't think we have to do that right now. If you're saying— I'm just curious. You said that this is the thing that happens all the time in the United States, this type of lawfare. So then did it also happen under the 4 years of Trump? And it's happening now under Trump too?

↳ evidence for the P-13 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-100

Is what happening? Campaign finance?

No, no. Is he abusing the legal system to go after political opponents that everyone else has done?

It remains to be seen, in my opinion.

Look, wait. So real quick, when Donald Trump puts out a Truth Social saying, Pam Bondi, my attorney general, okay, I want you to go after these 3 people. I think it was Bolton, Letitia James, and Comey. And I want you to use this prosecutor. Yeah, illegitimately she was appointed, and that's why her case was tossed. And Pam Bondi files indictments against 2 of those people with that prosecutor. You're saying that this type of behavior is just part and parcel of being the president or attorney general of the US?

No, no, no, no. I'm saying— I know I'm not saying that.

Okay, so this is an exceptional behavior that Trump has done that no one else in US history has done before, right?

Let me say what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this. You take a guy and, and try to put him away for life and fail, that guy is going to be a little pissed.

↳ evidence for the P-14 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-113

So you would say that Donald Trump is engaging in immoral behavior, but he's doing it as an emotional response?

I'm trying to be honest with you guys, and you're jumping in as if you're trying to score, like, debating points.

+2 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Dinesh D'Souza

I'm not trying to score debating points. I'm trying to say factual.

I'm saying—

I'm saying the president was mad.

Try to put yourself in a— try to have a little imaginative identification with the people we're talking about, right? So, here you have Letitia James making a, to Trump's way of thinking anyway, utterly fraudulent case in which the bankers came in and said, we were not defrauded. We did our own evaluations. We made tons of money on this deal. So you have fraud without a victim. And then Letitia James as well. New York was the victim.

Okay.

And then evidence comes to light, by the way, not discovered by Trump, reported on in the public media, that Letitia James— and by the way, there are other people doing this too— tries to take advantage of getting mortgage rate benefits by claiming multiple primary residences. Are you saying for a fact she didn't do that?

Correct. All of that has been tossed.

You're saying that Letitia James—

Her and the chair of the Federal Board of Reserves or whatever, where they try to use this weird mortgage claim because it's apparently the only crimes that Donald Trump is familiar with that don't involve classified documents. Yeah, they fabricated these charges. That's why they were tossed. For these 2 people, it came out they weren't true. There was a mismarking on a, on a, on a mortgage form, I think, at the bank about it. But if you look at the actual rate she qualified for, if you look at the actual underlying documentation, it was pretty obvious she wasn't applying for secondary or tertiary residences as also principal residences for the purposes of attaining a low interest rate mortgage. That is It was all bullshit, yes.

↳ P-15 raised again here · first raised at U-123

↳ evidence for the P-15 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-124

I don't agree with that at all.

What was I factually wrong about then?

Hold on, hold on.

There is no disagreement factually.

Well, there is a disagreement factually, and we can look at the facts of that case if you want. But the point I'm trying to make is this. If somebody who's trying to get you on real estate fraud is themselves engaging in real estate fraud, there's a certain delicious irony in exposing that. in retaliation. It's not that you're framing her for doing something she didn't do. Let's for a moment grant that she did it. Are you saying that because it's Trump, he doesn't have any right to bring charges against her, even if they're true? And moreover, let's say that they bring the charges back and she's found guilty. Will you change your opinion?

↳ P-15 raised again here · first raised at U-123

+2 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Destiny

Yeah, sure. Yeah, I would change my opinion. Yeah, of course.

↳ evidence for the P-15 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-124

Just because they found her guilty, let's just say they took her to court.

Well, I would look at the underlying facts, but I would say And this is where I'll grant to you, I'm definitely sympathetic of the president having these feelings.

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Destiny

Maybe—

and you can, I don't know, maybe we'll meet in the middle here. Maybe it would be good if we had an independent attorney general who wasn't taking direct orders from the president, especially if we're saying he might be a vindictive man-child. And that person should have the luxury of operating independently, like in every other presidential administration past, instead of taking direct orders from the president, who might, as you've just laid out an excuse for, do engage in vindictive prosecutions of political opponents.

↳ P-14 raised again here · first raised at U-112

We now know, we now know from the Biden years that all the cases, including the state cases, were being filtered through not the Attorney General's office, but the Biden White House. Why do you think— hold on. Well, it's not true. It's not true. I mean, stating it doesn't make it so.

↳ evidence for the P-14 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-113

And I know, I agree.

That's what I'm saying to you.

Where's your evidence for any of that? Where's the evidence that Hur was influenced by Garland? Where's your evidence that Hur was influenced by Biden? Where's the evidence of Biden giving direction to Merrick Garland? Where's the evidence of NARA or the FBI behaving improperly with regards to the Mar-a-Lago case? Where's the evidence that Jack Smith was, was told by anybody to do his investigation? What he did—

you have—

there's no evidence for any of this stuff.

Let me ask you this.

Sure.

How many times did either Fani Willis or her lover show up in Washington, D.C., and meet with the Biden administration? How many times?

Doesn't matter. That doesn't mean it's filtered through the White House. If, if, okay, the president isn't allowed to talk to anybody now or else it counts as improper behavior.

So you're saying it's perfectly fine for them to go to the White House and have a conversation? But you know what they were talking about? A bunch of other stuff unrelated to these prosecutions.

Like when Donald Trump calls Putin for 2 hours after kicking out every world leader from the Oval Office. The president is allowed to have conversations with people. If something improper is happening, I would want to know about it. But you would hope that people are reporting on it or that people have some kind of evidence of it, like we do for all of the improper conversations that Trump has. Like when Giuliani made a phone call to Zelensky's aide, or when Trump made a phone call to Zelensky to threaten to withhold aid, or like when Trump made the phone call to Raffensperger to try to rig the election in Georgia, or like when— That's all—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dinesh D'Souza

this is all bullshit upon bullshit. Wait, wait.

Those calls are recorded. We've listened to them. We can hear the phone calls.

I have. Okay, so let's start with the Raffensperger call.

Why don't we go to the Mar-a-Lago stuff?

Let's just figure that out. We are. We are. But what we're doing with Mar-a-Lago is we're trying to—

Did Donald Trump take classified information from the White House? Yes. He wasn't supposed to have it at Mar-a-Lago.

↳ P-03 raised again here · first raised at U-020

Maybe.

What do you mean, maybe? Was Mar-a-Lago a SCIF? Is that a secured classified—

It doesn't matter. The issue is not that. The issue is— That is the issue. You can't— You just said intentionality, and I'm saying—

I'm not— we haven't gotten to intentionality yet. Are you allowed to have classified material knowingly outside of a secured classified area?

It's— you might. You might under certain circumstances.

Yes. If you want, there are like 10 different statements I can make that Donald Trump himself issued in 2016 about the importance of classified documentation. In fact, Jack Smith quotes all of them, including the executive order. Okay, then you know how embarrassing it is. Well, no. So I'm curious. Donald Trump did all the prerequisites needed to break the law. He held the documents where they weren't supposed to be held. He knew they were classified. He said it to multiple people that he was showing them to. And then he told his employees to obstruct investigators when they're trying to find it. This is a crime, assuming it's all true. That should be the easiest. Like, yeah, of course that would be. If that was true, it would be a crime.

↳ P-03 raised again here · first raised at U-020

It is a little— it is a little bit. It is a little bit of a difficult question when a president takes his own documents from his own administration, an email or a comment that he sent to Kim Jong-un. Is that unauthorized?

↳ P-05 raised again here · first raised at U-041

Why was there a special prosecutor for Biden then? Why was her appointed if a president could just do it? Shouldn't Biden have just said, oh no, I'm allowed to do that?

The issue is not whether they did it, because if, if, if Doing it by itself is illegal. Biden should be in prison right now.

No, no, it's doing it knowing that you're retaining it outside of classified documents.

Exactly.

I'm curious, if you're saying it's not a crime, why was there a special prosecutor for Biden?

Okay. And you cut me off earlier, but I was showing why Biden, I think, took a lot of those documents.

Why was there a special prosecutor for Biden if it wasn't a crime?

The special prosecutor was there to investigate the degree of the offense and whether or not charges should be brought.

But you just said it wasn't a crime. If it's the president.

I didn't say it wasn't a crime. I said that it depends on the situation. I said that in a case like this, this is like a CEO walks out of a company, takes a bunch of documents with him, his documents, documents that he wrote. Now, hold on. There's a difference because we're talking about classified documents.

But like, even CEOs can have non-competes.

What you're doing is showing me that Trump's conduct here was distinctive in any way.

Okay. Can you give me a single example in all of US history of any other president saying to somebody, here is a document, I should have declassified it, but I didn't. Don't look too closely.

Okay. Are you saying— okay. Are you saying that if the president said that, that that is by itself evidence that he is guilty?

No, but it's part of the indictment.

Okay. So what I'm saying is part of the indictment. I read it. You read it. Big deal.

↳ P-11 raised again here · first raised at U-063

The point is, it is a big deal, though. Donald Trump said it was a big deal like 15 times when he's talking about other people. retaining classified information. Remember how big of a deal you guys made about it when you talked about Hillary's emails for like 3 years?

Yeah, and she was never charged.

Because she wasn't guilty of retention willfully of knowing.

And you know that.

That's what the investigator said. Because Comey said it.

Because Comey said it, right. Okay, so here's—

I'm sorry, do you have evidence to the contrary? Wait, wait, do you have evidence to the contrary?

Ultimately, we are now trapped in an appeal to authority. It's according to you, authority. Comey, Merrick Garland, Biden, unimpeachable sources. Whatever they say should be taken as gospel.

No, they are impeachable, but you should have evidence to impeach them. If you don't agree with what they say, then you should say, this is why I disagree. Not with a crazy tale you spin, but like, here's some contrary evidence from Mar-a-Lago. We see the pictures of the documents on the stage. We see the pictures of the documents in the bathroom. We see the pictures of the boxes spilled out with the classified markings.

↳ evidence for the P-11 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-048

Have you seen the Biden pictures?

I don't know if— I don't know if those were released or not. But the contention with the Biden pictures wasn't that there was classified material.

The contention— you're supposed to be a factual researcher, but clearly— I'm a factual—

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Dinesh D'Souza

I'm a factual researcher.

Clearly your eye only focuses on the right words. Hold on.

We saw the pictures because that was part of a federal indictment for a crime against Trump. Biden and Pence weren't accused of crimes because they made the phone call to the FBI. They made the phone call to NARA to say, hey, we think we have stuff here. You should come and grab it. Do you see the difference between behavior?

↳ P-04 raised again here · first raised at U-044

The difference between behavior now goes to a separate issue, which is how they reacted to NARA. Okay.

Yes.

One showed criminal intent, the other didn't. And the context of this is really important because we now know there's extensive communications between NARA and the Biden DOJ about how to bring charges over this on Trump. That correspondence has been released. So we actually know that the NARA people who are supposed to be these archives-neutral guys, librarians, No, they were very much part of a scheme for how do we go and get Trump.

↳ evidence for the P-04 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-065

I can— I can shut this down in one question that you're not going to answer again. If that was the case, why didn't they just file charges on him day one? Why did NARA give him 8 months to return documents?

↳ P-12 raised again here · first raised at U-082

Why did what?

Why did— why did NARA give him 8 months to return documents before the FBI finally got the charges basically ready for him to show up to take them because he wasn't returning anything? Why did they give him 8 months to return it?

↳ P-12 raised again here · first raised at U-082

Right. And I think the reason is simple, and that is when you're dealing with a massive sheaf of documents, a process of negotiation— it's fairly familiar, by the way. Other people have done it.

↳ evidence for the P-12 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-079

You said this wasn't a process of negotiation. You said this was them talking to the FBI, which they had to because they had to, because they were like, well, there's a lot of stuff here that we're not getting. And the FBI didn't— NARA doesn't have the authority to go to the president's house and retrieve stuff. That would be part of the FBI. That's why they had the communication. But if their goal— you said that they were talking the whole time like they wanted to fabricate a case. Why didn't they just do it on day one? Why did they wait so long?

Well, that's because the normal gap in a communication to bringing charges is about 8 months. That's not unusual at all. If NARA was talking to the, to the Biden DOJ and going, listen, we need to get Trump. He hasn't returned the documents. Here's a great pretext. Go get him.

↳ evidence for the P-12 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-079

The pretext being that he committed a crime?

No, the pretext— That's not what pretextual means. No. A pretext means that we are engaged in this dialog with the Trump administration. This can now be recast as Trump refusing to return documents.

Because he did refuse. They stopped communicating. That's why when the FBI went to the Mar-a-Lago place, they found more documents. Some of those we still have never gotten back because Trump flew like 12 boxes of stuff up to his home in Bedminster or whatever.

Okay, look, look, I think—

Let me just say it's bad. If it's true, it's bad.

We can keep going on this. But I think, I think what's— look, let me put it this way. I think you're a bit of a— you're a little pissed off that your cases didn't work, right? You were really hoping that you could get Trump, prevent him from running in '24, put the guy away, and win the 2024 election. Unfortunately, he was big enough, strong enough, had enough resources, had really good lawyers. He beat you every single time up and down.

↳ P-06 raised again here · first raised at U-037

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Dinesh D'Souza

So half his lawyers that he had initially are disbarred now.

So I don't know if you can call them lawyers anymore. You're basically— you basically basically trying to relitigate in front of this poor bunch of guys and go, you know what, if only I, Steve Barnell, had been litigating this, we'd really have gotten them. But damn it, we had incompetent counsel. It all blew up in our face.

Well, if anybody would know anything about relitigation, it would be the conservatives that constantly relitigate 2020. Do you acknowledge that, for instance, Trump lost the 2020 election?

No, he didn't lose.

Okay, so there's— we're talking about relitigation. Okay. I mean, like, you guys don't even accept the outcome of the 2020 election. We're supposed to be a beacon on a hill of democracy.

Hold on. Well, okay, so we need to probably say a word about 2020 because apparently, just like in the opening books of the Republic where Socrates has to say, laughter is not an argument, we're getting the sort of knowing, hahaha, which needs to be confronted because of its sort of sheer sneering dogmatism wedded to a bit of ignorance. So, let me ask you this. Did you see my film 2000 Mules?

I watched the whole thing, yes.

Let me ask you this. Do you dispute the accuracy of cell phone geotracking?

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground · Destiny

No.

No. If, if you were to be convinced that in the 2020 election, in the weeks leading up to it, and then again in the period leading up to the recall election in early Jan, that there were a number of individuals, mules, carrying ballots and going to 10 or more drop boxes. And this could be demonstrated by cell phone geotracking. Would you agree that this is something that needs to be looked into?

Sure. And you did and found nothing.

No. Oh, wow. Wow. Wow.

Well, okay, that's not accurate to say. You found 2 people that you accused of engaged in muleship. Both of those people, I think, sued you or the production company, and then that's why the film was no longer for distribution or whatever, because those 2 people were both engaged in fare. One guy, I think, was a father dropping off ballots for his family, and I think the other was a nurse who was dropping off ballots for the nursing home that he worked at. Both of those stories were verified to be true. I agree, 2,000 Meals was an interesting hypothesis, but it was missing the part 2 where you actually follow through on the investigation and find the people engaged in muling for ballots. Simply saying that people drove by ballot boxes is not enough to prove a crime. Hold on, hold on.

Yeah, first of all, okay, the nurse that you're talking about, I've never heard of. I don't even know what you're talking about. That's fully made up. The, the, that, that's out of your ass, basically. The, there is a case where we have in Georgia by one guy who claims, who, by the way, is seen in the film dropping off multiple ballots. The guy says that these, this was legit and he was dropping off ballots for his family, which is allowed. This case is being litigated because the facts of it are rather complex, and I won't go into it right here. Also partly because it's being disputed.

When you say litigated in a civil manner or criminal manner?

But the guy despite what can you say?

Just can you expand on that? Is it in a civil manner or in a criminal manner?

No, it's it's a it's a lawsuit. It's a civil lawsuit.

Okay. So when you say civil lawsuit, who's suing who for what?

So the the alleged mule is suing me and suing the company, claiming that he. individually. He's not saying the cell phone geotracking isn't valid. He's not saying anything shown in the movie is false. He's simply saying, what you showed me doing in the film is lawful. And in the film, we show a guy pulling up, jumping out, dropping these ballots, and he's claiming that that individual act was lawful. So that's what's being litigated.

Okay, which is important.

That's the whole point, right?

And it could be illegal activity, right?

It could be illegal or it could be legal. That's what's being This is being fought over. But what I'm getting at is no one is disputing the footage in the film. Some of it— but you said, you know, there was electronic surveillance. Do you realize that the people who said that this was the most secure election in history never looked at any surveillance in any state? Do you realize that many states which had surveillance turned off their videos before the election so they wouldn't have that surveillance?

That's really strange then. I feel like Sidney Powell and the Trump admin should have probably chose some of their claims on places that didn't have surveillance because the ones that they did, They intentionally obfuscated the surveillance cameras in order to lie about what they were showing. Like, for instance, the ballot boxes underneath the table.

Why don't we just stay with what— There's a reason.

Okay, well, we can stay with your case. And your case has been 4 years. Nothing has been resolved about this. It's a case about defamation. It sounds like that's what it is. It's not a criminal case at all.

In the film I made, we didn't talk about boxes under the desk. Okay. We relied on 2 types of evidence, both of which, on the face of it, are valid. First, cell phone geo-tracking. And we showed that there were, in Georgia alone, in Fulton County, in that area, 242 mules, alleged mules, who went to 10 or more drop boxes in the period of the election. Those same people, by the way, did not go to those drop boxes any other time because this was compared against a geo-tracking of an earlier date. Wait.

↳ P-16 raised again here · first raised at U-217

To be clear, real quick, to be clear, when you say went to those drop boxes, all you have are those people passed by those drop boxes.

No, that's it.

You don't have— you don't know what they did there. You have no footage of them dropping anything off. You don't know who these people—

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

Wait, do you have footage of those people dropping ballots off at— also notice for the one guy that's suing you or your company or whatever, notice that you're talking about footage of him dropping ballots off at a single box. That's not even the claim. 2,000 mules is not 2,000 homing missiles to one box. It's supposed to be people dropping them off at multiple boxes. I didn't see footage of any of that, of a single person. And that would have been the strongest thing. If you could show one person one time visiting multiple ballot boxes, I'd be like, oh, that's pretty crazy. I didn't see a single example of that. Do you have a single example of that?

↳ P-17 raised again here · first raised at U-220

↳ evidence for the P-16 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-220

Yeah, I do.

Why didn't you show it?

I— there it actually is shown in the movie. It is shown in the movie. What you really have is you see the same guy in 2 different outfits at the same box, but on 2 different occasions. Dropping in multiple ballots.

Why would you use geotracking data to see a guy going through multiple ballot boxes and only look at his behavior on one ballot box when the central claim was the meal was going to multiple ballot boxes?

I'll tell you why. It's like this. It's like you have a serial killer who goes to 5 different homes and you find 5 dead bodies in those homes. His cell phone places him at those homes at those exact times of those 5 murders. However, only one of those homes has surveillance. And in that one case, you can look at the cell phone data, you can see when he entered the home, you can then compare it against the surveillance video, but you only have one video. Now, in the 2020 election, even in the places that had surveillance, they had surveillance in approximately 1 out of 10 or fewer. Drop boxes. So the truth of it is you could have a cell phone moving from drop box to drop box, but only one of those drop boxes has surveillance.

↳ P-16 raised again here · first raised at U-217

I think I would say the analogy is—

All described. The analogy. This is all—

The analogy is telling because you're saying a serial— there's 5 murders, but you don't even have any proof of malfeasance happening at any of these ballot boxes. Also, when you say there's not surveillance on them, you keep saying that like that's exceptional. Surveillance wouldn't even really tell you anything. Right? A guy could show up in a hooded mask with everything covered, and there's nothing illegal about that, and drop a ballot off, and you would know nothing about this person. How would surveillance even help in this case?

↳ P-17 raised again here · first raised at U-220

↳ evidence for the P-16 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-220

Well, it would help to establish that the cell phone— because the problem with the cell phone is my cell phone is moving from box to box to box. If I gave my cell phone to my wife, then she could be going from box to box, but it would be with my cell phone. The advantage of the surveillance, it can establish who was the guy who is showing up at the box. Now, look, here's the problem, okay? When you do cell phone geo-tracking, you get a cell phone ID. But the cell phone ID is not the phone number. And we have no ability, and neither do you, to take a cell phone ID and identify the person associated with that cell phone. The only people who can do that is law enforcement. And so, we asked Democratic officials in Georgia, in Arizona, in Milwaukee, in Philadelphia, in Detroit to look into this. Not surprisingly, the Democrats were like, nah, we're not really interested in doing this. We're like, just talk to the mules. Maybe there is a very plausible explanation. This guy just happens to take a really long walk around election time. He likes to stop at drop boxes. He smokes a cigarette at each drop box. And that explains why he's pausing at these drop boxes. So maybe there is an explanation. We'd like to know what it is. The movie can take you as far as a film can go, but to now demand, why didn't you do the investigation? We're not able to do that, and we said so in the film. So what I'm getting at is this is not a case where there's nothing here. There is a lot here.

↳ evidence for the P-17 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-227

There's literally— how could you even get that information?

You— well, the answer is the cell phone data. You just take the cell phone data. You have a a list of 2,000 or more cell phone IDs. You just get the actual phone numbers of everybody. You go visit—

No, no, I'm asking, how would you get the phone numbers? How would you translate this from ID to phone number to person?

That can be done very easily. That's done in every burglary and murder case in the country right now. Correct.

The burglaries have something called probable cause of a crime being committed. There's no world where law enforcement could start pulling phone numbers and data from phones off of a wild hunch where no other information is shown. Probable cause, meaning that it's likely that a crime has been committed here. There's no world where a judge should be signing off on warrants or subpoenas pulling information like that.

Okay, so this is a good question. You're saying that if the prosecutor, let's just say in Fulton County, were to go to a judge and say, we have identified in Fulton County 242 individuals Who in the period leading up to the 2020 election or the recall election have been identified as going directly to 10 or more drop boxes. By the way, the way a cell phone moves is it doesn't move in a fluid pattern. It moves and stops and moves again and stops. You can actually tell when the phone paused. So We're talking about people who are stopping at the Dropbox. And if you go to a judge and say, we need a warrant to be able to identify these people and merely verify from them that their behavior was lawful, according to you, that warrant would be impossible to obtain because there's no probable cause. Knowing something about the law myself, I would say that warrant would be extremely easy to obtain.

↳ P-16 raised again here · first raised at U-217

What you've described isn't even an illegal activity.

↳ P-18 raised again here · first raised at U-254

The election fraud is illegal. The question—

No, no, you don't have any evidence of election fraud. You have evidence of people walking near drop boxes, which also are near post offices, which could— which are also— could be people mailing any number of things.

Right. Let me pose a case to you. These 4 kids in Idaho are found dead. And this guy Kohberger, you see his cell phone in the vicinity of the houses, and he makes a circle around the house, and that's the geotracking. He was there at the time or around the time the crime was committed. Are you saying that a single judge would go, we don't even have any evidence he did it?

↳ evidence for the P-18 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-255

+3 R-4.5 · Analogy substitution on probable cause · Dinesh D'Souza

No, I think you would have— I think that would be good for probable cause that a crime was committed because we have 4 dead bodies. It's likely a crime committed there.

That's right.

We have no evidence of voter fraud from any of these mailing boxes. So there is no probable cause to speak of. Again, we don't even have evidence of a crime.

↳ P-18 raised again here · first raised at U-254

Right. But when an investigation is underway, judges are very willing to give law enforcement the tools to discover if a crime has been committed. I'll give you my own case, a very good example. So in my own case, somebody tipped off the FBI that I made this contribution. The contribution could have been legal. They assigned—

↳ P-13 raised again here · first raised at U-099

↳ evidence for the P-18 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-255

Well, no, it couldn't have been, right?

Why? Why not?

Because it exceeded the federal election contribution limit. The commission's contribution limits.

There are actually legal ways to make a contribution. How do you think Soros gives millions of dollars? I just gave the wrong way.

Soros doesn't give millions of dollars to candidates or PACs. He gives them to things called super PACs, the hybrid 401 or 403s or whatever, s or whatever, like the different organizations there, but not to a candidate directly. You give money to another person and tell them to give money to a candidate because you know that you would be bypassing the contribution limit.

That's—

you're not— you're never allowed to do that.

All I'm trying to say is that a tip causes the FBI to assign $100,000 to investigate my case. And this is normal when, when law enforcement suspects that there's a crime that's been committed. They haven't proven it. They think it might be.

But there's a crime to speak of there. The exceeding of the campaign contribution limits.

What you're talking about, dropping ballots off at a drop box, is not a crime. Can you think of a good reason for somebody, let alone 242 people, to go to 10 or more drop boxes?

How many cell phones' data did you go through?

Millions.

So of millions of cell phones, could 243 go by where 10 drop boxes are?

Not go by, go from one drop box to another. Go from one drop box to the other.

And no more.

Sure. Look, we're not talking about 40. 240.

Do you understand the odds that you're talking about here? Of millions of cell phones, were there post offices or post drop boxes near these locations? These are all post office drop boxes, right? Could I think of— could I conceive of 240 people out of millions of cell phones dropping off stuff at drop boxes during an election season? Sure, I guess that's a very low number of people that would have to be out of those millions of phones you polled.

↳ P-17 raised again here · first raised at U-220

↳ evidence for the P-16 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-220

There is no reason for anyone to go to 2 drop boxes.

No reason at all. You've never in your life gone to 2 drop boxes before.

We're not— we're not talking about— we're not talking about showing up to City Hall and turning in your ballot. We are talking about these so-called mail-in drop boxes. Look, even if I were taking the ballots of my family members, am I going to say I'll put one ballot in one box And then drive to the next box and a third box. And remember that we're setting a high burden.

Could they just be mailing stuff?

What?

Could they just be dropping off stuff to mail?

You can send in your ballot by the mail.

No, no, it doesn't have to be a ballot. It could be anything, right?

The, the, the mail-in drop boxes are only for ballots. They're not for anything else. They're not intended for the post mail. You don't put your utility bill in there. These are drop boxes set up for ballots. And what I'm saying is that it makes sense. All right, maybe by accident you went to 2 boxes, okay? You went to one and put in your ballot. You went to a second and had a smoke. Once you set the bar at 10 drop boxes, you defy credulity. There's no reason to do that. And that's why in itself, it is suspicious behavior. Now, are you saying that in all the 242 cases, am I saying that all of them were equally guilty of the same type of fraud? I don't know. But I'm saying that there's very good reason to investigate further. And if, if we— if we want to say—

let's say that I grant all that. Let's say that I say there's very good information to investigate these people for crimes, despite having no evidence of crime being committed and no evidence of what these people were doing at the drop boxes. You don't think that there wasn't very good reason to investigate Donald Trump for committing crimes relating to the retention of classified material when he's showing classified material to people, saying, I could have declassified it, but I didn't?

There's— there's— I'm not saying that there's no good reason to investigate anything. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that.

So then the investigations of Trump were done for a good reason?

+3 C-1.2 · Concedes Trump investigations could have a basis · Dinesh D'Souza

Well, it could have been done. It could have. It could have. Generally, when there's an investigation, there is a— there is some plausible basis for it.

Sure.

But I think—

Like the willful retention of classified material.

Yeah. But I think you would be naive if you're saying, oh, you know what? Had this not been Trump, but let's say had it been Bill Clinton, they would have done exactly the same thing.

What about Hillary Clinton?

Well, I'm saying Bill Clinton because he was the president. What about Hillary Clinton?

She was running for president. We talked about her emails for years.

Talking about her emails in the public domain is one thing.

The FBI investigated her email usage.

And what I'm getting at is, okay, the Hillary crime is— I haven't even brought that up. I'm not talking about that. If I were to prosecute a crime right now, and I don't know if it could be pushed ahead, but the Russia collusion hoax, which began with Hillary, was then cooked up in the Obama White House itself, involved all the top officials of the Obama— of the Biden— of the Obama administration, was executed entirely intentionally.

You know, this whole thing falls apart with a simple question as well that you're not going to answer.

Let's do a simple question. Yeah.

What is it? Why wouldn't they publicize the hoax before Trump won the election?

Why? Wait, why would—

Why did they wait to talk about this until after Trump won the election? Why wouldn't they do it before, like they did with Hillary's emails?

↳ P-20 raised again here · first raised at U-306

+4 C-3.1 · Head-on answer on the hoax timing · Dinesh D'Souza

Well, this is—

Like, you know, Hillary probably lost the election because Comey made like 3 announcements. Comey's like a blog poster. Every day, we found a new laptop with more Hillary's emails. But Donald Trump's was completely under wraps until after Trump won the election? Why would— what a horrible hoax!

↳ P-20 raised again here · first raised at U-306

Well, the answer is really obvious. I'm only speechless because of the sort of It's so obvious, the answer to that question. Hillary was 100% sure she was going to win the election. Hillary had it made. All the odds were in her favor. She was leading tremendously in the polls. In fact, Frank Luntz just reflects the popular mood, where on the day of the election, he simply tweets, Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. She believed it. I would think Trump believed it. Everybody believed it, and the mo— when Trump won, these people couldn't believe it, and they were essentially in so now what mode. So here's what I'm getting at: Do I have to explain why they had the meeting in the White House in October as opposed to July? You seem to admit they had the meeting. You seem to admit that all the deep state. guys were there. You seem to admit that Hillary cooked up this false dossier, and this was used for at least 2 years, maybe more, to cripple the presidency of Trump. Is that a crime?

↳ P-19 raised again here · first raised at U-303

So, well, the problem is a lot of— the problem is a lot— it's not a crime to investigate things. It was a crime, for instance, when Donald Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation into all of the colluding Russian people around him, which was, which was probably criminal in nature. But of course, Donald Trump will never be convicted of any crime now that the, uh, Supreme Court has said that the president apparently can't commit crimes. We do know that people were convicted around Trump for things related to colluding with Russia and Russian officials. Manafort was a great example of that. Roger Stone colluded with Guccifer when it came to leaking the hacks about the Hillary email address.

↳ P-22 raised again here · first raised at U-346

Hello.

And all of the emails that she supposedly, you know, had on her server and everything else. But to talk about this collusion hoax with Obama and this— the bogus stuff that Tulsi Gabbard has released, all of this stuff had been investigated by our deep state operatives for like a year leading up to the election. Do you agree that Russia was intervening and interfering with all of the media cycles and everything in our country? Do you agree that Russia had companies— the Internet Research Agency was one of which Manafort turned on indictments about— that he was influencing the election in the United States? Do you agree with that or do you disagree with that?

↳ evidence for the P-19 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-312

Well, that is not what the Russia collusion hoax was about.

Well, but do you agree or disagree with that?

I agree with it in the blasé sense that I think that because the United States is the most important country in the world.

So it was the largest disinformation campaign in all of foreign interference history.

We cannot go through an election without the following countries: China, India, Israel, Qatar, Russia.

+4 R-2.1 · Pivot from Russia interference to Qatar · Dinesh D'Souza · low confidence: excluded from score

Sure. Can you give a single example of China, Israel, or Qatar intervening in our election? Atmosphere the same way that Russia did?

I would say that the Qatar influence is far greater and far more pernicious.

Give me an example.

Hold on, I'll give you an example. So in the case of Russia, the attempt was an extremely clumsy attempt to influence social media posts by bots and other—

So it wasn't clumsy. They were literally organizing protests in the United States and they had a company here. Some of the largest GOP accounts, 10_GOP, had over 200,000 followers, was ran by Russians.

↳ P-21 raised again here · first raised at U-314

Qatar, if— let's look at what Qatar has done. I just read a report that Qatar put $1 billion into Georgetown University, a single institution. Qatar buys political science departments. Qatar has invested heavily in the US media. If you want to influence an election, you don't think it's better to influence it through massive media outlets that reach tens of millions of people? Yes. So Qatar's influence, I mean, again, if you think that— if you think, if you can seriously contend that Russia was the leading influencer of the election, I think you're extremely naive.

↳ evidence for the P-21 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-323

Okay, so then let's say that I— let's say, first of all, you have no evidence, but we'll say that I grant you that.

Well, I have the evidence.

Let's say that I disagree with you. So Qatar was influencing US politics. Who was the guy who just got a $400 million jet from Qatar and just agreed to give them a security assurance the same as we would to a NATO ally? and is allowing them to train fighter pilots in the United States.

So it's Donald Trump.

You didn't know? What did Biden get from Qatar? What did Biden get from Qatar?

You actually think you're making a good point by leapfrogging from the topic we were discussing, which is, you see, you start out with a claim Russia was unique in trying to influence the election. I make the obvious point, who doesn't? Who's not trying to get a favorable outcome for their country. We know Ukraine was. Why do you think Ukraine was so involved?

It's not the same. The difference is that I'm giving facts. When you say other countries advocate for themselves, you're allowed to do that. There is a process by which you declare with, um, with, uh, FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, you declare that you were spending money in the United States to do this. Russia did not do that. They used subversive means. So for instance, Tenet Media was a recent example that was uncovered. The FBI said there were some 100-plus other organizations doing this. And if you read the Manafort indictments, you can see that there were agents operating companies in the United States that were wholly owned by Russia pretending to be Americans that were organizing protests, organizing rallies, and advertising on social media. That's the examples that I've given that are laid out in the indictment.

↳ P-21 raised again here · first raised at U-314

↳ evidence for the P-19 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-312

Nothing percutted or anything else. Your case, such as it is, is against Russia. But you notice that the collusion hoax had nothing to do with Russia per se. It was about Trump. The heart of the case was not that Russia's trying to influence the election. There are all kinds of things you can do against that. You can deploy the CIA. You can charge them under FARA. You can arrest Russians. You can do sanctions. Notice that the Russia collusion hoax, which frankly, many people in this room probably were like, oh, this is exciting. We think we can sink the president this way. It was based on the idea that Trump went along with it.

But he did, didn't he? Didn't Trump say on TV, if you release the 10,000 emails, Russia, you'll be greatly rewarded?

No.

Wasn't Guccifer a Russian hacker that Roger Stone himself was working with to time releases of Hillary's emails, the most damning stuff from the Podesta stuff?

↳ P-21 raised again here · first raised at U-314

Okay. What I'm getting at is—

Wasn't there a Trump Tower meeting where first Trump officials and surrogates lied about what the meeting was for, and then later they admitted that, yeah, there was a lawyer lady from Russia and we were seeing if they had information about Hillary Clinton? Okay.

So prior to the Mueller investigation, all of this recycled garbage was in all the media, and all of you guys were cheering it and hoping it would amount to something. And then Mueller investigates it and he goes, guess what? There was no collusion.

↳ P-19 raised again here · first raised at U-303

So that's not what Mueller said. I see you didn't read the report. Collusion is not a legal term. What Mueller said was there was probably criminal obstruction that prevented him from being able to do the investigation.

↳ evidence for the P-19 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-312

All right. So that's what happened. Do you dispute Mueller's conclusion that there was no Russia collusion?

He wasn't there to determine collusion as far as a crime. There is no crime of collusion. Mueller said that he couldn't gather enough evidence to prove that, but he said that there was heavy obstruction that probably would meet the level for criminal obstruction along the way. For instance, why did Trump fire Comey?

↳ P-22 raised again here · first raised at U-346

Okay, hold on.

Will you answer that question? You won't, because there's only one answer. It was to obstruct the investigation. Okay.

That's why he fired Comey. You said a little bit earlier ago, why would you even need a special counsel to look into something if a crime had not already been committed? You said that. Then you say just now Mueller said, I don't have enough evidence that the crime was even committed. And yet he had been investigating this for a long duration of time and he concluded there's nothing there. But evidently there was enough there for him to do the investigation.

What do you think obstruction is? Obstruction is when you make it hard for a person to investigate. That's what the crime of obstruction is. Why do you think Donald Trump fired Comey?

Why did Donald Trump fire Comey? Because, I mean, he's the president. He has every right to fire—

When we talk about Democrats, we talk about what's moral and what's right. When we talk about Trump, we talk about what is in the outer perimeter of what is he legally allowed to do. He fired Comey because Comey wouldn't stop the investigation into him.

Comey is an utter sleazeball.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Hold on, hold on. He's utterly Comey was in on the Russia collusion hoax.

Then why did he make public announcements about Hillary's email campaign that probably sunk her entire campaign?

Why do you keep changing the topic? I'm not.

I'm just pointing out how ridiculous all of your statements are.

None of them make sense. Comey is a guy. This is a guy.

Why did Trump fire him?

Trump fired him because Trump realized that he was actually part of the hoax.

↳ evidence for the P-22 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-347

Do you even know why Trump— do you know why Trump stated he publicly fired him? He said it was because of the Hillary email stuff. Trump fired him because after Flynn was indicted, Trump said, well, now you guys should be done.

↳ P-22 raised again here · first raised at U-346

There's a good indictment.

It was a good indictment. It was a good indictment. He should have lied to the FBI about talking to Russia about Russian ambassador.

Comey actually went on TV and boasted that they entrapped Flynn. Comey basically said, we needed to get Flynn, but we normally couldn't get him because in the White House, you have to go through the White House counsel. But we knew that things were a little chaotic in the Trump White House in the first term. So what we did is we sent a couple of guys acting like they were not up to anything. They just want to ask him a few questions to clear a few things up. And of course Flynn thinks these guys are on his side. They're just trying to sort something out. He cooperates and boom, they go after him.

↳ evidence for the P-22 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-347

Wait a second. So a couple of police officers acted like they were on your side and then you lied to them and they charged you with a crime. This sounds like every JCS video on YouTube ever. Welcome to the real world. This guy is a general. How does he not know how the freaking police work?

Seriously?

Just for the audience, I have to say this responsibly. If you lie to the FBI or if you lie to police officers about things, you could be charged with crimes. It doesn't matter if they're trying to be your friend. They're trying to get you to admit to a lie. That's the whole purpose of law enforcement.

↳ evidence for the P-23 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-362

Hold on. Wait a minute. I hate to bring you into the 21st century on this. Hold on. There are— it is actually part of the playbook of the FBI. If they cannot get you on something, They interview you for 10 hours. They then will find something you said in hour 7 that contradicts something that you said in hour 3. And they will say that both things can't be true, and therefore you must have lied. I can give you— I know personally a case of a guy in Los Angeles, movie director, in fact, the guy who made the film Die Hard, where they went after him on this. He was friends With a guy. He had gone to school with a guy who apparently was in the mafia. And they were trying to get this guy, John McTiernan by name, the director, by the way, of Die Hard 1 and 2. They told him, we want you to give up your friend. McTiernan basically said, I'm not doing it. Leave me alone. So what they did was they contacted him under dubious pretext we don't need to go into.

↳ P-23 raised again here · first raised at U-361

Yeah.

We need to ask you some questions about something else. And then they interview him for hours and hours and hours. And they find 2 statements, by the way, not even directly about the case, that, quote, contradicted each other. And they're like, you lied to the government. You lied to the FBI. That's a crime in itself. This poor guy spent, I believe, 2 years in prison for lying to the government.

Now, I have a feeling if you look up the facts of that case, it's not going to be even remotely close to what you've represented them to be.

No, they are.

That is the case. Secondly, Just don't talk to them then. Why was he even talking to them for 10 hours? Was he bored? Did he need some friends?

All I'm saying— no, you think you're cooperating.

You don't have to. You could just say, I don't feel like talking to you for 10 hours. I'm fine cooperating with law enforcement. I wouldn't talk to the FBI for 10 hours.

Look, I wouldn't either, but that's only partly because I've become savvy about how all this works.

And Flynn wasn't? He was just a doughy-eyed innocent person wandering—

Flynn did not think that— Flynn comes in as the National Security Advisor in a new administration.

The National Security Advisor who lied about speaking to a foreign Russian person in charge of political events. Why would you lie about that? Don't you think maybe that's probably not a good thing if you're the National Security Advisor to lie about?

↳ P-24 raised again here · first raised at U-364

Well, maybe or maybe not. Or it could be— hold on. No, no, hold on. Wait. I mean, if you are in the CIA, or the NSA or the, um, or in the security agencies, you lie a lot. You lie a lot as part of your diplomacy. You lie a lot as part of what you're paid to do. It is your job to mislead foreign governments. It is your job to mislead people domestically. Not domestically.

You don't mislead your own agencies.

Stop lying.

Hold on.

You're acting— you asked me a question, which is, is there a reason for Flynn— let's just say he met with Mr. X, and he is now asked, did you meet with Mr. X? And Flynn could have many good reasons for saying, no, I didn't. Okay, so did Flynn lie? Yeah, he did.

↳ evidence for the P-24 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-377

Wait, give one reason why he should lie to our own FBI about that.

It could be that Flynn is dealing with foreign policy, the FBI comes in, who knows what they told Flynn. Let's say they told Flynn, Look, we're just investigating embezzlement inside the White House. We need to ask you a bunch of questions. I'm not— we don't know what they said to Flynn. That's the key point. They come to Flynn under one pretext, and they're trying— and the key point here is intention. They came to entrap him. That's the beauty of what Comey said.

↳ P-23 raised again here · first raised at U-361

↳ evidence for the P-24 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-377

So that's— what do you think entrapment is? Entrapment is when I ask you a question, you lie?

No, no. Entrapment is where you basically go to a guy that you have no basis to suspect, right? In other words, they weren't— they didn't know— they weren't saying that Flynn did anything. They're like, let's see what we can get on Flynn.

↳ P-23 raised again here · first raised at U-361

So no, entrapment is when you entice or force somebody to commit a crime that they wouldn't have otherwise committed. If a police officer walks up to you and they say, hey, do you want to buy some illegal drugs? And you say, yeah, sure, that's not entrapment. If a cop comes up to you and he says, you better buy this drug or I'm gonna beat the shit out of you, or whatever, that would be entrapment. Entrapment is not, I ask you questions and you, you oopsies lie to me. about communicating with Russians as the national security adviser. Jesus. Right. Like, that's, that's, that's on you at that point.

↳ P-24 raised again here · first raised at U-364

↳ evidence for the P-23 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-362

Sorry. I think, I think that, I think that when the government sets out to entrap one of their own in this way, this is just downright diabolical.

Then why has Trump failed to do it with his political opponents despite being so hungry to do so? Or do you agree, for instance, that the Hunter Biden stuff was just outlandish, given that the confidential informant that that entire investigation started with, of which Jordan and Gohmert, nobody found any good solid information about this, about Hunter Biden engaged in illegal overseas not reporting income or whatever. The entire start of that was a confidential informant who's now admitted to lying completely about the origination of that story.

Okay. Leaving aside the confidential originator of the case, do you agree that Hunter Biden and his partners received $83,000 a month from Burisma?

No. If that was the reported payments, then that was reported.

You don't agree that they got the money?

+4.5 C-1.2 · Concedes Burisma payments were received · Destiny

No, I don't disagree with you.

Oh, you agree? You agree they got the money? Do you believe that Hunter Biden is an expert on minerals and in the Ukraine?

He might be. He might not be. I think he was a business person. He'd been on boards of other business ventures before.

Not to mention a noted artist. You know, he has done a lot of amazing things.

He's more qualified than Witkoff is to talk about Ukraine, and he's currently our ambassador to Putin, and he doesn't even bring his own translator. So Hunter Biden was qualified to sit on the Burisma board? Yes. And if I were to ask you, is there any evidence that he was sat there improperly, you would be able to give me nothing. So let's both agree that he was qualified.

No, no, I would be able to give you something. I would be able to give you something. I will give you the evidence which is now released of detailed Hunter Biden energy reports, which appear to have been actually lifted from the Biden confidential files. In other words, you said before, Biden didn't even know he had these files. There was no reason for him to have them. Yes, there is a reason. The reason is to cash in on the information, because one of the things that foreign countries want to buy from you is information not available in the public square. And so if you have confidential documents, By and large, all these guys who go into government, very often when they leave, they become consultants.

↳ P-25 raised again here · first raised at U-389

Wait, Joe Biden took classified information about his son to sell his own son to foreign operatives?

Joe Biden took confidential documents because he realized that they could become the basis for, quote, insider information that benefited not just Hunter Biden, but James Biden, Frank Biden, and Joe Biden himself. Don't forget about 10% for the big guy.

↳ P-25 raised again here · first raised at U-389

Which means— okay, so I'm just curious then. So if I were to say Donald Trump does stuff like that, for instance, how he has 2 of the largest crypto schemes in the world set up right now where anonymous people can donate to Donald Trump and even be seated to speak with him in the White House or at Mar-a-Lago, like the event that he did, I guess, like a year ago or whatever. Can you show me anything comparable to access to Joe Biden like that or any evidence whatsoever that he planned to use any of this improperly or communicated with people improperly or did anything bad with any of these documents?

Well, we're talking about 2 different things. You're talking about presidential fundraising.

I'm asking for evidence. I agree. We're talking about facts.

So you're giving me tools. I would tell you, the way that fundraising works in the United States is very simple. If you tomorrow had a business and you needed something and you wrote a $10,000 check to your local congressman, that guy will return your phone calls the next day, if not the day after.

Didn't you just argue against this in saying that you legally donated money to your friend who was running for Congress up in New York? Are you admitting that that's what you were doing, a quid pro quo?

My friend, my friend who ran was basically a— look, when I—

Like, I could even make a stronger argument because one of the accusations the prosecutors were making is that your friend introduced you to the person who was the primary funder for one of your documentaries, right?

You have this facile ability to jump leapfrog style to things that have nothing to do with each other.

I can explain the connections if you want. You just claimed if you want to make financing work in the United States, here is how financing works. But earlier you gave me the exact contrary position of saying just because I'm illegally sending money to a friend running for Congress doesn't mean I'm looking for a quid pro quo. So those are 2 contradictory positions, and I'm trying to understand the contradiction between them.

My friend was running a quixotic campaign in New York. She was running because a Dartmouth woman, Kirsten Gillibrand, was the sitting senator. And so my friend Wendy Long said, I think I can, I can raise some issues in the campaign. I said, don't run, Wendy. you're going to lose by 40 or 50 points. And she goes, okay, but if I run, will you help me? And I go, ugh, well, if you run, I'll try to help you. So this was the basis on which I supported a candidate who had no chance to win, lost by 40 points. I had nothing to get out of it. And so what I'm getting at is we're not— we were talking a moment ago about how presidents raise money. and are solicitous of people who give them money. And I'm granting that on both parties, this is very common. But that's not the same as Hunter Biden. You jump from Hunter Biden to that. Hunter Biden was basically cashing in big time from a foreign government purporting to supply them with insider information, which is what they were paying for. And we know from his own business partner that money was ending up in the pocket of Joe Biden.

What, what insider information? What insider information does the United States have for the—

All you have to do is read the Hunter Biden reports in which he claims, I'm giving you all this information.

Information on how to run a business, because that's what his post was.

No, not— he's giving you information about the US policy and posture vis-à-vis energy, and he's giving you information about various people in the administration.

But he's not an insider.

How do you know that?

Because it was never— I don't even know if Palmer or Jordan alleged this. It doesn't show up in any reports ever. It was just always these vague stories of inside knowledge.

They're not vague stories.

Why wasn't he charged with any crimes at all? Why didn't the House— didn't even recommend charges despite the 50 million different subcommittees, special investigations, or whatever they tried to do on him? The facts are frustrating here. I know. I understand. It's a hard— it's a difficult position to be in. There's just— but the difference is, is like, so if I look at the Trump crypto stuff, there's nothing even remotely comparable in all of US history to a president being able to solicit anonymous donations from anybody on the planet.

The House recognized that to propose criminal prosecution to Joe Biden's own DOJ was a fool's errand. That's why they didn't do it.

But they did.

But they did.

They literally had him plead guilty to convictions that has to go through the federal Department of Justice.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Cut-in during D'Souza's turn · Destiny

Why don't you let me finish?

Because what you just said isn't true.

He didn't do anything wrong. Wait, how did they get— how did they get—

how did they convict him of crimes?

Pardon him. Joe Biden was very careful. to pardon Hunter Biden for crimes going back to 2014. In other words, he gave him a retroactive pardon, not just for things to do with Burisma, but for any other crimes this guy did going back to when Joe Biden himself was the vice president.

Why didn't— why did they— why were they able to convict him of some things if they weren't able to recommend any charges? Wasn't Joe Biden or wasn't Hunter Biden convicted of the gun charge and the IRS charge?

Yes, he was convicted of those things.

And I think they could recommend charges.

And I think I've just given you a— what I think would be a good case to make. Now, why the powers that be decided let's not charge Hunter Biden.

Just so we can agree, what you just said had no basis in reality. They could recommend charges. They did. He pled guilty to those 2 things. So they always had the ability to recommend charges. Isn't it more likely that they, especially considering the origination of the investigation, was a confidential informant who admitted to lying about everything. Right. And that 10% from the big guy, interestingly enough, we're just citing the Russian leaks from the DCCC.

Absolutely not. We're citing— we're citing Hunter Biden's own business partner.

No. Yes.

No, it was Tony Bobulinski who revealed the 10% for the big guy.

No, there is no connection to Joe Biden there, ever.

↳ evidence for the P-25 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-416

Tony—

it's never been made. It's never been made. They had the ability to investigate for years.

They found nothing. The 10% for the big guy, it comes from Hunter Biden. There was a meeting with Joe Biden, Bobulinski, Hunter Biden. at the Milano restaurant in Washington, D.C., not very far from here in Georgetown, in which Joe Biden, who was very careful himself not to get into the business dealings, but he would always show up as if to say, listen, this is on the— I'm involved, I'm supporting my son here. You make the deal with him. The money will then part of it come to me. All of this is laid out now. I agree. Merrick Garland— Oh, yeah.

↳ P-25 raised again here · first raised at U-389

I'm curious. We think that's what happened. What did Joe Biden do for his son? What was the quid pro quo here if we're alleging that? What did he—

what even happened? This is the style of the Corleone family. What does Joe Biden do for his son? Joe Biden's son is Michael Corleone. He's part of a corrupt family operation. The other brothers are— What are the corrupt—

what is the operation?

The operation is to shake down foreign entities.

+4 R-2.1 · Whataboutism: Hunter met with Trump-family deals · Destiny

Shake down how? Like when Biden goes to other countries and signs deals with leaders in Indonesia and Qatar and Ukraine and Russia for mineral deals? What about the $700 million in DOD contracts that Trump's own children have gotten? for extraction deals in Ukraine that the president himself is negotiating. Well, supposedly him, but it's actually Witkoff getting plans passed off from Russians. Right. What I can show you—

I mean, your only mode of defense is the what about, and then you jump to something else.

Well, no, my mode of defense is the reason.

Why don't we stay with this?

Okay.

Wait.

Oh, wait. If you want to stay with the topic, let's do it. Give me one concrete example of Biden corruption. What was one concrete example? Not like I think this happened and there was a story of this. What's one concrete example? Okay. I just gave you like 5 for Trump.

↳ evidence for the P-25 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-416

All right. One concrete example is that Biden is vice president. And right about the time that Biden is designated as the US man for Ukraine, a river of money now begins to flow from Burisma to Hunter Biden and his business partners. And all of this at a time when Burisma itself is under investigation for all kinds of fraud. And Joe Biden goes on camera before an international council and tells you that he demanded that the prosecutor of Burisma be fired. And not only that, he got him fired. And he— not only that, he went on to say, I told Ukraine that you're not getting $1 billion if you don't fire this guy.

↳ P-25 raised again here · first raised at U-389

Why did he say that?

There is nothing that Trump has done that comes even close to this.

Oh, sure. Let's— well, then why did he say that?

He said that because it's true and he got away with it.

No, no. Why did Biden tell that to Ukraine?

Biden told that to Ukraine because he was essentially making a deal with Burisma in which—

You don't even know the official— Hold on.

Burisma said, you sort out this corruption deal for us right here and we will start paying your son and money will flow right back to you. Nothing good. The timing is perfect. The amount of money is huge.

And all the timing is perfect. What else was going on in 2014 in Ukraine? Don't you think there might have been maybe the whole— I know, I know, this is— I'm a sucker for buying the official story that the entire European Union and the United States and the whole US official administration, everything agreed with. The deal was, was that money was going to be made available to loan to Ukraine if they would clean up the rampant corruption in that country, of which there was a plethora of. We know this because one of the main benefactors of that corruption was Manafort when he was working with Putin to help his candidate in Ukraine that he was lying about reporting his income to. was one of the big indictments that came out, one of the big convictions, and one of the big pardons that Trump made later. But you said that's unrelated to this, right? In 2014—

↳ P-27 raised again here · first raised at U-464

It's totally related.

I know, of course it's not. Nothing is. In 2014, when Biden was making these statements publicly—

I did go to jail. You went to jail too.

No, no, I'm just saying what the policy was in the United States. Biden was operating— this was the deal that Ukraine had already made with the US. You have to clean up. Shokin was known as a bad prosecutor. That investigation you were talking about into Burisma, that was dead for over a year. There was nothing even happening on that front. Ukraine was known to be a country with a lot of corruption and a lot of corruption-related issues. And part of them having access to low interest rate loans from the West, from the United States, was that they would clean up their corrupt businesses or their corrupt lack of ability to conduct themselves as a country. That was the story given. The whole rest of the world agrees. The European Union, the United States, everybody else. Nobody's brought this up until Trump was caught trying to do a quid pro quo later with his own personal attorney Giuliani making phone calls and then him making phone calls unilaterally on his own.

↳ evidence for the P-26 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-460

So let's give— let's repeat your dewy-eyed account of what is actually happening in Ukraine. According to you, according to you, there's a lot of corruption in Ukraine. True. Not surprisingly, very involved in the corruption, Burisma.

Nobody's saying—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Cut-in over Destiny's reply · Dinesh D'Souza

Would you think that a giant energy company in Ukraine is somehow immune from the corruption? They're part of it. Okay. A prosecutor is looking into it. According to you, Joe Biden, having no personal interest in the matter whatsoever, motivated purely by the most sublime ethics, tells Ukraine, you have to fire— there's corruption all over the country, but I'm only demanding one thing of you. You need to fire this one guy.

↳ P-26 raised again here · first raised at U-451

+4 R-2.2 · Sarcastic ventriloquism of the Shokin position · Dinesh D'Souza

Their chief prosecutor.

Hold on. Who is looking into— That's just a random guy. Yeah, their chief prosecutor who is looking into corruption from the company that my son is about to make an extremely lucrative financial deal with. Extremely?

↳ evidence for the P-27 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-467

Nowhere near as lucrative.

$83,000 per month. to go on indefinitely. And according to you, it's all on the up and up. No, no investigations required here, guys.

↳ P-26 raised again here · first raised at U-451

You know why I know this?

Because the easy Democrats here, and when our guys do it, it's all A-okay.

This is the easy killer question that, again, you won't have an answer for. If this was such a horrible, corrupt thing, why is it that Republicans only seem to recall the quote that, that Joe Biden made on stage in front of the whole world in 2014, years later, when it came up with Donald Trump and Ukraine. Why would, why would Joe Biden go out on stage and admit to the corruption, saying, I told them that if you don't fire Shogun, you're not getting anything from us. Hahaha. Why did nobody say, oh my God, we need to investigate him for corruption? Maybe it's because the whole world understood how corrupt the Ukrainian system was at that point in time.

↳ P-27 raised again here · first raised at U-464

↳ evidence for the P-26 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-460

The reason people went back to the video is for the simple reason that they, at that point of the video, didn't know about the money flow. So the point is, Joe Biden makes an action. which seems on the up and up. It's just that it's part of my job. I'm making sure that—

↳ evidence for the P-27 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-467

It's part of the— Part of the prior prosecutors in other countries. No, it's not.

It is. It is. First of all, it's a little unusual for the vice president of the United States to name the chief prosecutor in this country and say—

Very unusual. I agree. So why didn't anybody think anything weird of it? Because this was the policy that the European Union and the West had in guaranteeing loans to help Ukraine. That's why nobody looked into it.

↳ P-27 raised again here · first raised at U-464

So they— You can think that something is weird without thinking that there's money changing hands. You can think, I don't know why he'd do that. That's really strange. And then a little bit later, it comes out— He didn't know why he was doing it. Hold on. You actually have checks made out to Hunter Biden's LLCs. You have contracts from Burisma. Now you know, oh my gosh, it all makes sense. This guy was doing it to open up a spigot of money. Obviously, it's in Burisma's interest. to shut down the investigation. What's that worth? $83,000 a month?

↳ P-26 raised again here · first raised at U-451

Yeah.

Is Hunter Biden's expertise worth $83,000? Hunter Biden wasn't just getting $83,000. So was Devin Archer. So it's $83,000 per partner, not $83,000 total per month. People don't give that kind of money, especially foreigners don't give that kind of money without having some interest in the matter. They're not—

So what would you say about the $2 billion that Kushner's firm got from the MBS? When Donald Trump was crafting the Abraham Accords, are you saying there must have been a quid pro quo there as well? Or what about the massive Qatari deal with the $500 million jet? Or what about the minerals deal in Ukraine with Russia?

↳ P-28 raised again here · first raised at U-400

I think we should look at these. So I think, I think with Trump, what's— let me tell you.

Well, here, as we move on to this, can we admit for everything else, there is no solid proof of any of the stuff related to Hunter Biden. It's just, you know, the big guy or whatever. There was no solid proof of anything related to Joe Biden or Pence with regards to improper handling of their documents.

Well, all I'm saying is when you say there's no solid proof, all evening you have been reciting these rhetorical— why do you think Trump took a plane from Qatar? There's no solid proof, but you've been saying it. Why did Jared Kushner make this deal? You're— you constantly invoke these rhetorical whys.

So to be clear, I'm not invoking rhetorical whys.

I'm not going to hold you to your line.

The issue is that Kushner was the guy who was the chief architect of the Abraham Accords. and Kushner's firm got $2 billion from MBS from Saudi Arabia, or Donald Trump allowed Qatar to have a security agreement with the US we don't even have with Israel. And in exchange, there was a $400 million jet that was authorized for Donald Trump's, I guess, Secret Service and him, his presidency.

↳ P-28 raised again here · first raised at U-400

He doesn't—

he doesn't jet plane. Hunter Biden was never a public office official holder. So there is no— like, I can't draw the comparison. Now, if Hunter Biden worked in the White House or if Hunter Biden had the same role that Whitcoff had, that Elon Musk has, that any of Trump's children has, then I could say, oh yeah, that is kind of like weird and bad. But you guys seem very focused on the hypothetical crimes of Hunter Biden, none of which the House is able to actually indict him on. But you have no concern about the open, rampant corruption that Donald Trump is engaged in, where right now with a crypto coin, he could take donations from anybody around the world and nobody would know about it.

↳ P-28 raised again here · first raised at U-400

Let's, let's, let's look at the jet from Qatar, because I think if we're looking at corruption, let's, let's look and see what's going on here. So Trump, Trump, and this is one of the unique aspects of Trump, I guess, is—

Being a criminal president, yeah.

This is not a criminal act.

I agree.

The Supreme Court said he can make a pardon. Trump operates— Trump is ultimately a transactional guy who acts as if the United States is his corporation and he's the CEO. So Trump thinks, the way Trump's mind works, if I can get a foreign business to put $500 million into the United States, I'm scoring a big one for my company called the USA. Trump thinks that if I'm making a deal with Qatar and the Qataris as tribute want to give the United States of America, not Trump, a plane, we'll take your plane. It actually establishes who is paying tribute to whom. And Trump's point is, I can do these deals. Frankly, if it were the Biden administration, they would have given Qatar $400 million and gotten nothing out of it.

↳ P-37 raised again here · first raised at U-599

So if the CEO of your company cut you a deal, your company a deal where your company now has to do work for Qatar, but the CEO gets to fly around in a half-billion-dollar private jet, you feel like the CEO was working for you?

You're saying— yeah, I do. I do.

How does the $400 million jet help Americans?

↳ evidence for the P-29 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-496

The $400 million jet is $400 million less that the United States would have to pay. Air Force One was— has been— Air Force One is being refurbished or displaced.

↳ P-29 raised again here · first raised at U-495

So instead of paying American workers in an American company to make a plane, we got one for free from Qatar, a country that you said is influencing our country via foreign affairs more than almost any other country on the planet. You're.

↳ evidence for the P-29 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-496

I think you think. I think you think you're making gotchas on me, but you're not. Qatar.

I'm just pointing out what you're saying. The gotchas are coming from your side.

Let me spell it out. Let me spell it out.

Go ahead.

The nation of Qatar is extremely cunning. They understand that you've got the the radical jihadis over here, and you've got Israel over here, and the Qataris realize that there is a very important. middleman role to be paid— to be played by a broker who has access to the terrorists, but at the same time is willing to make deals with America. And so, for example, if you want to get the hostages out, it's not easy to deal with Hamas. And so Qatar goes, listen, the guys in Hamas, they live in Qatar. We'll talk to them. We'll get some sense out of them. Now, this is the reality of the dirty world we live in. You have to work with these kinds of people. Are they duplicitous?

Yes.

Do they make promises? Yes. They go, listen, we want to run some joint air exercises with you at one of your military bases. But we are the good Muslims. We preach the Quran, but we don't want to bomb your buildings. And so you need to encourage the good Muslims to undermine the power of the bad Muslims. And so this is Qatar's sales pitch. Why do you think Georgetown took their money? Why do you think they don't? Why do you think they own political science departments around the United States? They are they have a pitch. Now, what I'm saying with Trump, Trump understands what their pitch is. But Trump is not. Trump is operating, I think, as no president that I've seen before him. in the transactional world is something he is better at than almost anybody else I've seen in 40 years of American politics. The Biden people were so bad at this that they were giving away everything and getting nothing in return.

↳ P-29 raised again here · first raised at U-495

↳ evidence for the P-28 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-495

Why is it that Donald Trump is able to create all these crafty deals with people like Qatar? And when you talk about the terrorists and everything else that they were concerned with, they were probably concerned with the fact that Israel had just bombed them. I think that was a major impetus for them securing a peace agreement or a security agreement with the United States. is because they don't want Israel bombing them anymore, number one. Number two, he has all this ability to negotiate so cleverly and craftily with all of his enemies. Why can't he make the same negotiations with, I don't know, Canada and Mexico? Well, he's turned ally to enemy of almost every country on the planet of the United States.

I'll tell you why. Because what Trump is dealing with is basically 75 years of European freeloading off of America. The Europeans after World War II got an amazing deal, which is basically, we America will locate hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe to protect against a Soviet invasion. We will guarantee the protection of Europe, and we, the American taxpayer, will pay for it. Meanwhile, you can take all the money that you are spending on defense and use it on your welfare state. This deal has been in place untouched by Republican or Democratic presidents for 75 years. And every time anybody has questioned it, the president or the president's team has basically said, we have to live with it. We realize we're being ripped off. And by the way, the same is true across the board. It recently came out—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Destiny

Well, here, we're just focusing on Europe. Just focusing on Europe.

You'll have your turn. It recently came out that by and large, pharmaceutical drugs all over the world are dramatically cheaper than in the United States. Why? Because all the R&D cost is borne by us. And the companies then sell the product for the actual cost plus a markup. So you might get the same drug for $7 in Canada, and it's $50 in the United States because our citizens are stuck with all the R&D costs. We didn't even hear about this for decades until recently.

Wasn't there a president who was Black who was trying to do like a public option? Or wasn't Biden trying to negotiate with actual—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dinesh D'Souza

Irrelevant. Hold on. Is it a lie?

Yes, it's a lie. We always have known that drugs cost more in the United States. Why do you think Obama was even trying to pass the Affordable Care Act? We've always known that these things are expensive. Why do you think Biden was trying to do it so that Medicare could actually negotiate with drug providers in order to have actual ceilings on prices? We've always known this, but for some reason conservatives are just now catching up to 20 years of like, Wow, isn't this kind of a bad thing?

Hold on. You know, as— and this is really the story of this debate. Customarily, you shift the ground to, you're taking it for granted that the drug should cost $50. And you're saying, now having ripped off the American citizen by making him pay the full R&D freight, let's now give democratically handouts to people so that they can now afford the $50. even though the price shouldn't be $50 in the first place. See, so with Trump, you get— you go to the root of the problem, which is let's sit down these pharmaceutical guys from abroad. Let's kick their ass a little. Let's tell them, listen guys, you can't pull this scam on me anymore. I know exactly what you're doing. If you want this drug, you don't have to take it. You can let your people die of diabetes or whatever. But if you want this drug, the company will amortize the R&D cost. over the price of the drug worldwide. Americans are not going to pay higher prices. Whether we do Obamacare or not is a completely separate issue. But in your usual gymnastic way, you can't answer what I said, so you pretend everybody in the audience—

What do you think I can't answer? What is a question you've asked that you don't think I can answer?

The question I'm raising is this. You started out by asking me, why is Trump so combative And he can't make a deal with Canada. And I'm giving you the answer because those people have been enjoying a rip-off scheme for 75 years.

If all of these other countries have been enjoying a rip-off scheme with the United States, why are we outperforming all of them?

He's not fighting with all of them. He's made some deals.

No, no. Why are we outperforming all of them? Which European country has benefited so much from their one-sided, lopsided deal with the United States that they're doing so much better than us? Who's outperforming the US right now worldwide? 75 years of infrastructure.

↳ P-31 raised again here · first raised at U-518

That is what is known as a non sequitur.

I'm sorry, what is the damage? You said that they were all leeching off of us, taking advantage of a state of affairs.

How? They're taking advantage of the state of affairs. Let's just start with Europe, okay? The truth of it is, not only does America pay a large portion of European defense costs, but they don't even pay their freight in NATO. They were getting away, by and large, with paying about 1% of their GDP to NATO. Under Trump, they've agreed to raise it to 5%. Now, I can see why they're pissed about that. Nobody wants to pay 5%. They'd rather have that money to spend on buying votes in their own country.

↳ P-30 raised again here · first raised at U-509

What do they even pay? What are they even paying for? When you say 2%, 5% to NATO?

We're talking NATO is— NATO is supposed to be funded by a collaborative— it's a collaboration of the United States and the major countries of Europe. And all of them are supposed to pay into the pot that bankrolls NATO. When we're fighting this war in Ukraine, Who do you think's paying for all of it? So the most—

well, the United States has been reticent to under the Republican leadership, but the— this is a percentage agreement that they agreed to put into their own military forces. It's not like we get that. It's not like NATO even directly gets that. And Trump is trying to separate himself from the security provider from Europe for the entirety of his presidency. But you keep saying these other countries are taking advantage of us. Has America not gotten in exchange for the security agreement with Europe the strongest military on the planet, the ability to have so much precision that we can murder random Venezuelans in the ocean and get camera footage of it for Donald Trump and Kristi Noem to show off to the American public. Like, we have, like, the strongest military on the planet. We've had the strongest military on the planet. Everybody's trying to steal military secrets and everything from us, the United States. You're acting like this has been a one-sided deal.

↳ P-31 raised again here · first raised at U-518

I'm making the point that this is, like, pure sophistry here.

What did I just say that was not true? Doesn't America have the strongest military on the planet?

Let me— hold on. Let me zoom into what we're actually talking about. about, okay? You have Europe. You have these countries that face mutual threats from each other. For a long time, they faced a Soviet threat. They face other threats. The United States comes in and basically goes, we will pay the lion's share of your protection, okay? Now, you're asking, don't we get something out of it? Of course we do. But any common sense transactor would know that while we get something out of it, they get a lot out of it. They can afford to pay. They might not have been able to afford to pay in 1946, but they can afford to pay a lot more to their own defense. But they refuse—

↳ P-30 raised again here · first raised at U-509

Have they gotten more out of it than they've gotten out of us?

But they refuse to do it because they would rather freeload off the US taxpayer.

You're saying freeload? The United States has gotten to coordinate security on, on the entire planet, almost on our entire hemisphere. As a result of this arrangement, it's benefited us. We have the strongest economy. We've got the best trade arrangements. We've got the best intellectual property. We've got the world culture that we export from the US.

↳ P-31 raised again here · first raised at U-518

↳ evidence for the P-30 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-526

It's just so strange. This is what I call— this is globaloney, okay? Because the issue is—

Wait, what was pure baloney?

A transactor in any deal, okay? If a transactor in any deal is always going to think about not only what do I get out of it, I obviously going to get something out of it. But if I'm protecting you and your family, let's say, okay, I'm going to get something out of it. We're allies. You're my friend. But then I realize that you're doing pretty well. In fact, you have a more generous welfare state than I do. And you're allowing me to pay your security costs and store your house alarm, put guards outside your house, and you are contributing little or nothing. And then I go, well, I got the best IP. I got the smartest people. I got the biggest— who cares? It's not a reasonable deal.

↳ P-30 raised again here · first raised at U-509

↳ evidence for the P-31 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-529

They had nothing to do with our welfare. I'm just curious. We redirected what, $100 billion? Trump said $300 billion. It goes up every time because he's forgetful of the last thing he said. How much money that we didn't give to Ukraine has now gone into American welfare? Oh, no, wait. The one big beautiful bill tried to cut Medicaid for tax cuts for wealthy people. So why are we saying— why are we trying to pretend that the Republicans are taking away from security in Europe? You said that he got a 5% commitment from NATO guarantees, that we've done less getting extorted by other countries. Okay, great. Where's all my welfare now?

You're, you're, you're, you're, as usual, pivoting to an unrelated issue. The unrelated issue is, what do we do? So now, following our train of thought, if you are able to convince your friend, look, you install the alarm, I'll provide a security guard, you pay for your own protection, which benefits you the most. It benefits me. I don't want to see you harmed, but you don't want to see you harmed even more. So you pay. Now I have some more money. And when I say some more money, what I mean is that Even after the Cold War, if the United States had said, we are in a different world, the Soviet threat is over, we're not going to have German battalions coming through the Fulda Gap and swarming across Europe, we are in a different situation. Our defense budget can now probably be cut in half or in a third, to a third. And if we did that, we now have a lot of opportunities, which governments are not very wise in the way they spend money, but we can deploy them any which way we want, which is a separate debate. But the country would have enormous added resources. Just look at how much we've spent on the defense of Europe since World War II. It's a giant number. What have we gotten for it? Have we averted any great wars? We've gotten the world's largest economy.

↳ P-37 raised again here · first raised at U-599

↳ evidence for the P-31 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-529

We extract intelligent people from them via our institutions because of how easy it is for them to come and study here. We have foreign investment from these countries. These people invest a ton in US Treasuries because of all the trade that we do.

Oh yeah, so, so the Europeans take our money and invest it in our Treasuries so that they can then collect interest on that, and that's how we have a $38 trillion debt. And you think it's a wonderful arrangement in which we give them money to then loan to us so we can then pay them the interest on that and go into the red to $38 trillion.

I'm sorry, as opposed to— what do you call a man when somebody comes up to you and they say, oh, what's your net worth? Well, you know, I have $10 in my bank account. And then another guy, you're like, oh, you know, what's your net worth? And what do you do? It's like, oh, I've got like a $50 million loan out. Do you think the guy with the $50 million loan is the poor one in that circumstance? The reason why we have a $38 trillion debt And the reason why our interest rates are still relatively low despite having so much debt is because so many other people want to invest in the US economy. Our workers get paid more across basically every single sector. Everybody wants to come to this country to live. Like, South Africa isn't begging, you know, Germany or Britain to let them in. If you want, like, surplus export economies, you can look at places like that, like Iran or places like North Korea or places like the United Kingdom is an export economy right now. Like, I mean, these are not favorable places to live, comparatively speaking, to the standard of living in the United States. Well, okay.

↳ P-33 raised again here · first raised at U-552

What you say is not untrue, but it's not the reason that our interest rates are low. The— look, people— Europe, first of all, with regard to Europeans coming to study in America, do you— are you saying that Europeans would not come to study in America from the '40s to now, even though the United States is leading in technology? We have very good reasons for the Europeans to come study here.

Not when the current administration is deporting them for protesting against Israel.

See, now you switch it to something else.

I'm not.

It's what the Trump administration is doing.

You talked about students coming to the United States to study, and the president is attacking all of our universities and making it harder to get student visas. I tried to say no, they wouldn't come.

You're a hit-and-run man because whenever I try to stay on a point—

+2 R-2.2 · Ad hominem (attacking manner) · Dinesh D'Souza

I'm a hit-and-stay man. I'm staying on the same point.

You will flip to something completely different.

Not flipping at all. We're on the same point.

And make— okay, same point. You said interest rates are low because Europeans invest a lot of money in the United States. and hold a lot of our treasuries. And I think that that is not even close to the 7th most important reason why interest rates are low. The real reason interest rates are low is far more insidious. And that is our government is constantly printing oceans of money. They have the ability to print money and dilute the money that is in your pocket. So you work hard to earn money. Your own government, as we speak, is printing money. When I came to the United States, I had $500 in my pocket, 1980. If I had saved that money, spent none of it, through great frugality, and if I had it now, the purchasing power of that same $500 today would be approximately $50. In other words, we save money and we practice deferred gratification. And the one thing we want is for our money to hold its value. We would rather it go up in value because we've worked so hard to get it. But our government, our own government, screws us by diluting our money because when they print money, they get to spend it and the money in all of our pockets goes down.

So, you're saying buying Treasuries is not printing money. Quantitative easing or other things, there are different factors that you can talk about when it comes to monetary policy. The reason why our interest rates are low is because a lot of people want to buy US Treasuries, so we can sell our debt at a very low interest. If not many people wanted to buy it, then we would raise the interest on our debt. Printing money and saying that that's magically making interest rates low doesn't even make sense. It's not connected.

This is called— oh, it doesn't make any sense? Okay. The interest rate is the price of money, right? How difficult it is to get money is what sets the interest rate. Now, let's just assume as a thought experiment that I right now double the amount of money in circulation. Will the interest rate go up or down? Down, because the supply of money is vastly greater. Just go back to Economics 101.

↳ P-32 raised again here · first raised at U-551

Economics 101. If you were a German citizen and you wanted to buy a US Treasury bond and it was paying 5% was the coupon rate on it, if you knew that the US was going to double their money supply, why would you buy that Treasury bond for a lower interest rate. You would demand a higher interest rate on it.

↳ P-33 raised again here · first raised at U-552

↳ evidence for the P-32 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-552

You would, you would. The reason you would buy that Treasury bond is because the German Bundesbank is tripling the amount of its own money. In other words, they're printing money too. And the United States is an abuser of the money supply, but not as big an abuser as other countries.

↳ evidence for the P-33 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-553

Okay, then how are these countries that are taking advantage of us don't have to abuse— shouldn't they be abusing their money supply less? They're taking advantage of us so much.

Like, every— The reason that they're— look, why is the— why, why has— why was there runaway inflation of 15% per month in Argentina? And why is it— why do these— why do these interest rates and inflation rates vary so much around the world? There, there's more than one reason, but the primary reason, the primary reason is money printing. And you can see why it's very attractive for governments to print money. Here's why. If they didn't print money, let's just say we outlawed it, the US government, every time they spent money, would have to come to you, the taxpayer, and tell you, we're going to extract more $20 bills out of your wallet. And you would be like, no, if you try to do that, I'll vote against you.

↳ P-32 raised again here · first raised at U-551

Even if you don't print money, you can still pressure your money.

So, the government has come up with a beautiful scheme. Let's not consult the citizens. Let's just steal from them by secretly removing $20 bills out of their pocket And we do this by running this thing called the money printer. If this is so bad for the economy—

↳ P-32 raised again here · first raised at U-551

You know it's true.

Yeah, pretend it's not true, but it's true. Okay, sure.

Well, let's say it's so horrible. Why does every single country on the planet have central banking?

↳ P-35 raised again here · first raised at U-570

Because central governments love money cartels. What could be better for the governments of the world than to have a cartel in which they control the money supply?

It's— So all of these governments all over the planet are engaged in this anti-democratic behavior. No citizens actually want this. And no individual country has figured out that if we don't do this, we'll be better than every other country. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to think maybe they engage in central banking practices because that's just a better way to run an economy? No.

This shows a colossal level of naïveté. But let me put it this way. The ordinary person thinks that our whole system, including our banking system, works completely differently than it does. So I asked my wife the other day, if you put $1,000 in the bank, what happens to it? She goes, well, it's in the bank. And I go, so if you want to get it anytime, you can just go to the bank and ask for it, and they'll give you your $1,000, right? And she goes, yeah, right. And I go, what if I told you that when you put the $1,000 in the bank, the bank takes the $1,000, they pluck out 1/10 of it, roughly, about $100, And they lend $900 to another guy, let's say Steve right here. But they don't actually give him the money either. They open up a checking account for $900 in his name. So now you have 2 guys who both think that they've got the same $900 in the bank. But it doesn't even end there. Let's say that Steve has a bank— has a deposit in another bank.

Oh.

He goes to the other bank, let's call it Wells Fargo. He deposits his $900. What does that bank do? They take the $900, set aside $90, and loan $810 to another guy or open up a checking account in his name. What I'm getting at is, whose $1,000 is it? And the answer is the bank, by a cartel arrangement allowed by the Federal Reserve. This would be fraud in any other area.

↳ P-34 raised again here · first raised at U-565

So, it wouldn't be fraud. What you're explaining, it's called fractional reserve banking. Yes, it's fractional. And it's what every country on the planet does. But then, when your wife says, can I get that $1,000? Would you tell her no?

No, I would tell her that— I would tell her yes. I would tell her because even though the money is fictional, it has already been lent out. If you go to the bank, let's just say all of us tomorrow decide to go to the bank and collect our money, and the bank didn't have it. What would they do? Answer, phone call to the Federal Reserve. Print the money. So, the backstop of all of this is the unlimited ability of the federal government to prevent bank runs of the kind that occurred in the Depression.

Correct. That's why some things are called FDIC insured. So, like a savings account would be an FDIC insured product by the bank. Wouldn't it be better for that $1,000 deposited into the bank instead of just rotting there collecting dust to be mobilized in the economy so that people could actually do something with it, like have a mortgage for a house or invest in a business or do literally anything else besides sit there as termite food?

↳ evidence for the P-34 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-568

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem (competence) · Dinesh D'Souza

Okay, so I don't think we need to go into this because you don't even know what you're talking about.

What did I say was wrong? Explain to me the velocity of money. Explain to me why it's not good to have money sitting in a bank doing nothing than it is for it to be mobilized in an economy.

Tell me.

Okay.

No, we're not disagreeing about mobilizing the money. We're disagreeing about the mechanism of doing it and who is left holding the bag. So, in the 19th century, we had no Fed. The United States became the largest economy in the world. In the 19th century, we had fractional banking. But if banks couldn't meet their obligations, they went bankrupt. And so, there was free market competition among the banks. It was to prevent that free market competition that the Fed was set up. Essentially, what the Fed decided to do—

↳ P-34 raised again here · first raised at U-565

What year is it? 2025. And you want to emulate the banking system we had when there were cowboys and Indians? When in the 19th century? 18th century? How far back do you want to go? We live in a modern world that has modern demands for our monetary system. Why does no other country on the planet employ the obviously superior form of banking that you're talking about?

↳ P-35 raised again here · first raised at U-570

Because it is in the interest of every single Every state has recognized for thousands of years that controlling the money supply is the key to controlling the wealth of the country. That is why in the era of gold, what the governments used to do is take the gold coin and dilute the coin. Put base metal into the coin so the coin which was supposed to be pure gold is now only 50% gold or 30% gold. So this racket has been going on for a long time, I grant you.

↳ P-34 raised again here · first raised at U-565

↳ evidence for the P-35 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-563

So do you think Trump should get rid of FDIC insurance and fractional reserve banking?

FDIC insurance is a complete illusion.

So we should get rid of it and go back to the gold standard?

Not the gold standard per se, but we should go back to a free banking system, which would include Bitcoin, which would include all kinds of currencies.

We're talking about fake money and you support Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is not fake money.

Okay.

You think that something is fake money because, first of all, you give this rhapsody to modern technology. And when finally a form of money is created privately that cannot be inflated, that has a fixed supply, and that in fact has—

↳ P-36 raised again here · first raised at U-581

That cannot be inflated? Bitcoin has one of the wildest volatility indexes of any currency on the planet. planet, besides maybe Zimbabwe.

Do you realize that inflating a currency and volatility have nothing to do with each other? Volatility has to do with the market's appraisal of a new product. There was extreme volatility around all the internet companies for about 20 years.

↳ P-36 raised again here · first raised at U-581

There's no volatility around Bitcoin?

You don't think that— There's a lot of volatility around Bitcoin because the market is full of people who look at this thing, don't understand it, and go, what's this? I've never had private money To me, a dollar bill needs to be said— it needs to state on the bill, backed up with the full faith of the US government. Otherwise, it's not money. So, this is an ancient way to think. And something like Bitcoin confuses you because it's new. But it does.

So, to be clear, it doesn't confuse me. It just doesn't— it makes it so a country loses complete and total control of their monetary system.

↳ evidence for the P-36 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-586

Exactly.

And that's why you oppose it, because you are a statist and you want your government No, I oppose it because I took econ in high school and I realized that there's a value to a country being able to control their currency.

What is that value?

Well, in times of great economic depression, sometimes it's nice to be able to inflate your currency a little more because that's a preferential state of affairs than half the country going unemployed, or like we did during the Great Depression. Or other times it might be nice to pull back on your currency if you want to deflate a market that might be running a little bit too hot, like the run-up to the 2008 housing crisis. So I reject this whole And you stand in opposition to central banking across the entire planet?

↳ P-35 raised again here · first raised at U-570

↳ evidence for the P-34 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-568

No, this is a whole Keynesian understanding that itself has all these embedded false assumptions. The false assumptions are that you've got this thing called, quote, the money supply, that the money supply is kind of like something that can be regulated with a faucet. You turn it up, you turn it down. This was Keynes' justification in the 1930s for an unlimited welfare state. Keynes was very explicit about his motives. He's very explicit about what he was trying to do. Frankly, he was not even an economist. But nevertheless, he advanced this theory which has been regurgitated to economics students for almost a century now. All I'm saying is that money is valid. No money has intrinsic value. The $20 bill has no intrinsic value either. So, if you say Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value, neither does a $20 bill. By the way, neither does gold if you don't count earrings and ornaments.

Let me be clear. The dollar has value because the US government accepts it as payment for taxes. Nobody has to accept Bitcoin as payment.

↳ P-36 raised again here · first raised at U-581

↳ evidence for the P-36 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-586

Exactly. So, whoop-de-doo, I take my Bitcoin, I change it to US dollars, and I pay my taxes.

If somebody's willing to buy it from you, yes. But you can't pay your US taxes or US debt obligations in Bitcoin. So, Dinesh and Steven, We do have about 15 minutes left, just so you guys know, and I thought maybe we should touch on Trump and political violence, if you feel like it.

Well, we actually haven't talked about the topic of our debate, which I took to be whether Trump, on net, is a good thing or a bad thing for America. And so I'd like to say a word about why I think a little bit about Trump, the man, and a little bit about what I think he's done for the country. And then maybe you can say the same and we can kind of get to the heart of what we're talking about. So to me, Trump's first term was very positive for the most part, but kind of blasé. He was stopped in his tracks by 2 years of Russia collusion hoax, but he got a lot of things done. And the economy was in better shape, manifestly pre-COVID, in March of 2020, leading up to the election. Quite frankly, had it not been for COVID, I don't even think election fraud could have helped Joe Biden. But Trump was hit by this, was sideswiped by COVID. But, and that's a fact. Jane Fonda basically said COVID is God's gift to the left. So if you can't see the truth of that, I know what to say to you. The years of Biden were essentially the years of taking the American bus and driving it straight to the cliff. In foreign policy, with the Afghan disgrace. In domestic policy, inflation goes to the highest level that it was going. You have to go back to the '70s, to the OPEC era, to find inflation rates of 9%. Biden achieved that. And an open, porous border, which is actually inviting, not only inviting, helping caravans of people coming from thousands of miles away. No vetting. Doesn't matter if you're a criminal. There were foreign governments that emptied the jails and boasted about it. And all these thugs, criminals, bad guys, terrorists are now in this country. I think if we had kept going in this way, It's hard to see how the country would survive a whole lot more of this. So, Trump's great achievement was to come in and stop this dead in its tracks. The border is secure. You hear, you probably not only heard, but some of you may have bought into all the embellishment, all the rhetorical ballet. We need comprehensive immigration reform. There's no other way to secure the border. You heard all of this. You might have said it yourself. It's untrue. And Trump has just proved it to be untrue by just showing you can't get in. However, we have somewhere between 8, maybe 10 million illegals who are already here. What do you do with them? Trump is doing the most humane thing he could do. If it were me, I would, I would ask all 8 to 10 million to leave. I recognize that certain things are a fait accompli. You might have Americans who came 20 years ago and they've had kids here. They're embedded in our society. I'm willing to be prudent about the issue in some ways, but I don't see any reason why people who essentially came across the border in the last 4 years under Biden, you know, as part of a cynical scheme to create future Democratic voters, why those people should not be asked to leave now. So, I would go much further than Trump and try to get these people to self-deport. If they would not deport, I would try to think of sensible, pragmatic ways to get them out. But they have broken the law, and they need to pay a price for it. Now, on the foreign policy front, Trump's view is really simple. I'm not going to get involved in expensive foreign wars, but there are many bad guys in the world, and I will not hesitate to pulverize them. This applies to Soleimani. It applies to Baghdadi. If I have one criticism of Trump, I think he didn't go far enough with Iran. I think that Israel was pretty close to toppling the Iranian regime. That would have been excellent regime change. Many people who think regime change doesn't work don't realize that you're operating off basically 2 examples, Iraq and maybe Afghanistan, where it actually worked for a while. But was handled very badly in the overall. But regime change, if you look at the examples of the last 100 years, has mostly worked and worked for the better. And I think it would work for the better in Venezuela. I think it would work for the better in Iran. And I think it's— Trump stopped it in Iran, which I oppose. I think he is trying to get rid of Maduro in Venezuela. My wife is Venezuelan. Pretty much any living Venezuelan who's outside of Venezuela will tell you they fled the country. Maduro is a one-party dictator. The reason Maduro loves Democrats is because he sees them as his allies. The question of displacing him under Biden never even arose. But I think his days are numbered, as Trump says. Trump will probably get him out. And then you look at the economic front, and Trump is doing 2 things. One is he is creating a kind of He's essentially unleashing American energy. American energy— the United States, as it turns out, has giant energy resources, probably more than enough for the next 100 years. Our main obstacle is we just don't go get it. And all kinds of reasons, environmental reasons, obviously people who are in the business have reasons to block it. Trump's point is, why don't we unleash energy? And so, if we unleash energy, we unleash AI, we unleash robotics, we are looking at a potential era of abundance. By the way, Bitcoin is a big part of that. So Trump is turning the levers of creating massive abundance in the United States. It may even be that some of our problems like the debt can be washed away in this abundance. You don't have to scrounge on Social Security. You don't have to screw the Gen Zs or screw the boomers. We will actually have the wealth to do this. Do you know that the Biden people were basically blocking AI under the pretext that we'll only allow it if we control it? This is what the Biden people were telling the high-tech guys. We'll only play ball with you if you basically turn over the levers to us. Otherwise, we're not going to allow it. So, what we're seeing under Trump, I think, is something that's quite epochal. It might take us years to be able to look and see what was unleashed. It's kind of like in the 1980s under Reagan. We could see something big was happening. Microsoft was starting. I ran into a conference. There was Michael Dell. The tech revolution was getting going. And it's done a lot for the world. So, my case for Trump is that this guy being transactional, actually understands very well how the world works, is not unwilling to use US muscle in trade deals or in the leverage of foreign policy power. And the best that his critics have are these kind of whiny, let's go back to the Mar-a-Lago case and look at it in excruciating detail because we really could have gotten him then. This is a pathetic way to go after a guy who is—

Okay, let's go back. Let's go back from the last thing you mentioned to the first. So what is Trump trying to do with tariffs?

What Trump is trying to do with tariffs is this. The United States sells stuff abroad and other countries, India, Australia, many others, place giant tariffs on those products. Sometimes—

What is Trump trying to do with the tariffs?

Trump is trying to do 2 things. One is he's trying to use the tariffs as a form of Strong arming or arm wrestling, basically saying I will I will put tariffs on you and I will only take them off if you take off yours.

Then why does he keep changing them for countries like China?

Okay, so be aware that this has actually not even been seriously attempted before because it's illegal.

It's illegal.

It's not illegal.

The president can't. Do you think the president of the United States is allowed to do unilateral econ policy?

The president of the United States has a lot of economic levers that he can use.

In times of national crises.

Exactly.

Our debt is not a national crisis. If it was, Trump would be even worse for it.

But—

well, so we have no trade deals. We've started—

we have no trade deals. I think that $38 trillion of debt, I think that a stagnating economy, I think that a—

Then why did you say that the first Trump term was a good one? He added to the debt more than he needed to, right?

↳ P-42 raised again here · first raised at U-620

He added to the debt, which you'd have to put into the negative column. I mean, all presidents have added to the debt. Just look at the— essentially 1 out of every, I think, $4 in the country today was generated starting in 2020.

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession on debt/surplus · Dinesh D'Souza

Sure. And Trump is continuing to add to it even more.

Yes.

Trump won't have a single budget surplus by the end of his presidency.

↳ evidence for the P-37 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-600

Trump is— look, you should be happy with him for this. Trump is in fact—

No, he won't have a budget surplus by the end of his 4-year term.

Trump is a big spender when it comes to spending money. He's more like a Democrat in that regard.

↳ evidence for the P-42 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-617

Well, no, because Republicans have been the big spenders, right? Isn't a Democrat the last one with a budget surplus?

Clinton?

Well, can we not agree on basic facts here?

Clinton was—

right? Come on. Wasn't Bush the Republican, the one that started all of the foreign wars?

The Clinton surplus was 100% the result of a peace dividend created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. A surplus is a surplus. A surplus is a surplus. But this is why—

I thought Donald Trump— you said collapse of the Soviet Union. Doesn't Donald Trump have like 9 country wars that he's ended? So we should have tons of surplus then, right? Do you agree, you acknowledge that by the end of Trump's 4 years, we will not be at a budget surplus, right?

↳ P-42 raised again here · first raised at U-620

I agree.

↳ evidence for the P-42 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-617

Okay, so then that's not the debt—

You're missing the argument I made.

You just said he might solve the $38 trillion of debt, and now you're saying it's not going to take away from the budget deficit.

Well, you weren't listening to me. What I was saying was, one way to solve the debt is to start paying it off. That's a very painful way when you consider that not only the vast majority of our budget is currently in entitlements, But those entitlements are scheduled to increase dramatically. So this is a painful way to do it. You can see why our congressmen and senators in both parties don't want to do that.

Well, but the person who hurt paying it off the most was Trump with the tax cuts. And they did it this year when they solidified the tax cuts, didn't they?

↳ P-42 raised again here · first raised at U-620

The very best way to pay off the debt is to enlarge the economic pie.

Which he's shrinking more than he should be. It should be growing faster, but the tariffs have hurt.

↳ evidence for the P-37 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-600

And what I was saying—

why did they solidify the tax cuts?

I was saying that the combined effect, in my opinion, of energy unleashing, AI and robotics, the United States has been growing at a rate of somewhere around 1% to 2% for now decades. It was growing at 3% to 4% in the middle of the last century. If we can create growth rates of 5%, 6%, 9%, which are entirely in the realm of possibility—

Not when you hurt your trade relationship with every other country on the planet like we've done with the tariffs. You acknowledge, for instance, when Trump held up the tariff sign, that all those numbers were a lie, right? None of those tariffs were accurate for any other country, right? Can you at least acknowledge that simple basic fact that all the numbers on that chart were a lie? They used a math formula that doesn't actually calculate anything.

↳ evidence for the P-37 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-600

What is not a lie?

But was that a lie though?

What is not a lie? Wasn't that a lie? What is not a lie? Wasn't that a lie though?

When he held up the sign, didn't he lie to the American public, to you and me and everybody else in here and the entire world when he said, these are the tariffs that every other country has on us? That was a lie, right?

↳ P-38 raised again here · first raised at U-642

Well, it was a negotiating tactic.

↳ P-39 raised again here · first raised at U-003

It was a— so it was a lie to negotiate?

It's a negotiating tactic.

Look, but it was a lie then. We can at least— it was a lie to negotiate. It was a lie, right?

Trump. Trump.

Who is he negotiating with, the Fox News ratings?

No.

His YouTube views? It was a lie.

Are you saying that if—

I'm saying it was a lie. I'm saying those numbers were a lie.

I'm saying they were. If I'm negotiating with you.

Yeah. And you lied to me, I wouldn't negotiate with you. But those numbers were a lie, right?

If I'm negotiating with you and an NPR reporter comes to me and asks me something and I say, this is going to be the result, I'm actually speaking to you. But if I were to tell the NPR, oh, guess what? Let me give you my actual negotiating position, OK? Because you can then put it on NPR and the Chinese will figure it out by tomorrow morning. This is—

I think I would probably use the massive governmental apparatus I have to negotiate to do that because that seems like a more appropriate—

No, because the massive governmental apparatus you have Proven to be completely and utterly incompetent.

So then everything that comes from the Trump administration I should interpret as being potentially fallacious? It could all be a lie because he's trying to negotiate with other people? Then I can't trust any of this stuff?

I'm saying negotiation is a moving ball. I'm saying that Trump is very capable of putting on a tariff and saying, I'm going to put on this tariff on January 7th, and then he doesn't do it. Is he lying? No, he's not lying.

↳ P-39 raised again here · first raised at U-003

↳ evidence for the P-38 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-647

No, no, that's not what I'm saying.

He's threatening to do it.

Well, he did do it, number one.

He did something for it.

The big chart was a lie. Why can't we just admit that? This is what I talked about at the very beginning of this conversation.

↳ P-38 raised again here · first raised at U-642

I'm saying that these bombastic claims were lies in the course of negotiation. It doesn't even matter because the real issue is what are you getting in the deal?

↳ evidence for the P-38 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-647

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession the tariff claims were lies · Dinesh D'Souza

If I— I don't know if you saw me walk up on stage, but if I put on my Tinder profile that I'm 6'2 and I show up at my date with really good posture, does that count as just being bombastic or would that be a lie?

Let me, let me give, let me give you an example for why.

Well, let's have an example. How about when the president held up a board with a bunch of tariff numbers and they were all lies. Wouldn't that be a lie? Can we just say that was a lie?

↳ P-38 raised again here · first raised at U-642

I'm saying that presidents— in the course of foreign policy and trade negotiations, every president lies to us all the time.

↳ P-39 raised again here · first raised at U-003

Give me an example of a single other example where a president has lied like that to the American public.

↳ evidence for the P-39 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-650

Okay. I would say that every deal that the United States has struck—

One example.

Okay. I'll give you 10 examples.

Just one. I just need one.

Yeah. Okay. So the United States, for example, lies about its dealings with terrorists. It lies about— Reagan lied about—

↳ P-39 raised again here · first raised at U-003

I'm sorry, hold on. National security secrets with terrorists are not economic deals. We don't lie. The American president doesn't lie to the public about economic deals.

↳ evidence for the P-39 verdict on Destiny · ruling prints at U-650

We're not talking about national security secrets. I'm talking about national security policies.

I'm talking about economic trade deals.

I'm saying economic— for For Trump, when you're dealing with foreign adversaries, the distinction between a trade deal and a hostage swap and a deal with Maduro to get out, these are all on a continuum.

Maybe that's the problem with Trump. That's not a problem. Every single thing with him feels like a hostage negotiation.

Well, because it is. That's the way the world is.

I agree with you.

It is.

That's not the way the world is, though.

No, it is the way the world is.

We haven't felt that way until Trump was president.

Do you realize—

He holds our allies hostage. He has our economy hostage. He's holding immigrants hostage. sometimes illegally detained or otherwise. And he lies to us in order to sell these deals to personally enrich himself.

Maduro has a call with Trump. Maduro makes a call to Trump. Maduro says— I'm going now based on public reports. Maduro says, give me $100 million, thereabouts. Let me stick in there for a few months. Let my handpicked deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, run. And I will actually have a free election. This is Maduro in the phone call to Trump. Trump says nothing about any of this. Trump comes and says something completely unrelated, which on the face of it—

You notice how we're not talking about the lie about the tariffs at all. This is— you're talking about like national security, military-related stuff. I'm just saying Donald Trump lied with the tariffs. It's very obvious that he lied. We have zero trade deals right now, even though we say we'd have 100 deals in 100 days or 90 deals in 90 days.

Are you saying? Okay, let me ask you this.

I'm saying you lied about the tariffs.

What amount of money does the U.S. Treasury have as a result of tariffs that it wouldn't otherwise have? What is that number?

+4 R-3.3 · Gotcha quiz on tariff revenue (assembled pattern) · Dinesh D'Souza

Um, wasn't it $200 billion or something? I don't remember.

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty on tariff number · Destiny

What was it? You don't know.

No, because you have no idea. Well, it's way less than what we would have gotten if we would have just not kept those tax cuts that Trump solidified with the OBDA or whatever.

So you don't even know what it is, but you are quite sure that it would have been more if he didn't do it.

Well, I know it's in the ballpark.

So what I'm getting at is—

Well, what is the number? Wait, wait, what is the number? I guessed. It's about— isn't it about $100 billion?

It's a giant number, right? So the number—

Wait, you have no idea?

You're trying to say I don't have an idea? The number— Hold on.

I think our having no ideas are very different. My understanding is in the ballpark of like $200 billion-ish.

Okay. Okay, I can estimate the number because we're talking about a number— We're talking about a $2,000 rebate. to all Americans who make under $100,000? No, we're not. That's not happening.

That's not going to happen.

Okay. All right.

It's not. I'll bet you. I'll give you 10-to-1 odds on $100 if you want. That'll never happen.

Let's put it this way.

Okay.

You are less curious about the actual tariff revenue benefit than you are to scoring a gotcha on a press conference where you go, Trump misrepresented the tariffs, which is admittedly a moving target, But the actual benefit to US citizens is a matter of completely different scale.

I'm not a big fan of import taxes. Do you admit that a tariff is an import tax?

A tariff is an import tax that can be borne either by the— no, that doesn't follow. It can be borne either by the producer or the consumer.

It's paid for by the consumer. Okay.

↳ P-40 raised again here · first raised at U-716

Economic Illiteracy 101. Let's look at an example. No, false. Let's say I'm Mercedes. Okay, I'm Mercedes-Benz and I'm charging—

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem (sincerity/competence) · Dinesh D'Souza

Let me, let me— hold on, because I already know what the explanation is. You're gonna say that technically the producer or the supplier of a thing can actually decrease their prices a little bit in order to make the price a little bit more bearable at home because of the import taxes that are being paid. And you would be correct in that. An economic analysis, a true one, would yield that it's about 50/50 paid for by the consumer and the producer. That's still a bad state of affairs where we're paying an import tax and now we have the ability to import less and the foreign suppliers are supplying us less as a result of that. If you want to go with the actual econ answer, that's fine. These are the same economists, by the way, that all support central banking and currency controls and everything else, by the way, that you're happy to cite here. And they're all opposed to tariffs as a form of economic policy as well.

↳ P-40 raised again here · first raised at U-716

All right. Well, all I'm saying is that a minute ago, you said that tariffs were borne by the consumer. And then you suddenly realized that that's not true and that Mercedes, if they are going to increase the cost of a Mercedes, let's just say by $40,000, now going to realize that many people would rather buy other types of cars or American-made cars. And so Mercedes decides, listen, we're making $40,000 on a car. We can't afford to eat the entire tariff, but maybe we can afford to eat $30,000 and we'll only make $10,000 on our car. And businesses make these decisions all the time. And you actually know it. But the cost is too high. I do know it. Because you just admitted it. I didn't admit it. Why earlier are you trying to con the audience?

↳ P-40 raised again here · first raised at U-716

↳ evidence for the P-40 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-717

I was giving a simplified answer to somebody who found out—

+6 C-4.2 · Owned an oversimplification · Destiny · low confidence: excluded from score

Simplified answer, which is a lie answer.

They just found out what fractional reserve banking was like 10 weeks ago. Oh, I understand.

It's not a simplified answer.

And the question is—

No, no, no.

At some point, they will stop producing. They stop producing. They just won't make those products.

It's not a simplified answer. You were lying to the audience in the hope that you could get away with it. I called you on it. You quickly beat a retreat. And so, because you realize I can't get away with this lie, I now have to explain the process in which prices are determined.

Okay, you know what? You got me completely in a lie. Would you admit that an income tax isn't born completely by a worker then? And that companies are forced to offer higher wages as a result of potentially higher income taxes?

Companies are not forced to do anything.

Oh my God.

So let me— Stephen and Dinesh, final thoughts, guys. We got to do final thoughts. I'll finish my thought. I have worked all my life in companies. Our tax rates— the tax rate when I started working In the early '90s, this is as a result of the Reagan tax cuts, by the way, the top marginal tax rate had dropped from 70% to 28%. It's now up to about 39%. So all my adult life, I've seen taxes go up from 28% to 39%. I have never been in a job, and I've been in many of them, where my employer has said, oh, the government raised your taxes, we're going to raise your pay. The company might be nice and do that, You might be able to negotiate it through a union. But the idea, again, another like Whopper, that it's somehow an automatic process, that if the government raises your taxes, that correspondingly companies raise— he said are forced to raise your salaries commensurate with those taxes. And I'm saying that's simply untrue.

But for some reason, producers will lower their sales price.

I'm saying that producers will, because of the competitiveness of the market—

There's no competitiveness in the labor market in the United States?

↳ P-41 raised again here · first raised at U-730

Absolutely. There is competitiveness in the labor market. So if the government raises your taxes, companies, by the way, are not in any position where they have to do anything because the taxes are being raised uniformly.

↳ evidence for the P-41 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-733

Not always. There are state taxes that are higher in some states than there are others. And guess what? Companies offer more compensation in those states than they do in other states.

↳ P-41 raised again here · first raised at U-730

Because they have to— in that case, yes, they have to attract labor from Texas to come and work in New York. So I agree with that. But I was talking about a federal tax which applies uniformly where those pressures are higher.

↳ evidence for the P-41 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-733

Well, that's interesting you bring up that different markets might engage in different tax behavior. Wouldn't it be harmful for US markets if the US was the only country that was levying these massive tariffs on other countries who were bilaterally tariffing us? Doesn't that make our market less competitive than foreign markets now who don't have those same arbitrary US tariffs that all came from a big poster board that was full of lies, remember?

Well, here, here we—

those tariffs on them.

Here we get to the fact that there are many countries that don't allow our products in at all, and if they allow them, They have high tariffs in place. So here's my question. You know, it's really wonderful to hear all these guys give economic analysis. Tariffs are self-defeating. They are horrible for countries. They undermine our own consumers. And here's my question. Why does every other country have them?

They don't. That's the answer.

They don't.

There's a reason why Ukraine wanted to join the European Union market versus the Russia—

Well, let's talk about India. India has—

We're going to have to save it for round 2, guys.

But can we at least agree on the importance of public intellectual debate like this? I think we can, and this has been very spirited. I've actually enjoyed it. I knew I was kind of coming a bit in the lion's den, but I thought that I would take up the challenge, and I think it's been really interesting and really good. So I'm glad we had a chance to do the sparring. I appreciate you for coming out. We need more of this.

I agree.

All right, let's give them a big round of applause.

This has been The Battle for the Capitol.

Steven Bonnell, Destiny, and Dinesh D'Souza. Big round of applause. All right, we are going to take a really quick break while we set up for the poster signing here.

Everyone feel free to mingle around, hang out, have a drink.

Yeah, we're gonna get set up just, just to the right of the Christmas setup there.

We're gonna be setting up a table.

But stretch your legs, relax, use the bathroom, have a drink, and, uh, yeah, we'll, we'll get to it here.