Being Left: All Things Trump and Their Insensible Insensitivities

Flu season is here and COVID cases are still climbing across the country.

When people start getting sick, medications disappear fast.

And that's why we trust All Family Pharmacy.

They help you prepare before it's too late.

Right now, they've dropped prices on ivermectin and mabenzazole by 25%.

Plus, you can save an extra 10% with the code VICTR10.

You'll also get 10% off antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, and more of the medications you actually want on hand.

Whether you're fighting off a cold, protecting your family from flu season, or staying ready in case COVID makes its way into your home, having a few months' supply brings peace of mind and control.

They work with licensed doctors who review your order online, write the prescriptions, and ship your meds straight to your door.

Go to allfamilypharmacy.com/slash Victor and use the code Victor10 today.

Hello, and welcome to the Victor Davis Hanson Show.

This is the Friday news roundup, so we're looking at a lot of the news from the week and there's been a lot on Trump.

So

I don't think that the Democrats expected that their

cases would make Trump a media hog and perhaps get him out there more than he already was, but it seems to be what is happening.

So we're going to talk Trump for the first segment of our show.

So stay with us and we'll be right back.

If you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this.

In today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing your home titles, and your equity is the target.

Here's how it works: criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and just like that, your home title has been transferred out of your name.

Then they take out loans using your equity and even sell your property, and you won't even know what's happened until you get a collection or foreclosure notice.

So, when was the last time you checked on your home title?

If your answer is never, you need to do something about it right now.

And that's why we've partnered with Home Title Lock so you can find out today if you're already a victim.

Go to home titlelock.com/slash victor to get a free title history report and a free trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.

That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to to any changes, and if fraud does happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it.

Please, please, don't be a victim.

Protect your equity today.

That's home, titlelock.com/slash Victor.

Welcome back.

Victor is the Martin and Ely Anderson Senior Fellow in Military History and Classics at the Hoover Institution and the Wayne and Marsha Busky Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College.

Welcome to his show.

So, Victor, we've got lots of things on Trump.

In addition to his cases, he just recently did a town hall with Laura Ingram, and I was wondering if you had thoughts on that.

And then also his current

claim that he is going to fight this judgment in New York

based on the Eighth Amendment, that it's an excessive fine.

So, go ahead.

Yes, I did watch it in Rapid Fire.

The reactions are

that this idea that because he once confused Nancy Pelosi with

Nikki Haley, therefore he's on the same plane as Joe Biden is crazy.

We saw Joe Biden's

spontaneous press conference.

We saw Trump's spontaneous town hall.

There's no comparison whatsoever.

He was in complete control of the facts.

He was relaxed.

He didn't apologize.

And so number two, so when she brought up about the NATO statement that he made, where he told a crowd that if they don't want to pay, I'm not going to defend him.

I think that was an art of the deal trolling.

But nevertheless, he didn't back down and say, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

We'll get into NATO later.

So he was in command of the facts, and he was

trying to show everybody that there's going to be an election on Saturday, and he's 30 points ahead in the polls.

And I contrasted that with Nikki Haley's press conference or address yesterday.

She,

you know,

just to get off topic just a second, it was very different because she was not appealing to the same crowd or constituency that Trump was.

Trump was going over issues that are a concern, shut the border down, deal with crime, create deterrence abroad.

etc., etc.

pump, you know, drill, baby, drill.

And she was,

you know, there were 12 fellas, and now I'm, there's only one fella left.

That sounds like identity politics on the left.

And then she said, I'm not going anywhere.

And so most of her animus, I understand it's a primary, was directed at Trump.

And to such a degree

that you don't know what her future is in the Republican Party.

And I think she's going to go the fool Liz Cheney.

I really do.

Because she's getting angrier and angrier and angrier.

And her argument was that Trump is mercurial, he's angry, and I'm going to be reassuring, sober, judicious, and stable.

But when she gets going,

she gets animated, and then she gets into this,

he's this, and he's that, and he's that.

It's going to be very hard for her to pull out and endorse him.

It really is.

And that's why he said at the town hall, I don't know how she gets out of it.

That was a good thing to say.

It made sense.

Because she's creating her own,

I don't know, cul-de-sac.

It's kind of ironic because after she finished her tenure as South Carolina governor, there wasn't a lot of future for her.

She went on the Boeing board.

She made a lot of money, but it was Donald Trump that gave her the

ambassadorship to the United Nations, and then she used that in a kind of the way that John Bolton had used it or

others, you know, Moynihan had, and really attacked the crazy people at the UN and got a big name.

It's very similar to John Bolton, who could not get confirmed for anything.

And he was in a political desert, and Trump resurrected him and made him his national security advisor.

And then he had an interventionist

neoconservative agenda, which is fine, except that it was contrary to the MAGA agenda.

And then he went full,

Donald Trump is satanic, that type of thing.

It doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't.

I was impressed with his answer to the woman who asked about his name-calling and various and a sundry Donald Trump funnies.

And he said, well, and the idea of revenge.

And he said that his revenge was going to be to be successful in what his agenda is, which made that woman very happy.

I think maybe a lot of women very happy.

I was wondering if you're not sure.

I think so.

I think I'm getting back to that Iowa speech.

That's a better speech than the New Hampshire speech the next week.

So he needs that 3% to 5%.

You can call them whatever you want, want, soccer moms, suburban women, moderates, independents.

They are very angry at the crime situation, racial tensions, the border, etc.

Carjackings, smash and grab, looting.

There's a lot of reasons not to vote for Biden for them, but you have to give them something to vote for.

And he's been very moderate on abortion compared to the other candidates.

So that's not going to be an issue with him as it might have been with others.

So

he just has to show them that he's not crazy like the left says he is.

Yeah.

And I think he's making some strides in that direction.

I think he is too.

I think he's doing a much better job.

What do you think of this

using the Eighth Amendment?

Because that fine does seem excessive, and that seems to be the direction.

Do you think that that will work or have any impact or be even necessary given that everybody thinks the appellate court will

turn it around because it's embarrassing.

It certainly fits the definition of what the founders were afraid of.

They were afraid of excessive punishment, excessive bail, targeting someone in a way that it's not consistent with other people who fall under the law.

And so this statute was a consumer fraud statute for little people.

to get the wherewithal to attack corporations that had hurt them.

It was never envisioned for the state to go after a presidential candidate, and it was never envisioned for any businessman in New York for putting up assets, getting loans, paying the interest on time, paying off the principal, and then post facto saying,

well, you got a better loan deal because you inflate your assets, and then to turn around and say, well, ask the bank if I inflated them.

And the bank would have said, yeah, they all do.

But our adjudicators who are experts understood and factored or weighed that into the loan package.

So there was no victim.

So how can you, then you look at, so my point is, the New York Times even said no one had ever been prosecuted under this statute before, this consumer fraud statute.

So

the prior punishment?

It was non-existent.

The contemporary?

Nonexistent.

It's only Donald Trump.

And then you factor in further in the equation, she ran her campaign and raised money promising to get Donald Trump.

And then, just like Eugene Carroll at the announcement of the verdict, she had to high-five and spike the ball.

She said, you know, I'm going to go after his assets.

That was a very stupid thing to say because what she was basically saying, 30 days,

the judge

and her, because she brought the suit, basically, when you say excessive punishment, it wasn't just the $355 million

fine.

And remember that that had been increased $100 million

more than she had asked for.

Now, why was that?

That was only increased because the judge took one look, as did Letita James, at his portfolio, and they saw all this cash and they wanted to grab it.

So they increased beyond what her wildest dream had been at the outset.

And then she was, as I said, she was high-fiving and essentially saying that she was going to go after, and he's paying $87,000 a day in interest.

So she's going after that in 30 days.

But

as for the clause in the Eighth Amendment about excessive punishment, if you tell

the

accused and convicted of this civil crime, if that's what we want to call it, that he can't practice business for three years in New York, his two children, who are the people who run the company can't practice business and you have a retired federal judge that you appointed

I mean that's kind of like judge jury and executioner there was no jury trial so and the judge was smirking and playing to the cameras and he was he was just loving it and he basically had already decided that damages wasn't a question of if it was a question of how much before the trial started but if he appoints and he did, a retired judge to adjudicate all of the business transactions, look what the punishment is then.

So I'm Donald Trump, and I've got to come up with,

I guess, with my legal fees and the interest in 30 days.

It could be up to $400 million.

And I've got $83 million to pay Carol.

So I'm looking around, and there's all of these vultures on the wire thinking, hmm, when does the golf course go up?

When does Trump Tower go up?

When does the Trump Building go up?

I want it.

I want it, but I'm not going to rush in till the last day.

And that's when he's going to be so desperate he's going to cut and then she has to approve it so he he's been he has no outlet everybody knows he has to sell who would loan him money after all of this so i mean would you think about it say you're a bank or you're a privately wealthy person and you feel bad about this and you say to donald trump you know what the interest is about I don't know, 6%.

I'll charge you 5.5% and I'll loan you $500 million because you'll pay.

You have the assets.

Would you really do that in New York?

I wouldn't.

I would think the moment any bank loans him any money, Letita James will go back through their entire record and find them.

So, what I'm getting at is we're kind of in a Soviet system now.

And

when you listen to what people said in the commentariat about this, they were delighted.

They thought it was wonderful what they're doing.

And you turn on Scarborough or MSNBC or CNN, and all they talk about is Russian inclusion again.

We've got to watch out for the next election.

The Russians are back.

The Russians are coming.

You think you guys were all disgraced, 22 months, and Robert Mueller, $40 million.

They found nothing.

And the whole Russian collusion, Christopher Steele was a pathological liar.

He invented this stuff.

It was illegal to hire him anyway.

He was a foreign national.

You hid the payments, Hillary, through three firewalls, paywalls, DNC, Perkins-Coe, Fusion GPS.

And then you went right after that farce, right into Russian disinformation.

Well, the Russians, it looks likely that it's Russian disinformation.

I.e., I guess they cooked up the Hunter's laptop in Moscow, and then they gave it to the poor repairman.

That was just incredibly ridiculous.

So after that was refuted,

And then after they found out, you know, they were spying on people in Twitter,

think they would just say, you know what, I don't believe Andrew Wiseman, the dream team, the all-stars, Robert Mueller, who couldn't even remember,

didn't know what the steel

dossier was under oath, and all of a lying, James Comey, 245 times can't remember under oath, Andrew McCabe lying four times of federal prosecutors.

After all of that, you think they would not dare mention the word Russia.

And yet they're back at it.

Aaron Ross Powell,

yes.

Do you think that maybe this excessive fine was due to the fact that he knew it would go to an appellate court?

And he's hoping that there will be still a fine tacked on to the prohibition of even doing business in New York.

That's not supposed to be.

Judges are supposed to make the decision on a punitive fine.

Yes.

They're supposed to make it on case law and precedent.

And they're not supposed to play high ball, low ball.

In other words, I'm going to ask for the maximum 350 because then appellate will lower it, but they're going to be lowering it for 350, and it's going to look magnanimous if they go down 100 million.

Then it's 250.

Ha ha.

That's what I all wanted in the beginning, 250.

So I got what I wanted.

If that's what you're saying.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Yes, that is judicial malpractice.

Is that?

I hope so, because that's, to me, that seems like what this crazy joker behind the bench seems to be doing.

And he does seem like

that's what a lot of judges have done.

Well, it's not right and it's against the legal ethos of the profession.

You're not supposed to do that.

Yeah.

What do you make of this Kathy Holkel speech?

She seemed to be saying there's no worries.

And I kind of contrast her with Kevin O'Leary, who says, yes, there is Leary's.

Yes, there is worries.

Businesses should be pulling themselves out of this.

Well, she said, don't worry.

We just went after Donald Trump.

So, and what's the business thinking?

Well, you just admitted that you went after Donald Trump, and you said that he was the only person in all of New York that would warrant that.

And we know Donald Trump, and we've done business with him.

And I can guarantee you that if you think he's on the margins or iffy or risky, I am too.

And what you've applied to him could apply to me.

The only difference is I didn't cross you.

I didn't run for president.

And I get the impression that if I were to give money to the Trump campaign right now, and that were to be known, and it would be known, I'm going to be looked at.

So, yeah, any business person

that has any magnitude of wealth should get out of New York, at least

because

think about it.

You want to lend Donald Trump money?

Don't do it.

You want to,

I don't know, you want to give money to Donald Trump's campaign?

Don't do it.

You want to stay neutral?

Don't do it.

You want to go on TV and deplore this?

Don't do it.

Kind of like what universities do, as somebody who's been associated with the university for 50 years.

Everybody says, why are academics so timid when they have tenure?

I can tell you, they're the most vindictive people in the world.

And when you go on television or you go on a podcast, you say anything.

And they call you or they do this to you or they do that to you or they don't do this or they do that.

And that sets it to terrent.

And that's why most academics just, you know, you ask yourself, well, aren't they outraged about anti-Semitism on campus?

No,

because the students, that's the majority of the students, that's the majority of the faculty, that's the majority of the administrators.

And if you stand up, they'll say, hmm, okay,

let's see now.

You're coming up for tenure, you're coming up for a sabbatical request, you want to teach this particular course, you like this particular classroom, oh, you want travel money?

That's how they think.

So, and that's what Kathy Hochle thinks.

And just watching all this, it seems that part of the anger, besides it's Donald Trump, is his wealth.

And that's a double whammy.

I mean, you're right, these people shouldn't support Trump, but they should be careful because a lot of this judgment seems to have gone down, especially given the fine he's been, because he is a wealthy man and they can go after him.

And so you see what New York's willing to do.

Everybody said

he's just a fraud.

Remember Mitt Ronnie?

He's a fraud.

He has no money.

And apparently they found he had $450 million in cash.

It was a big target.

They wanted it.

So they initially wanted $250 and then Latina's saying, oh my God, he's got more.

Why did I only settle for $250?

So yeah, it's a direct violation.

The most important thing is that gets it into federal court.

And if it's in a federal court, that means ultimately it can go up to the Supreme Court.

Yeah.

Well, Victor, let's go ahead and take a break and then we'll come back.

And I have one more

Trump thing to ask you about and that's the Haley-Biden and both of their super PACs.

So stay with us and we'll be right back.

We're back.

You can find Victor on X at VD Hansen and on Facebook at Vick Hansen's Morning Cup.

So please come join Victor on those two venues and join him at his website, VictorHanson.com.

All of the work that he does gets put on there and it has VDH ultra material that is posted

three times a week.

And you can join to read that material for $5 a month or $50 a year.

So we'd love to have you.

Oh, Victor, so I was noticing that both the Haley and Biden super PACs seem in the last months, I believe, to be outraising Trump's organization.

And I was wondering, what do you think that means?

Well, Haley has done outraised Donald Trump in the last month.

I think he has more cash in hand because obviously he's the frontrunner and going to get the nomination.

But Biden has three times the amount of money, and he has no legal exposure.

He should have 10 times the legal exposure of Donald Trump, given what that family did.

And yet that's the way it is.

And I had been speaking in December to a number of groups, and I can tell you that a lot of people I talked to

were not going to give money to Donald Trump.

And they were not giving money because of the abortion issue to Ron DeSantis, and they were looking at Haley.

And the question that everybody has is,

It's a $64,000 question.

Haley is not going to get the nomination.

She's either, as I said before, she's either running in case he gets in

federal prison or something, or she's running because she wants to be Liz Cheney and go full never Trump insanity, or she wants to go George H.W.

Bush 1980 and just go through the motions and get some job from him, or

I don't know.

She thinks she can actually win, which is unlikely.

But there's a lot of people giving her money.

And the question is then,

when she gets out and is defeated, will she do what Juan DeSantis did?

He just said, you know, I can't win.

I don't see a pathway.

I'm getting out.

And people who are supporting me financially or emotionally or politically help Donald Trump the nominee.

And she could do that, would do one a whale of good for it.

And I don't see that coming right now.

I mean, it's hard to see what she's thinking, but what are the people who are giving her money thinking?

Because she's not going to win, so why are they?

They're giving money because

they are terrified of what Joe Biden has done?

They look at the $36 trillion debt.

They look at the $6 to $7 trillion he's borrowed the last two years.

They look at the crazy border.

They see that smash and grab and carjacking is coming to their neighborhood.

They look at what's happening overseas, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Hamas.

They look at everything.

It's a mess and they don't want it.

But they go back and they look at Donald Trump and they say to themselves, that was really good.

I made a lot of money.

Everything was stable.

The country was coming together.

But, you know, he tweeted all the time.

He's so crude.

And I can't go to the country club.

I can't go to the private club.

I can't see my friends and then say, who are you going to vote for?

And I'm going to say Trump.

And then someone's going to say, but you hear what he called Nikki Haley a bird brain.

You hear what he said about NATO?

You heard what he said about he,

how can you do that?

They don't want to put up with that.

So they want to go to a Romney McCain figure.

That's fine.

I think that's great.

All they have to do is pledge that when that fails, they'll support the nominee.

And why do I mean that?

Because in 2008

and in 2016, the more conservative of the candidates did not get the nomination.

And a lot of people sat out.

2008, and that destroyed John McCain.

A lot of people sat out with Mitt Ramney in 2012.

That destroyed a lot of them sat out with Donald Trump.

So for the Republicans to say the lesser of two evils, even if that's your philosophy, you all have to unite and endorse the nominee.

And that's important.

She does that.

And if she doesn't do that,

she's through politically.

Well, let's look at one last thing about Trump, because he didn't make that statement about NATO where he basically said, and these are my own words, but if European members do not pay up, then Russia or Putin should do what they see as necessary.

That was a rhetorical to scare the person or shock them into saying, oh my God, here's what he was thinking.

Here's what he wanted.

Tells the rally that.

So the Europeans, he says he said that.

I doubt he even said it.

But he says he did to a European leader.

So then the European leader goes back to the EU and NATO club and says, man, this guy is effing crazy.

We've been getting away with 1.1% of GDP.

If we don't do two,

he might just sit back when Putin knows that and he could go in.

And that's what Trump wanted.

So then they could call up and say, okay, we'll pay the two.

But the bottom line is this.

If you total the population of Europe, and NATO together, the EU and NATO, and you can do, they're not the same, but they're similar.

And you total the GDP, it's larger than the United States, number one.

Number two, it's the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

It was formed with the idea of France and Britain and Canada and the United States and the countries that were overrun in May 1940.

It didn't ever conceive of former

Soviet republics or Eastern European.

I'm glad it is.

But the point is, it's so big and it's so large now

that

does anybody really think that these people are going to go to war for Latvia or Estonia?

I don't.

They're not capable of doing it.

They don't have the wherewithal.

So what I'm getting at is they have the potential.

They have a bigger population base than we do.

They have more GDP than we do.

And they're closer to what concerns them, like Ukraine.

So you would think they would say,

the United States is way in the hell over there, and they've got responsibilities to protect us from China and Taiwan.

They've got to deal with the Middle East.

They've got to do with terrorism.

So why don't we just help them out and be

the main beneficiary for Ukraine?

It's on our doorstep.

And they can't do that.

And so he's angry about that.

And you know what?

Who damaged NATO more than anybody?

I mean,

who was the one that told Vladimir Putin, tell Vladimir that if he'll give me some space, this is my last election, I'll be flexible on missile defense.

That was going to protect Europe from Iranian rogue missiles with nuclear tips.

I will be flexible on missile defense if he will give me some space, i.e., don't invade Ukraine and Crimea till I'm re-elected in 2012.

And people forget about that hot mic and soul.

Both of them kept the deal.

We pulled the rug from under the Czech Republic and Poland on missile defense, and Putin did not invade in 2012.

And when he did invade,

he got some space.

Both of them got space.

It was a deal.

So that should have been the most damning, incriminating

indictment of the Obama administration vis-a-vis.

If you talk to a left-wing person today, they don't even mention that.

And when you look at Donald Trump selling javelins, getting out of the long-range missile deal,

upping sanctions,

killing the Wagner group,

you name it.

I mean, he went after Dung, na na na na na Putin.

I'm not sure Putin was even trolling when he said he preferred Biden.

I'm not sure he was.

Everybody says, well, he really wants Trump, so he just said that because anybody he endorses is the kiss of death.

So he endorsed Biden, didn't endorse him, but he favored him.

And then people will think, wow,

he's really,

that hurts Biden.

But that's not, and I do, I think he was sincere.

I really do.

I think he wants Biden because he saw in the past the difference between the way Obama gave him everything

and Trump didn't.

You know, when I was listening to these clips from Joe Scarborough

and

the rest of all of these anchor people in MSNBC and CNN,

Anderson Cooper, and

it's almost a psychological derangement.

They were talking about Russia again and again and again and again and again.

And you want to say to them, can I just ask you one question?

Why did he go into Georgia in 2008 under the Bush administration?

Why did he go in 2014 under the Obama administration?

Why did he go in in 2022 under the Obama the

Biden administration?

He went on to the Obama in 2014.

And he didn't go between 2017 and 2021.

Why?

Just explain.

And they know the answer.

If he was,

I don't know.

I guess you could say that, think of the logic.

They might say, well, Victor, he colluded and helped Trump, so as a favor to Trump, he didn't go in.

Oh, I can't say that because that would be a favor to all of us because he didn't go into Ukraine.

So they can't get the story straight because they're so clouded with hatred of Donald Trump and the MA people and the country between the coast.

Yeah.

Well, let's turn away from Trump things and go to Harvard once again.

And back in the news, they have a new interim president, Alan Garber, but they have a new problem with anti-Semitism.

Perhaps no surprise, but a poster that has a Jew holding two nooses around the necks of an Arab and a black man that was posted first on social media, but then the Harvard faculty and staff for Justice for Palestine posted it on campus.

And while they've taken it down and apologized, it seems like everything seems to be coming out of the cracks of the Harvard things.

They can't help it.

They can't help it.

Everybody's shocked.

They made the anti-Semitism committee and they had a guy in there that they had to get rid of that wasn't very

anti-anti-Semitic.

And in this case, the chairman of the history department, Chalhub,

he was out endorsing the divest, you know, the boycott of Israel.

And then we had this Johnson professor who's trying to make the argument from the river to the sea doesn't mean what it really means.

The elimination of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean doesn't mean that.

And so what I'm getting at is it's so embedded with serial chronic anti-Semitism that when they make a committee or they tell everybody, be on your good behavior, this Bill Ackman guy and these donors, they're getting really angry at us and we're getting some really bad publicity.

So everybody, just cool it for a while.

They can't even do that.

Because it's like a tick.

It's second nature to them.

And they've done it for so long, they think, well, what's wrong with having a guy with a Jewish Star of David on his hand, about ready to be macheted in the picture when he's trying to hang a black man?

I guess it was Muhammad Ali.

And another Arab man, I guess it was Nasser.

And they're quoting, or at least they're talking, referencing Malcolm X, Stokie Carmile, one of the biggest anti-Semites, pro-Hitler, black militants there were.

So everything about that was crazy.

And all they had to to do was own it.

And they still can't do that.

And so they would be,

you know,

it's just, they can't stop it.

And then the idea that Jews in America are, what, supporting apartheid?

They were some of the Jews in South Africa and Jews in Europe and Jews in the United States were some of the strongest advocates to ending apartheid.

Everybody knows that.

And they know in the civil rights movement that Jewish Americans were more liberal than average Americans, if I could collectively stereotype people, and they were more likely to go down and be freedom riders and go in the South.

Everybody knows that.

But

they really,

the radical black movement likes to equate wealthy Jewish successful people as white colonizers and imperialists and capitalists.

And so there you have it.

There you have it.

Well, let's go to a break and then come back back and talk about the trans basketball player injuring young women in the basketball,

in a basketball game on the court.

Stay with us and we'll be back.

We're back.

So Victor has a new book out before we go on to the trans basketball player.

It's coming out actually in April, I believe.

Is that right, Victor?

No, May 7th.

Oh, May 7th.

The end of everything.

Basic books in May 7th.

Oh, but maybe you're right.

Maybe, I'm sorry.

The case for Trump comes out April, as you're right.

And I wrote, they wanted an update introduction.

I had one for the paperback.

I thought, well,

why just add, you know, and they didn't give me any direction, so I'm not criticizing them, but why just come out with a new paperback with a different cover unless you're going to really do something.

So I wrote 13,000 words, and I covered the last year of the Trump administration and then the whole period of the Biden administration, vis-a-vis Trump, and what they did to Trump.

I went to the Carroll, Bragg, James, Smith,

Willis trials.

I went through Russian disinformation, collusion.

I went through all of it and updated it to the present and that's coming out.

That was due.

It's going to be typeset in April.

I just turned it in, so I'm not sure when it's coming out, but it's going to come out well before the election.

Yeah.

Well, have you seen the tape?

It's just horrible of the trans basketball player who injured a young woman right in the middle of the game, and I believe he injured her back, but he had injured two others previously.

And these,

I'm, um, the, I think it's college, have are not addressing this problem.

I mean, it's very dangerous.

They'll address the dangers of playing in football and require all sorts of patents, but they're not going to address this in women's sports.

The left has a, it's always been, because it has a shared Soviet ideology, and the Soviet ideology is the party line comes first, and everything else is collateral damage, and you don't mention it.

So if the party line is transgender

people

comprising traditionally like one hundredth of one percent of the population, if you can magnify that that up to 5%, 10%, 20% of the population, then it's the new civil rights after women, you know, me too, and you had George Floor.

You always need some crisis that you shouldn't go to waste.

But now this is, think of all the sports.

We had the poor girl, you remember she was almost knocked out in volleyball when he spiked that ball, that huge man,

biological man, right in her face.

We had that freestyle

mixed martial arts person was almost killed by a transgendered male, or male.

And now we have this.

I guess their attitude is, we'll just let it go until somebody gets killed.

And then

we'll just back off a little bit.

They don't care.

And they systematically, serially, steadily, insidiously just told young women,

We're destroying 50 years of women's progress and for equality of opportunity.

So we had all of these Title IX things, we had all these women's records, and now we're just going to let a bunch of biological men that are mediocre athletes but have muscularity and frames that are definitely biologically male, and we're going to let them use these innate advantages to destroy all the previous records and to injure women in contact and semi-contact sports.

And if you say anything right, you're a bigot.

Got it?

Just like say anything about 8 million people,

you're a xenophobe or a protectionist or a racist.

Say anything about

you're very worried that the black crime rate has soared enormously, that rare interracial crimes is six to one, black versus white.

The black community, if you want to say that word, and I don't believe in generalizing people by their race, so I don't like these collectivizations,

but the militant leadership does.

And if you do that,

the murder rate is five to eight times higher than the demographics.

And you want to say, what's going on?

I mean,

this last two weeks we had the shooter.

I mean, can you imagine if a white student went in and shot his black roommate and girlfriend, that's happened at Colorado.

Or a white man was sleeping supposedly with a young black girl and three black officers du in Minnesota surrounded the build, two black officers and a fire paramedic, and he shot all three of them and killed them, killed three heroic black officers, you would have riots.

Yeah, and for our listeners, Victor is switching the race of all of these people in these incidents.

And so that you just...

I'm saying that

we're getting to a point now where the left has to have it all asymmetrical, and it only works one way.

So

if you're in Kansas,

you know, I don't agree with Ann Coulter on much, but my God, when she said to Bill Maher about the Kansas City shooting, I think we said that too.

I think Jack or you asked me, do we know anything?

I said, I just assume that it is a non-white shooter because we haven't heard anything.

And same thing about the transgender shooter, remember before in the school?

So everybody, and the idea is everybody thinks the public is stupid.

They're not.

They understand that.

One of the most dangerous things in a society is to have these news stories by these university journalism students and then read the comments and they're trying not to publish them anymore.

So you read a New York Times or Washington Post or Time magazine or any of these liberal, and then you read the comments.

And the comments are just like...

I mean, it's incur.

They're blatantly racist.

They're just so angry about the lies that they're told.

And so why wouldn't you just be even-handed and symmetrical and just treat people as treat people and then not get anger on both sides?

It's not...

Because what you're doing is you're creating these clauding, gay scenarios where somebody plagiarizes and indulges in intellectual theft, and it's racism.

Fanny Willis breaks all sorts of moral, legal, jurisprudence

with sleeping with somebody she's hired and then trying to cover it up with cash payments.

And then she says it's racist that even suggests this and don't emasculate a black man.

And so this is happening again and again and again.

And it's not good.

It's not good when you

treat people by special considerations of their race.

That was what the whole civil rights was about, to evolve beyond that, not to go back and just switch the players.

Yeah.

Well,

speaking of the prosecutors of Trump, Letitia James, I know she's in the news because of Trump, but she is also going after or prosecuting the NRA.

She's already done that.

For misuse of millions of NRA funds.

I was reading about it and I was thinking, well, she seems to have caught them, but I think she also targeted them.

I don't know.

I mean, it's hard to say.

But the point is that if you

the only see, there's a big debate in the country.

How do you stop this?

Do you get the Attorney General of Utah or the Attorney General of Wyoming to say the Southern Poverty Leadership has been raising money in my state?

And Morris D's corrupt.

He's had sexual, and I'm going to go after the whole thing.

I'm going to shut it down.

Or the ACLU is training people to be activists on a partisan fashion.

They're raising money or they're acting in my state.

I'm going to go after them.

and try to destroy them.

I'm going to fine them.

I'm going to tie them up in court.

I'm going to wage lawfare.

And do you really, everybody's, I mean, we're going to say Joe Biden failed to follow his oath of faithfully executing the laws.

And so the border was deliberately and by design destroyed.

So we're not going to put him on the ballot in Mississippi.

You want that?

Is that what it takes?

Do you want to say, if we are in the majority again in the Senate, we're going to get rid of the filibuster.

If the Electoral College goes against us, against us, against us, we're we're going to get rid of it.

You know what?

If we get four more liberal judges and we lose four Republicans, we're going to go pack the court.

Is that what they want?

Tit for tat to stop it?

And do you want a whole, I don't know, some collusion disinformation on the other side?

And

I don't know.

I think

if Donald Trump says he's not going to, I think there's going to be a lot of pressure on him to get a special prosecutor.

And maybe the special prosecutor will have made a movie of Melania.

His wife will make a film about Melania or somebody, just the way that Jack Smith's wife's been, you know,

on familiar terms with the Obamas.

Or Fannie Willis and Greg and Latita James are all on the left side.

Just get a bunch of right-wing people and make them special counsel?

Yeah.

Is that what you're going to do?

And then go after the whole Biden family and bankrupt them

for 10 years?

I don't know.

Is that what it takes?

I don't know.

Raid his house, go back into his garage with a SWAT team, say, we think there's a file there.

Is that what you want to do?

He'll be,

if he leaves, he'll be what, 83 years old?

Is that what you want to do to Joe Biden?

Send the SWAT team in to look at every single residence to see if he has a classified file and then just say, you know what?

He said that he had classified files in 2017.

He had six years to come forward.

He never did.

We're going to prosecute him post facto.

And then we'll change the laws, just like we did with Eugene Carroll.

We'll say that there's a statute of limitation that's over.

You don't have to worry about it for a year.

You want to go get Tara Reed?

Go bring her back from Russia and let's have her file charges.

We'll pass a law that says that she can reintroduce accusations.

She couldn't because it was past the statute of limitation.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

No, it's not.

But you asked the earlier question, do they think we're so stupid that they can get away with this?

And I have a feeling they think enough of this,

it's contemptuous, I agree with you on the part of the Democrats, but I think they think enough of the voters are stupid enough that they can get away with it.

And we'll see in November of this year.

Since we're on

legal things, I would like to ask you, have you heard this term jury nullification?

Nullification,

which they seem to be suggesting is juries refusing to convict despite overwhelming evidence and the cases that I was reading about were the ones that were tried for people were being tried for lying to the FBI

and in the case of the steele dossier and they are overriding that even though the evidence is overwhelming

by the jury happens all the time that's what the south did during Jim Crow If you were a black man and you were innocent and they accused you of rape and they, you know, that was what kill the Mockingbird was.

All of the evidence was there, and yet they nullified the evidence and went on their emotions.

And every good lawyer or every good judge is aware of that, and a good judge will be very cognizant of that.

That's what change of venue is all about.

All of these cases should have had change of venues.

Do you think you can get a fair trial in Atlanta or New York or Washington when they go 75%

Democrat in elections?

And Fannie Willis runs for office, and so does Bragg and they're re-elected.

These are not appointed prosecutors.

They went out to the people and promised them they were going to get Donald Trump.

So then you're going to go right back to that constituency and say, I want to pool.

So every lawyer knows that, and they see they were trying to tell Trump,

just smile, be nice, joke, and then maybe they'll give you a fair shot.

If you come in there and you're boisterous and you're combative, they'll nullify the evidence.

And they don't like you.

And that's why every time you talk to a good.

I grew up, you know, with lawyers.

My mom was a lawyer and she was a judge, and she would have lawyers over it.

And I would just, as a little kid, I had thick glasses.

I was kind of a nerd, and

I'd actually crawl under chairs and do stuff when she was working as a research aide for the appellate court and later.

And I would listen to them, that's all they talked about.

Which person could make the defendant amicable or make the jury like them.

So they would nullify the jury of the evidence of case.

But Donald Trump's attitude apparently was very different.

It was going to be, I reject your whole

situation.

You people are all corrupt and I will take my case to the people in November.

And maybe that was the right thing to do.

I don't know.

But I think he's basically saying to all of them, I'm going to get convicted by you.

I have contempt for you.

I'm going to get sentenced to you.

And then I'm going to campaign if need be from jail, and I'm going to get elected.

I'm going to pardon myself.

How's that?

Well, Victor, we are at the end of our show, and I just had one observation by one of your listeners from Apple Podcasts.

And he said, regarding the first Republican vote to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, it reminds me of a quote from Casey Stingell.

Can't anybody here play this game?

I feel that way.

That's That's such a good comment.

When I saw that with Kevin McCarthy, whatever people thought of Kevin McCarthy,

he was a very adroit speaker.

He was conservative enough.

He united the party.

He went out and got good candidates to run.

And then they had vote after vote and humiliated him.

And then

to get back in, he had to say anybody could call a vote.

So they went out, and then they had to rely on Democrat votes to get rid of him.

And then we had the Mallorca's thing.

It's just pathetic.

And then you look at the lockstep,

ironclad discipline on the left.

It's just pathetic.

And this is the only, remember, we don't have the White House.

We don't have the Senate.

All we have is this little tiny bulwark called the House.

And by the thinnest of threads, we're hanging.

We're hanging by six or seven votes.

And you would think that on the Mallorca's vote,

that you would think that McClintock of all people or Ken Buck of all people, and forget what their futures are, whether they're going to run again or not, you'd think they'd say, well, I think this might be a good bill, but I've got to stick with my party.

And, you know, about the, Majorkas was bragging about the comprehensive immigration bill and all this that they voted, you know, finally got...

didn't take part of, but that was part of the argument.

And people were saying, no, don't listen to the guy.

He's a liar.

He's been lying, lying, lying.

He has.

And we need to impeach him.

And they would have said, well,

it might be a bad president, might not, but you know what?

It needs to be said.

And whatever damage I do by impeach him is not as much damage as I do by fracturing this thin coalition that's all we have between a traditional America and this nightmarish Orwellian neo-socialist project.

And yet they couldn't do that.

They couldn't do that.

Life is a question of 51% so often.

So often you have to make a decision that's 51%.

percent.

You don't have to be perfect to be good.

And yet they have these absolutists and Puritans that think that they're going to be just going to, how dare you suggest that I should impeach the

Homeland Security, hasn't been done before.

No, but we haven't had a guy like that before either.

And we haven't had a border like this before.

We don't have a border.

So I'm really upset with the, there's some wonderful people in the house, but there's about 12 of these people that get on their soapbox and they start making these lectures.

I'm so tired of them.

Sickening.

And they can't even

get their act together.

They should say to the American people, you don't have the Senate, you don't have the presidency, you do have the Supreme Court, but you don't have any of the federal courts or any of the state courts.

We are the only chance you have.

And we're going to act professionally and responsibly and united.

And when we say we're going to do something, we're going to ensure that everybody's on board and we're going to do it.

And then we're going to show that we're sober and we're competent.

And then you're going to vote us 30 more members along with the Senate.

And then

we can save the country.

But they can't even do that.

No.

And just to finish the comment off, he said, thank you, Victor Davis-Hansen, for your leadership, intellect, wit, and wisdom.

We would like to thank our listeners for their leadership, intellect, wit, and wisdom as well.

So thanks to everybody who is listening.

And thank you, Victor.

Thank you.

And I read so many of the comments and emails, and we have a very, very bright

audience that brighter than I am because they keep bringing things to my attention

and suggestions, both polite and not so.

And I try to listen and learn.

Well, thanks to everybody.

This is Sammy Wink and Victor Davis Hansen, and we're signing off.

Thank you for listening, everyone.

Wherever you go,

whatever they get into, from chill time to everyday adventures, protect your dog from parasites with Credelio Quattro.

For full safety information, side effects, and warnings, visit Credelio Quattrolabel.com.

Consult your vet or call 1-888-545-5973.

Ask your vet for Credelio Quattro and visit QuattroDog.com.