Justice, Injustice, and Fatal Street Brawling

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-Hansen Show.

It's the place where you can get the most level-headed discussion of the latest news.

And this week we have lots in on our agenda.

Trump, of course, has been indicted, and I know that Jack and Victor have talked a lot about.

about that, but there are a few more things that I was curious about with Trump's indictment, so we'll look into that.

We've got two men in a brawl in the broad daylight, 8.30, where one is stabbed, and we'll talk about that and lots of other things.

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

At a time when Americans are more divided than ever, Connecting America is a place where everyone can gather and express their opinions with no disrespect.

And what better place than a Jersey diner to host this show?

Because where else but a diner can you find a buffet of opinions, opinions, ideas, and real connections?

Connecting America, a brand new national program that aims to truly connect everyday people and is dedicated to showcasing ideas and embracing civil conversation, will also include amazing ways to improve your fitness, health, and nutrition, revive your spiritual self, and give your home a makeover.

Connecting America streams live every weekday from 7 a.m.

to 9 a.m.

Eastern Time.

Our program is led by a group of award-winning journalists, including me, Jim Rosenfield, plus Allison Camerada and Dave Briggs.

We'll also hear from America's psychologist Dr.

Jeff Gardier and former Fox News senior foreign affairs correspondent Amy Kellogg.

Join us wherever you get your podcasts.

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 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 That's hometitallock.com slash Victor.

Welcome back.

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

Victor, we always start things on a

good note out there.

The news, it's hard to read the news.

I understand these people who say, I've just stopped reading the news or listening to it because it's too much of a downer

and i was wondering if that's if that is your impression or are there things out there that are being told to us that are more on the upswing i think i think all of our listeners should be optimistic because for good or for evil whether we wanted it or not the left has prompted a crisis point in American history.

They have indicted a former president.

Not only that, but they've indicted the chief political opponent leading in the polls of the incumbent president.

It's never happened, either one of them, force multiplier of the two.

And they have done that

without really any historical perspective, given what we know of other presidents have done with records, including the current occupant of the White House.

And given the history of this sort of Trump obsession fixation they've had, whether it was Russian collusion hoax or the laptop disinformation hoax or the phone call,

and they're doing it right.

And we're going to talk about this right at a period where Joe Biden, there's been some, you can't keep up with this story.

I mean, it breaks every 20 minutes a new revelation of high crimes and misdemeanors.

So

what the left is doing is they're saying, we're going to bring this to a head and we're going to do something that never happened.

We're going to destroy this Trump figure and affect the next election.

Okay.

One way or the other, if you're for Trump, they're going to take him out.

If you're for one of the other candidates, then it's going to either

enhance

your prospects, perhaps, or maybe not.

But they're affecting, is my point, the election in a way that they shouldn't.

And they are doing this, Sammy, because they feel

that they have the universities, as we keep doing this mantra, they have the foundations, they have the media, they have social media, they have Silicon Valley Money, they have Wall Street, they have the corporate boardroom, Disney, Target, you name it.

Okay, and we have the people.

And it's now

two

unyielding forces are coming in contact, and we'll see what happened.

But they forced this, and they wanted this to happen, and they're gleeful, and we'll see what happens.

But I have a feeling that people are going to say,

they're going to bring up all sorts of parallels.

And then the left's going to say, well, that's what about him?

That doesn't count.

Well, yeah, it does count.

So we'll talk about all that.

But I think there's reasons for optimism because I think they're going to lose.

Yeah.

They're either going to lose legally.

I don't think Jack Smith's got a very good record as a special prosecutor.

He blew the McDonald case on appeal.

He's blown other cases.

He's trying this as he has to in Florida.

He's probably going to get a sympathetic jury in southern Florida, and he may or may not still have, they're going to try to disqualify the judge, but he may have a sympathetic judge.

And if he loses this,

that'll be his legacy, that he'd try to do something that nobody else has ever done to indict an ex-president and a likely opponent, likely.

I'm only based on the polls of his boss, Joe Biden.

And if he loses, I think he will, and I think he's going to be seen as a near insurrection.

This is more insurrectionary than January 6th, much more.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Do you think even if he loses the case in court, will he not have still gained something for the left?

And just

be an iconic figure for the left.

But let's be grotesque a minute in McCarve.

If somebody shot at Donald Trump, I won't even mention if he hit him or not.

He would be an icon to the left.

Yeah, but I don't.

Yeah, I don't mean that.

I mean, has he gained something?

Has the left gained something from just having this indictment as far as the 2024 election goes?

Their logic is we're not talking about inflation, interest rates, crime, the border, failed foreign policy,

energy crisis.

We're not talking about any of that.

We're not talking about Joe Biden's arisma problems.

We're not talking about Joe Biden's non-compost mentes.

We're not talking about Camilla Harris as an utter, I don't know what we'd call her.

And that's good.

because they have nothing to offer.

And

they're thinking that they're cutting Donald Trump.

They're slicing his tendon.

They're slicing his shoulder blade.

He's bleeding.

That's good.

And Alvin Bragg will continue and Letita James will continue and Willis will continue.

And that will be good.

He will hemorrhage all the way to the election.

They have a schizophrenic attitude.

They hate him so much that they want to destroy them.

That's their emotions.

But then somebody advises them, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

He's easier to beat than maybe one of the other candidates.

So don't destroy him totally.

So they're schizophrenic that go back and forth.

But ideally, I think we can decipher the contours of their strategy.

They want him to have a lot of empathy.

They want him to be tied up as we get close to the campaign season in the fall.

And maybe, you know,

you can get a veritable winner in March.

That's only nine months away.

And they think they can draw this out.

And he'll be still getting some fumes of empathy and be nominated.

And then they're going to let loose to destroy the nominee.

So this is all nothing is accidental in politics and not particularly this.

He seems to have been, I mean, if you just look at the polls broadly of Trump versus the other Republican candidates, he seems to have gained points at distance from the other candidates.

$64,000 question that nobody can answer is it's either one of two things.

Donald Trump gained empathy because people saw his dilemma as a shared or collective attack on them, whether they voted for him or not.

And they're correct in that belief.

But how long is that shelf life of empathy?

Because people want to win.

They're sick and tired of losing seven out of the last eight popular votes.

They're sick and tired of losing 51% since they haven't obtained 51% of the vote since 1988.

So they want to win.

And they've won, as we said before, the state, local level.

So they want to win.

Is this going to be repeated every week?

That's the left's idea.

And if it is, are people in the Republican Party going to say, I'm even angrier they're doing this to him.

I'm going to get out and vote.

I'm going to, and what's going to happen if they indict him and he's president?

Well, he'll just pardon himself.

We'll figure it out later.

Or are they going to say, oh my God,

I feel so bad.

They treated him so terribly, but he's going to to lose.

They're just bleeding.

And we got to get another alternative.

Glenn Youngton or Juan DeSantis, who knows?

And so I don't know how to adjudicate those two.

Yeah, they'll have to work out.

Well, let's turn to look at the current, very recent event in New York at a busy intersection, 8.30 a.m.

And two men start fighting in the crosswalk, and passersby seem

unmoved, uninterested, and life as usual in New York.

And yet, as the fight goes on, one is stabbed fatally in the crosswalk and just absolutely shocking.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have some bizarre thoughts.

There was a picture in the video.

Did you see that sort of

60s sort of woman immaculately dressed, perfectly tasteful dress, walking in the crosswalk where these people were trying to kill each other?

And she didn't even look up.

She was looking at her cell phone, but she was looking, yeah.

Yeah, it was funny because she was dressed so smartly and she was so calm and possessed.

Maybe she didn't know what was going on or she didn't care.

And she was business.

And it was like, this is civilization right here.

And this is

chaos and anarchy and anti-civilization.

And they're right next to each other now in Midtown Manhattan.

And civilization says to

pre-civilization, I don't care what you are.

You're overwhelming overwhelming me, but I'm going to be on the walls of Constantinople doing my everyday job as you pour over, and I'm not going to change.

And they're saying, this is our city now, and we not only are going to settle a dispute, we're going to settle it fatally, and we're going to do it right in the middle of the street, and everybody's, all the traffic's going to stop because we own this city.

And then the subtext was that the perpetrator, the large African-American man that stabbed the, I guess, Hispanic, smaller man, well, he was just let out of of prison not too long ago.

And the Hispanic man was wanted for a murder count, the one that was killed, as I understand it from preliminary knowledge.

So you have somebody with a warrant out for capital crime fighting somebody who was released prematurely for a violent offense, and they're both going at it.

And one man takes out a knife and stabs him to death in broad daylight in the middle of New York City as a pedestrian walks by.

It's like, I almost felt like she was going to say, if he falls there, would you make sure that he gets away from the crosswalk?

Or,

or she was maybe thinking, hmm, they're stabbing each other.

I wonder if the blood will be slippery.

I don't know how to react to that.

Is it callous?

Or is it, I'm determined to go, you know, is it the same thing as completely unperturbed playing a symphony music on the deck of Titanic because it's sinking?

And you have to admire that, you know, or a British gentleman saying, take,

I'm perfectly with a tie and a coat on, so take my place in the lifeboat.

And then he just sings it, you know.

Yeah.

Well, another, another, another New York Post story was one of their writers was on a

car, a subway car.

And a guy

pretty well dressed, I mean, at least cleanly dressed, just pulls out a syringe and ties his arm off and shoots heroin into his arm in the car while everybody's just sitting there.

And he filmed it, but it was then life as usual for everybody in the car.

And they got off on their various stops.

It was yeah, and so juxtaposed that story with Gavin Newsome.

He was giving an interview to Fox News's Sean

Hannity, and he's been bragging about these

super tough gun laws he's going to enact in California.

And you can really see through Gavin Newsom's agenda that he wants to run for president.

He's going to say California's got the toughest gun laws in the country and tell that to the people in San Francisco that it's safe now because they do or downtown Los Angeles.

But you can see where the left's mind really is going.

I mean, the subtext.

If you dig deeper, it is: we're going to defund the police and cut police budgets and release criminals.

And the result of that will be abject violence on the streets of New York, lethal violence in the mid-morning.

But in our big cities, we're not going to allow the private citizen to arm themselves as the Constitution allows.

So then we're going to have a monopoly on security.

And you better be nice to us and you better treat us nicely.

or we're going to open up more prisons and we're going to defund more police departments and we're going to decriminalize in George Gaston fashion the criminal code.

And you're not going to have any say about it because you can't have a gun and you can't protect your family.

So you can really see what this is all about.

It's the aggregate diesem of power because remember what a lot of people who commented on the Bill of Rights said when it was built, when it was built and constructed, created.

They said, you know what?

Once you have the Second Amendment, it's pretty much all the other amendments are superfluous because if you have an armed citizenry,

then you can't take away their right of free speech.

You can't take away the right of due process.

You can't take away any of that thing because they can organize a militia, well-organized militia, or have the right to bear arms.

And that was the whole purpose behind it.

But you take away that, and then you've lost your constitutional republic.

This came true to me one night

about five years ago when a car pulled over and it was about 11 o'clock at night and I was driving home and we'd have an epidemic of copper wire thievery.

That is, people would pull in with their cars and take pruning shares and cut the 440 cables to the submersible pumps and then pull out some of the insulated copper wire and wrap it around their trailer hitch and take off and they would pull two or 300 feet of wire.

It may cost five or six thousand dollars to rewire and fix but they only got it maybe $80 worth.

They didn't care.

And it was happening everywhere.

Still is to a certain degree.

And one of the ways they did it was they would have young women go out and drive around as if they were pulled on the side of the road, you know, and then scout out.

You can always tell where an electric pump is.

You can see the pole right from the road, the electrical access.

And then they would text.

We know this from some people who, you know, confessed to it.

And then they would text where the pump was and there was nobody out there.

So I knew that.

So I saw this person pulled right on the side of the road, right across my mailbox, maybe, well, I don't know, 100 yards from my electrical pump that was hidden in the orchard.

And she was texting because I could see the light on.

So I walked over to her and I tapped on the window.

I didn't know who it was.

It probably could have shot me.

And I said, what the hell are you doing?

She said, I'm texting.

And I said, you're texting?

You know, we have an epidemic around here of people who are texting so that people can steal.

And she says, whatever.

And I said, no, it's whatever.

You know, I pointed to each house.

That guy, he's armed.

That guy, he's armed.

That person, he's armed.

And I pointed to me, I'm armed.

Do you want to keep doing that?

You think, how long is that going to last?

And she goes, oh, please, please.

And she took off.

But the point was, that was a credible deterrent because I told the truth and she knew it was true because she wouldn't have been texting to warn the person.

And that if you don't have that,

he wouldn't have even needed a scout.

He would have just gone over and thought, you know what, I'll just steal the what are they going to do?

They nobody's armed.

The sheriff takes two hours to come out here.

So it's very, and I'm just trying to illustrate in the very here and now, it's very important

that the body politic understands there are people that you might bump into that are armed, and that provides a deterrent.

But when you go to a city where you don't have anybody armed but the criminal, and you let the criminal out for offenses involving illegal possession of farms, then you have no deterrence.

Yeah, that's for sure.

All right.

Well, Victor, let's go to the Trump indictment.

There's lots of things, and I know that you and Jack talked a lot about it, but I have some questions.

So, first is: I read through the indictment.

I think that what is interesting is what the classified documents are said to have had, which are defense and weapon capabilities of the United States and foreign powers, nuclear programs of the United States and foreign powers, and potential vulnerabilities of the United States and foreign powers.

So those are all the things that might have been in these classified, might have, that they say were in these classified documents that Donald Trump had.

And my question is, well, what about all of the droves that Joe Biden has or pins?

Could somebody look through and say, oh, look, this is, you know, of the same category?

And so I don't know whether to, because it sounds serious, but I don't know whether to take it seriously.

There's two issues here, Sammy.

There's two issues.

There's the facts or the alleged facts of the Trump case per se in isolation, which will determine how well that case is presented by the prosecutors to a jury.

And then there's the wider context.

Why is it even an indictment at all?

If you start with the second problem, you're right.

We have

It's an untenable, it's not a legal question, it's an untenable political question.

You cannot have, I'll be very careful here, you cannot have the president of the United States for 20 years bringing out classified documents as a senator, as a vice president,

using them as a private citizen, and in his possession illegally while President of the United States.

And all of that was not brought to our attention because Joe Biden felt bad, only because of the Mar-a-Lago raid that his DOJ AG ordered, and then he was afraid that he had exposure.

So for the first time in two decades, he told us that.

And to have a special counsel, Mr.

Hur, where is he?

I haven't heard anything about him.

He hasn't, I don't think he's doing anything.

He's been in suspended animation for two years.

But we know that those were classified documents, as were some of Trump's, apparently.

We know that he put them in multiple locations.

We know Trump only had one location.

We know that they were completely unsecured.

And I'll leave it to the listener to answer the question whether Joe Biden's Corvette garage, were you from the street when he opened the door, you could look at the documents.

There are photos of government boxes that are easily discernible from the street the moment his vet left there versus a gated estate with a guard out at Mar-Lago.

So there are some so many asymmetries here that you want to know why are they doing this?

And then we go to the next level and say this man was the former president of the United States.

If you institutionalize the idea that on a questionable

matter of indicting an ex-president, you're going to destroy an entire 233-year tradition.

Because what you're doing is you're saying to any ex-president, you better be careful because when you lead office, if a guy from the opposite party takes up and you criticize him or your party criticize him, he'll go after you.

Donald Trump could have gone after, I guess, Barack Obama if he wanted to, according to this logic.

And what would he have gone after Barack Obama?

Barack Obama had a dispute with the archivists.

He had hundreds of thousands of documents in a warehouse.

And that was just, Donald Trump didn't say go indict him.

Or remember another thing that's very important in this.

If you go back

to the first impeachment in late 2019, the phone call to Ukraine, remember what the media said?

The media said that this was very egregious, not just based on the facts of the case, which really were pretty weak, there were no facts.

Donald Trump called

Mr.

Zelensky and said, you know what, you guys have a history of corruption.

You're dealing with a corrupt Biden.

True, true.

Before I okay,

offensive weapons, which, by the way, haven't been given to you before by Mr.

Biden's administration, I want you to certify that you're not corrupt.

Okay.

But at that point, when that leaked out, the subtext of the entire impeachment was all these liberal media outlets were saying, this is especially bad because Donald Trump is going after his likely Democratic opponent who's leading all of the other candidates in the primary,

preliminary poll.

They understood it.

You can't do that.

Trump didn't do that.

Biden did do it, and they're quiet.

So that's the cocoon around this legal case.

Then, when you actually go to the legal case,

I don't know what Donald Trump did.

I think that he

should have left all those boxes.

But remember, this is an indictment before a grand jury.

We don't have the way grand juries

operate.

They have the prosecutor come in and say,

this is a controversial case.

Here's the evidence.

But they don't call in the defense attorney and say, would you refute that so that we can adjudicate whether to indict?

That's not how our system works.

So we've only had one side of the record.

Let's say that that's true, that there were some important classified documents.

But if you go back and read the 1978 Presidential Records Act, and I've read it a couple of times,

the president does have the right.

to declassify.

That's an old trope.

Everybody's mentioned that.

But if you read the context of the act, it's basically a procedural matter.

Once the president possesses that theoretical power, it's a matter of actually using it, you know, reifying it with a document or request.

He didn't do that, apparently.

Had he done that, I suppose it wouldn't be, but that's a procedural matter.

You know what I'm saying?

Yes.

That's like saying,

I don't know, I have a

driver's life.

I have the right to get a drive.

I have a driver's license, but I don't have it in my possession.

Or it's a technicality.

And usually, and

if he's in error or he's broken that statute, it's a civil matter.

It's usually adjudicated with the archive.

This is criminalizing it.

And so

on the merits of the case, it sounds terrible, but they're trying to entrap Mr.

Trump by saying if he gave access and boasted about it, then that was espionage or it violated the espionage law.

If he doesn't candid,

that was perjury.

If he

stonewalled the archive, it was obstruction of justice.

But what you're trying to do is to fabricate or create or fertilize infractions of a central problem, and that is he had a dispute with the archives and he took stuff and they said, You can't.

And he said, I can, and they said they can't.

And their lawyers were working on it out.

Yes.

And that's what we do.

And

we don't do that.

And,

you know, and almost everything that I just mentioned,

well, we'll talk about it when we talk about Walt Nalta, his personal aide, but

it seems to me that when you're talking about presidential records, my God, or classified documents, because that's one of the counts.

He showed, what was James Comey's conversation with the president of the United States, a private conversation?

It was probably classified, if not, it was probably, we know it was confidential.

If Comey hadn't written it and leaked it, it probably would have been classified.

But he took a private conversation,

recorded on an FBI device, and then used a third party to leak it and boasted about it.

And he had faced nothing,

nothing.

And so that was a classified document.

Victor, let's go ahead and take a break and then come back and we'll talk about Walt Nota.

Stay with us and we'll be right back.

Audival's romance collection has something to satisfy every side of you.

When it comes to what kind of romance you're into, you don't have to choose just one.

Fancy a dalliance with a duke or maybe a steamy billionaire.

You could find a book boyfriend in the city and another one tearing it up on the hockey field.

And if nothing on this earth satisfies, you can always find love in another realm.

Discover modern rom-coms from authors like Lily Chu and Allie Hazelwood, the latest romanticy series from Sarah J.

Mas and Rebecca Yaros, plus regency favorites like Bridgerton and Outlander, and of course, all the really steamy stuff.

Your first great love story is free when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wondery.

That's audible.com slash wondery.

If you're shopping while working, eating, or even listening to this podcast, then you know and love the thrill of a deal.

But are you getting the deal and cash back?

Racketon shoppers do.

They get the brands they love, savings, and cash back, and you can get it too.

Start getting cash back at your favorite stores like Target, Sephora, and even Expedia.

Stack sales on top of cash back and feel what it's like to know you're maximizing the savings.

It's easy to use, and you get your cash back sent to you through PayPal or check.

The idea is simple: stores pay Racketon for sending them shoppers, and Racketon shares the money with you as cash back.

Download the free Racketon app or go to racketon.com to start saving today.

It's the most rewarding way to shop.

That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N, racketon.com.

Welcome back to the Victor Davis Hanson Show.

You can find Victor at his website, VictorHanson.com.

That's H-A-N-S-O-N.

Please come join us for $5 a month or $50 a year for a subscription and to get the extensive VDH ultra material.

So, Victor,

another part of the Trump indictment is this Walt Nolte, and he's

going to be tried.

I guess I couldn't tell in the indictment with Trump, or maybe it'll be separately, but he basically wouldn't turn state's evidence.

And he is accused of having moved boxes around in order to conceal them from the FBI and the grand jury and Trump lawyers, in fact, as well.

So,

what are your thoughts on Mr.

Nolte?

My thoughts on Mr.

Nauta are this.

This is shameful.

This is a person who came from Guam as a hardworking immigrant.

He joined the Navy.

He had a flawless record as 10 years in the Navy.

He was assigned to the White House.

He developed a close relationship

with the president.

When the president left office, he continued in that capacity as an aide.

And he was taking orders from the ex-president of the the United States, surrounded by Secret Service, that was in a dispute under a civil statute with the archivists.

And Mr.

Trump allegedly said, move it this or this or this or this.

And they offered him a deal and said, would you turn state's evidence a la Michael Cohen?

Remember Trump's sort of shyster lawyer?

And he said, no.

He didn't even have, Sammy, he didn't even have counsel in the preliminary hearing.

I guess he couldn't afford it.

He had no

So he's just an average person, and they're trying to put him in prison for years for doing what?

Moving boxes around?

What do you think Joe Biden's itinerant boxes were doing?

They were not stationary.

They were moving from the garage to the Washington, D.C.

office to the University of Delaware, to the

room off the

Biden library in the main house.

Who moved those boxes?

And if you're going to say, well, the lawyers notified, they know, no, they didn't.

They notified the FBI

when the Donald Trump matter came to attention.

In other words, when Merrick Garland did his psychodramatic performance art raid into Mar-Lago, then suddenly somebody said, oh my God,

Joe's got some stuff, doesn't he?

Let me go check.

Oh my God, he's got a lot of stuff.

I'm going to be very Joe's dutiful citizen and call the National Archives or I'll call the FBI and report this, because I'm not going to be like Trump.

No, you didn't do it for 20 blank years, and you only suddenly got religion when you were thought you were going to get into jeopardy.

So that is a bogused argument as it applies to Mr.

Nauda.

And the third thing is

he said, I don't know.

Okay.

He said, did you do, I don't know, I can't remember.

That's almost the exact phraseology that James Comey said 245 times under oath to the Senate and the House Intelligence Committee.

And what happened to James Comey?

Not only did he leak a classified document or a confidential document, he basically did what Mr.

Nalta did, and he got no ramification.

He didn't do it once or twice.

He did it 245 times.

He didn't do it under oath to an F to a federal investigator.

He did it under oath to the U.S.

Congress and he got completely.

Andrew McCabe, I know people, I got a note note and said, don't mention McCabe and Vrennan.

I am going to mention McCabe and Vrennan.

They have been all over the airwaves commenting on this case.

They both have one thing in common.

They lied under oath to the U.S.

Congress with exemption, and they monetized that notoriety.

Same thing with Andrew McCabe.

He lied to a federal investigator

three times, maybe four.

He was given an exemption.

and he monetized that notoriety.

What's going to happen to a private citizen who's a military veteran without any resource?

He's going to go to prison for doing much less.

If you don't believe me, you're getting sick of this.

You say, Victor, you talk about Brennan Clapper and all.

Okay, let's talk about Jennifer Granholm.

She's the energy secretary.

She just testified again in May because the Republicans in the Senate were worried that her solar

profit, her solar, I don't know, evangelicalism, she's fanatic about destroying fossil fuel industry.

And people just ask her simply, do you have any stock?

Well, what do you mean?

No, I mean, do you own stock to your knowledge personally?

Not 401k.

It's all mixed up in Vanguard or something.

I'm just talking about,

no, I do not.

That was under oath.

And now she says, hmm, glad I missed that bullet.

Now I can lie and I lied.

And I guess I'll just tell them I lied.

I was mistaken.

Oh, by the way, this is Secretary Jennifer Gritt Runholm.

And I kind of misstated something under oath.

I do have stock.

Well, that was perjury.

There were no consequences.

Why don't they do to her what they're doing to Mr.

Nauta?

That's what makes me sick about this whole process.

They took a wonderful country, these leftist zealots, and they're destroying it piece by piece by piece by the asymmetrical application of the justice.

There's one constant truism

through all of this mess.

The sword that cuts the Gordian knot is simply this.

If you're wealthy and powerful and on the left, you can do whatever you please.

You can be Sandy Berger and walk out with classified documents stuck into your crotch because you're afraid it will tarnish the reputation of your boss.

You can lie if you're the CIA.

You can lie.

if you're the FBI director.

You can lie, you can be Eric Holder and you can say, I'm not going to,

F your congressional subpoena.

I'm not going to honor it.

Fast and Furious, forget it.

I'm not giving any papers up.

Steve Bannon, you're going to go to prison.

We're going to convict you.

So, but what's the common denominator?

They're all noble people who worry about the poor and they want equality as defined now by equity.

And if you're not on that, you have no exemption, no get out of jail card.

You're done for.

And

that's how they operate.

And whoever the next president is, if it's a Republican, their primary

objective must be to clean these algae and stables and just go in there and say, you know what?

A, first person who lies under oath is in my administration or the permanent deep state is gone.

And we're going to press my DOJ.

It's not going to be Bill Barr.

Oh, oh, it's not going to be James Comey.

Oh, oh, oh.

It's going to be a tough SOB prosecutor, and you're going to be prosecuted if you lie under oath.

You know, if you are a general and you go out in the public square and you violate Article 88, and you knew you violated it,

and it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and if you call Joe Biden, if you're a Republican or conservative general and you call Joe Biden a coward, If you call him Mussolini, if you call him Hitler-like, if you say that he should have been removed before the election, you're going to pay for it.

We're going to prosecute you under that statute.

You're going to be court-martialed, I promise you, as commander-in-chief.

And

that would stop very quickly.

And if you're a retired intelligence or investigatory officer from the FBI, the CIA,

the Office of Director of National Intelligence, and you go on television and you monetize that security clearance.

knowledge and access and wink and nod that you really know my sources tell me crap and you do it for partisan we're going to rip off we're going to to take away your security clearance.

You could stop it very quickly.

Yeah.

Well, can I add just one more thing to this from having read the indictment?

They had a picture in there of spilled boxes, which seemed to be somewhat significant to the line of argument.

And so I looked very closely at this picture of these spilled boxes.

And

it was a bunch of newspapers, like newspaper clippings, but in fact, it was whole newspapers and then some pictures that had been taken and such.

And so the picture itself sort of made you think, well,

you're looking at somebody's, you know, memory boxes from when he was president.

And

so it didn't feel like...

That's what we're getting to, isn't it?

First of all, you can't trust anything the FBI.

Remember when they went in there, they said things were thrown over the floor and they rearranged them.

for that picture when they went into Mor-a-Lago.

That was all a concocted picture.

And I know it was because when they accused him of that, they went silent.

No comment.

And so this gets to the heart of the things.

People said Donald Trump, the New York Times, Washington Post were saying Donald Trump probably won a month.

No, he didn't.

They even admitted that.

So why did he have a big dispute?

Because he's Donald Trump.

And you know why he wanted that stuff.

He wanted to brag and put pictures of him with Macron.

He wanted to have a handwritten note from Kin John-un saying that

they worked together to avoid Newcastle, put that up in his country club.

It was all about the ego of Donald Trump.

He was not going to sell it to the Russians.

He was not going to sell it to a member of Belia Club.

It was just Donald Trump, it magnified for his friends and associates, Donald Trump.

It's like putting a big T on his building.

And that's what they couldn't stomach.

But later in this broadcast, or the next one, we're going to get into to somebody who did,

who did apparently work with people who were working for the Russians for big money.

And

we'll talk about that.

Because remember, with the left, every time

they go after someone, that has to be seen in the context of the psychological phenomenon called projection.

They go after somebody for what they do to

deflect attention to what they're doing.

So as a rule of thumb, if the left raids Mar-Lago and the left says that he was improperly using documents, then that means that the person making that charge was doing that.

In this case, the entire Biden consortium.

Well, I have two more things, and I promise your listeners, I'll get off.

It sounds like I'm making about five ends like a movie that never ends, Lord of the Rings.

But

the judge Eileen Cannon

is a Trump appointee, apparently, and this might be held in her court.

Do you think they'll get rid of her?

Well, they'll challenge it, but she was assigned the docket on a random manner of selection.

So for the left, it doesn't matter.

If they have a random,

if they had a random selection and they do, and that had been a right-wing uh Obama, excuse me, a left-wing Obama judge, and any Republican had objected.

Oh my God, how can you do that?

He was randomly selected.

So the fact that she was randomly selected and she's a justice of the court means nothing to them.

So they will challenge it and they will say, Sean Trump appointed her in her prior case in a preliminary hearing about the procedures to follow in the Mar-Lago trove.

She said that she would look at experts or something.

They'll go after her, obviously.

Of course they will.

I think between you and me, they'll try to have some kind of writ to have a change of venue because they will not want,

because this happened in Florida, right?

So

fedful jurisprudence says you go to the federal court jurisdiction and the federal attorney, this is a special counsel, so it's a little different, but he'll be working with Florida attorneys in the area in which it transpired.

But I think their formula for success,

And I define success as acquitting people on the left that were guilty and convicting people on the right that weren't is a D.C.

jury.

So that's what they want.

And they'll probably say, this has been biased.

The Trump family is everywhere in South Florida.

And we've got all these politicking and DeSantis is governor.

We've got to get this to a fair place like Washington, D.C.

Oh, and that's the story with Alvin Bragg, too.

Nothing like him saying while he was campaigning that he was going to get Donald Trump.

Yeah, nobody cares.

I mean, yeah.

The last thing is

a

well-known never Trumper just wrote an article, and I didn't read the article, but the title is this.

GOP Wanted Clinton Prosecuted,

but now defends Trump.

I was wondering what you think of these never Trumpers and their positions.

Well,

let me.

Was that Mr.

Goldberg, Joan of Goldberg?

That was Mr.

Goldberg.

Yeah, former associate of mine.

So

he's trying to say there's an asymmetry, but let's ask ourselves a series of questions, Mr.

Goldberg.

So Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Was she president of the United States?

That's my question.

Did she have the

executive authority to determine whether a document was classified or not?

Did she?

I can't remember.

I don't think she was.

So under the Presidential Records Act, which is primarily in the civil realm of jurisprudence, Donald Trump had that ability.

You can argue that he didn't do it in every one of those cases, but you're going to argue about it.

It's an open and shut case.

Donald Trump, let me see now.

He

is accused of letting an associate or two look at classified documents.

Did he,

let's say that he downloaded them on his private email server while he was president of the United States that was unsecured so that other people would not have a record of it.

And then he sent it into cyberspace.

And we kind of have a good impression that the Russians and everybody got access to Hillary Clinton because it was unsecured.

Did he do that?

No.

When there was a subpoena for these records, did he tell Mr.

Now to go destroy them?

Like Hillary Clinton did to her aide and said, okay,

go break up those devices.

I think he used the hammers, I remember, to break up the hard drive.

And remember when they asked her, Did you bleach?

He goes, What do you mean, bleach it?

Remember, she used bleach bit

and she thought she'd be cute, like she was ignorant.

Bleach bit?

What do you mean by that?

You mean did I pour bleach over it?

Ha ha ha.

Yeah, you did use bleach bit.

You destroyed records that were under subpoena.

You wiped clean hard drives that were under subpoena.

You had no statutory authority to declassify anything.

And nothing happened to her.

Nothing happened to her.

And Donald Trump is indicted and something happened to him.

So I don't know what Mr.

Goldberg, Republicans are angry at his debate.

Yeah, because it's not the same as Hillary.

And more importantly, we could even start Hillary Clinton.

It's a federal felony to hire a foreign national to work in your campaign.

She hired Christopher Steele to do opposition research and then created a conspiracy to hide the fact that she was his paymaster because she knew it was illegal.

So she used the DNC, then they used Perkins-Coey, then they used Fusing GPS to pay steel.

And what did he do?

Who did he work with?

He worked with Hillary Clinton operatives, Mr.

Dolan in Moscow and Mr.

Dashinko at Ware at the Bookings Institute, the Liberal Bookings Institution.

It wasn't even similar.

And she completely got off.

And then we were told that Mr.

Comey had gone through all of the Anthony Wiener, remember the later transmissions that he had sent back and forth?

Well, excuse me, he hadn't sent it, but he had access.

He was sending pictures, and they tapped in, and then they found that he and Huma Abedine had Hillary Clinton additional message.

Remember how he said we went painsakenly through every, we know now that he didn't, Mr.

Comey.

They didn't even examine the trove.

I can tell you that the prosecutors will examine every one of those troves.

So it's not simmer.

symmetrical.

There's no symmetry.

No, there's no symmetry.

And the question is:

if

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative as he professes to be, then he might want to worry about the asymmetry between the President of the United States, who has thousands of classified documents, not, as I said, in one place, but in four places that were been moved around not for two years, but for two decades, and not

sloppily arrange in a secured private home with a guard at the gate, but rather in a garage that you can open the door and see from the street.

That would be something that he should focus on.

Yes, absolutely.

But I think if they were to do that, the people who fund that

venue would not be happy.

No.

And

just to that issue of the Biden crime syndicate, if I can call him that.

Well, Well, can we get to that after these messages and talk a little bit about what Chuck Grassley came out and said?

Yes.

All right.

Stay with us and we'll be right back.

And we're back live during a flex alert.

Oh, we're pre-cooling before 4 p.m., folks.

And that's the end of the third.

Time to send it back to 78 from 4 to 9 p.m.

What a performance by Team California.

The power is ours.

Welcome back.

Our show, the podcast for Victor Davis Hansen, is held or the mothership for it is John Solomon's, Just the News.

So please look into John Solomon's website.

He has all the current information, especially coming from DC, and he is an investigative reporter that does a awesome job.

So please give that a look.

Victor, so Chuck Grassley recently came out and said that there was a memo from a

Burisma holding executive that indicates that there are 17 audio recordings to Hunter Biden and Joe, a couple of them to Joe Biden, that

demonstrate that they were bribed by the Ukrainians.

And so

what are your thoughts on that?

Well, we're right at that stage right before the 1972 election when they caught the water burglars and then we found that some of them, it was starting to go up the chain and they had the election.

And

by the way, Mr.

Grassley is, what, almost 90?

He's an advertisement that age is not the problem with Joe Biden and Diane Feinstein.

It's another physical problem because he is as sharp as a tack.

and he's got a lot of experience.

But my point is that

another matter is I don't understand why Christopher Wray was so paranoid.

He was almost insane that he wouldn't hand over a subpoenaed document that wasn't classified.

What was his big deal about it?

He resisted and he resisted, and then he redacted a non-classified document.

That's the only thing I can think of that happens.

Remember, Anthony Fauci had to turn over Freedom and Information Act,

his email exchanges about the Wuhan virus, where it showed he and Mr.

Redfield had a degree of Francis Collins, excuse me, had a degree of paranoia

that

there might be the semblance or the suggestion or the implication that they had rerouted money through Echo Health for gain of function research and a gain of function virus had escaped and killed thousands of people.

And they subpoenaed and they released that redacted.

You're not supposed to do that with an unclassified document.

So they were worried, and now we know why they were worried, because Mr.

Grassley has seen the on-redacted form that the other senators have not.

And according to him, you know, he basically went public with it.

And

this guy that was the head of Burisma,

Zlock Espi, the guy was smart.

He was crooked.

He was an SOB, but he was smart.

And he knew when he was buying Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's influence that he needed a, I guess he called it, an insurance policy.

So he taped the conversation.

Purportedly, he may be lying, but

the poop of the pudding is in the ending.

He did refer to the big guy.

We know that as a fact.

That's kind of funny because that's what Joe, Hunter Biden referred to, Joe Biden as the big guy.

So that must have been common parlance.

And then what's really weird about it is that

Biden is on record firing

Mr.

Slokin, the remember that he was, you know, and he said something like, you're not getting that billion dollars.

And I said, remember he was in the Council on Foreign Relations.

He was trying to get rid of Shokin.

And he said, that was the prosecutor.

I'm leaving, I don't know, five or six hours.

And

if you don't.

fire that SOB.

And well, son of a bitch, they fired him.

I'm Joe Biden.

I can do that.

Well, he was talking about firing Shokin, who was doing what?

He was investigating.

He was telling Porschenko, the president of Ukraine, you're going to fire that guy because that guy is looking at Hunter Biden and Zlovkevsky, the guy appears in this document, who were trying to buy Hunter for $5 million and Joe for $5 million.

And Joe, by his own admission, was vice president, right?

Yes.

So

there's very few things that are clear-cut about the impeachment statute,

because it says high crimes and misdemeanors.

Misdemeanors

meant something different in 1783 than it does now.

But my point is that,

excuse me, 1787, but my point is this: that one thing that's not ambiguous is bribery.

It's in the Constitution.

And so I don't know what to say.

This is

this federal document 1023.

Apparently, according to Mr.

Grassley, whose impeccable credentials is a senator, he has said that on the document, the president of Burisma says that he has, for his own protection,

that must mean pretty scary, right?

Because he didn't trust the Bidens or the people who were making money.

He has

a

recording of Joe Biden getting getting $5 million

for helping them with

burisma.

Isn't the problem that the FBI had this document or this memo and they just didn't take it seriously or something?

And so that's what grasses.

If it hadn't been for seven or eight congressional districts, we would never know this because the Democrats would have hidden it.

They knew about it.

And even that

Jamie Rankin lied about it and said it had nothing to do, but it did.

and it's coming out.

And there's a couple of little sidebars to this story.

One is that we all make fun of the House leadership, but when you start to look

at

Representative Comer, that guy is a bulldog.

He's fearless.

They smear him, they slander him, and they make fun of Jim Jordan.

Oh, he's an old wrestling coach.

He's crazy.

He's fearless.

And they make fun of Kevin McCarthy.

Kevin McCarthy the other day, a CNN reporter, started in on him.

He said, Don't give me a lecture.

You hired

a known

liar and disseminator of classified information, Andrew McCabe.

He's a paid analyst.

And so, where is your integrity?

So that's new.

These are not Paul Ryan figures.

So that's really, they're more in the cut of Devin Nunes.

In fact, they were good friends of Devin Nunes.

And that's the kind of people we need.

And they're really

got their floor in the accelerator.

So I'm confident that something is going to break.

The only weird thing is that

when you were in the Watergate era, every left wing, and that's synonymous with media reporting these days, and those days as well, they knew they would become famous if they could break the story.

So Woodward and Bernstein were calling everybody, and they hated Nixon.

They were out.

But we don't have a media now.

They're doing the opposite.

They're doing their best to suppress this knowledge and attack the people who are trying to bring truth to the American American people.

That's a big difference.

Yeah, that's an interesting transformation.

This is really explosive, everybody's listening, because

if Joe Biden is on a tape and he says in

pretty clear terms that he expects to get $5 million

from people related to the Ukrainian government or with the knowledge of the Ukrainian government, and Hunter Biden is going to get $5 million, then I think he's all through.

And it brings up another couple of questions.

Do the Democrats, what were they going to be their attitude?

Because they want to get rid of him and get somebody like Gavin Newsom or a more viable candidate.

And they're trying, they're thinking of all the ways of bringing Barack back by having him run for vice president.

And Biden suddenly has an aneurysm or something, and then Barack becomes president, and it's okay because he wasn't elected.

So he violates the two-term statute.

But

we'll see.

We'll see.

And if you think I'm crazy, listeners, look at how Diane Feinstein was canonized during the Me Too Gorsuch hearings, and now she's reviled because she has missed Senate votes, and she's holding up a more leftist candidate in California, a black woman in this case.

So they turn on their own very, very quickly, and they will turn on Joe Biden if he's a liability in two seconds.

And they might see this as a welcome news and a very strange thing.

The other thing is, and we'll talk about Ukraine, but we've given Ukraine over, you know, $100 billion.

I can't get an accurate figure.

It's all mixed up with NATO's.

It's committed, actualized.

weapons, support, intelligence.

How do you put a price tag on intelligence?

Probably $120 billion.

That's the third largest defense budget in the world right now.

China, we spend about

750.

I think China spends about 400 billion and Russia spends about 70 billion.

They spend more than Russia.

In the last 12 months, Ukraine has the third largest budget in the world.

That's extraordinary.

And we are funding

an offensive whose logic to succeed will have to entail offensive operations inside Russian territory, whether that's an attack on the Black Sea fleet or supply depots or more drone attacks on

a Russian suburb in Moscow.

I don't know.

But anybody who knows border disputes, you don't just fight to expel the invader at the border.

You try to go behind his lines.

And they're doing that, whether themselves or through Russian-speaking

insurgents.

But my point is that we have given this commitment and we're doing it with a president in one-to-one mono-to-mono diplomacy with Mr.

Zelensky that may well have taken money from Ukraine as vice president and may, and I think this is very important,

because we're not talking about contemporary Joe Biden

receiving money.

We're talking about something that happened over, what,

2016, 15, 14,

eight or nine years ago.

So that meant that if it hasn't come to light and Joe Biden really did take millions of dollars from the Zelensky government, then that means that in his tenure as vice president and as a private citizen, he was quid pro-quoing the Ukrainians and that carried over to his own presidency.

And

you're going to say, well, how do you even say that, Victor?

I said, because he took $5 million

and nobody gives people $5 million

unless they do something.

And then you're going to say, well, maybe he did something as vice president and maybe he did something, you know, as a private citizen, but he's president, so he couldn't have done it now.

No, now it changes.

Now it goes from, I got paid, I do my dutiful service, to, oh my God, they've got something on me.

If I cut off Ukraine, they're going to expose this.

Yeah.

And who knows how it came to light?

Maybe people in the Ukrainian government said, you know what?

We tried to tell Joe's people

we wanted more Abrams tanks.

We wanted F-16.

They didn't listen to us.

So we just turned them loose.

Yeah, we turned loose the Burisma Holdings executive.

So

there was something, Victor, I was going to say on that.

Oh, yeah, you were saying that he may have taken a bribe, but even in what he said about preventing or getting that lawyer fired in the Ukraine, he sounds like he's bribing them.

And he just admitted to it full on in front of cameras.

I'm not going to give them the billion dollars that we promised until that guy lawyer is fired.

I mean, he was, that's a, isn't that bribery?

Sounds to me like

I wrote a column that it was.

And remember, the left had all these ingenious arguments.

I got attacked personally on that column because people were saying, no, there's no evidence.

That was just Joe letting off steam.

The thing about Joe Biden is that he wars with sanity and his insecure braggadaccio.

So he says things that he thinks are neat, are tough.

Put you all in chain.

I told him, measure off six feet of chain.

I'm going to go meet corn pop mana-to-mon, one-on-one.

And, you know, I get along with black kids.

They were touching my little hairs.

They saw my golden hairs on my leg and touched them.

And so he does that.

And so he was performance art Braggadachio Joe in front of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.

I can remember it word for word.

I know, but when Donald Trump does things similar to that, they say, well, this is very serious.

And that means he was colluding with the Russians.

And I can't remember what he was bragging about, but

he said something.

And they're like, oh, there it is.

So when Donald Trump says, fantastic, superb, best,

tremendous, they said, that's a lie.

We'll fact check it.

It wasn't tremendous.

It was only good.

You lied.

Or you fed, Donald Trump feeds Koi Pond too much food, you know, or John Donald Trump says that the people who died at Normandy were suckers, but they can't find any other person.

30 people in the room said he didn't.

One said, well, that was evident.

That's how they work.

I don't know why, you know, that's another book for somebody to write.

Why they hated Donald Trump so much, because he had been

a big fish in the Manhattan.

ocean and he swam in it.

So he got along with the Clintons very well.

He was invited to

the Clinton wedding and Chelsea's wedding.

He hung around.

He gave money to Chuck Schumer.

So he did, they liked him.

But you know what?

You were talking about that earlier.

I was thinking, well, even if Trump wasn't running and it was Ron DeSantis, I think they would still be going after him equally as viciously.

And I think it's the nature of them.

You don't think so?

No, no, they wouldn't.

They hate DeSantis because he's a cultural warrior and he gets even not just mad, but they would hate him.

They wouldn't hate him, though.

They would hate him, but they wouldn't hate him to the same degree.

Donald Trump

has the wrong accent.

It's Queen's accent.

He's orange.

He combs his hair over.

He's overweight.

He doesn't let any

slight go unanswered.

And they feel that's crude.

They're crude, but they're crude in a different way they had they think they're refined crude he's crude crude oh speaking oh go ahead they can't stomach that and they he's you know

their idea is let me here's the difference

here's how if you're a leftist and you want to destroy donald trump you do

you do this

I'm Anthony Blinken right now.

Hey, I just, and you're calling Mike Morrell, the former interim director of the C.

Hey, Mike,

I just came on the idea.

You know, Joe's going to be, he's going to be debating, and we all hate Trump.

You know how he is.

He's a horrible person.

And he's going to just tear down, he's going to tear Joe apart on this laptop.

And he's going to say it's authentic.

Now, I'm not asking you to say it is one way or another, but you could be, and I know you were interim CIA director.

And, you know, we're looking for CIA directors because Joe's going to win.

You know that.

So here's the deal.

Why don't you get round up the old gang, you know, Clapper, Brennan, those guys, and 50, 50 of them, maybe?

And just say this has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.

That way, if it may kind of sort of be authentic, we can say it has the hallmarks.

You got to get an escape clause in there and then sign it, but I need it before the next week's debate.

So Joe can, right when we got to prep Joe, you know how he is.

So Donald Trump's going to say to him, and then you got Hunter Biden.

And you know what?

He's talking about the big guy and Mr.

10%.

Oh, and we want Joe to say, oh, yeah, well, 51 bipartisan intelligent Leon Panetta's in there too.

And we're going to,

and we needed some

refutation.

That's how they do it.

And here's how Donald Trump does it.

He's in front of 50,000 people in,

I don't know, where York, Pennsylvania, or somewhere.

And he says,

Hey,

lock her up.

How about that?

Lock her up.

Lying, Hillary Clinton.

Lock her up.

And then he gets locked her up and he puts his arm.

And that they can't handle that.

That's in your face.

I am not going to hide it.

I don't like her.

She doesn't like me.

But they don't like that.

They like to operate the way Blinken did.

And then they like, oh, what are you?

How dare you say that the Secretary of State called up a former CIA director as a private citizen and concocted this big lie to affect and warp an election.

We don't do that.

That's how they operate.

Me, I prefer the upfront crudity.

Yes, me too.

Well, just speaking of this, and this is the last thing because we're at the end of the podcast, speaking of crude, and

apparently the left does many crude things now, but recently there was a

pride party at the White House, and there was a Rosa Montoya, who is a transgendered woman.

And for our listeners, that means a man that has changed into a woman.

And

yeah, a biological man that has been transformed into a woman.

So this transgendered woman

flashed the cameras at the White House and they banned her from it.

But there is all sorts of crudity that goes on at the White House.

And that seems to be just one example.

But your thoughts and then we'll finish this off.

Yeah, we'll finish it off, but they thought that Melania's, I really liked her Christmas decorations.

Remember her different colored Christmas trees?

Yeah.

And they said that was crude.

And

then she was supposedly at the White House where she got into the helicopter and her jacket said, I just don't care.

And they went after that, was crude.

But you see, that was

Trump crude.

What's not crude is it's transgender.

So somebody exposes their breast implants on camera, or if you're a woman who has transitioned to a man and you have a beard and you have your marks where you cut your breast off, that scar tissue, you expose that, that's not crude.

Just like with Obama, if you're Obama and you have those mellophilous voices, you're not crude.

And therefore, at the White House, you can bring in

to pimp a butterfly artist, right?

Kendrick Lamar.

And

in his lyrics, it says, Kill Popo, kill the police.

You have the President of the United States entertaining a rapper whose signature song talks about Kill Popo.

And then one of their other rappers, remember that ankle bracement went off in the White House?

That he had violated his parole.

I guess he'd gone too beyond his perimeter.

So here you have it going off, and that's not crude.

So expose your breast on national TV, on the White House ground, fine, as long as it's transgender.

That's how the left operates.

I think everybody has to understand that there is no moral code with the left, there's no absolutes wrong or right.

It's just simply any act, any event is adjudicated as moral or amoral, depending solely on its utility or efficacy for the cause.

It's right out of Joe Stalin.

That's just right out of Joseph Stalin's playbook.

It's right out of Saul Olinski's playbook.

it's just right out of any university president

today

well victor thank you for all of the insights today and so many and so many interesting questions i know that we'll be talking a lot about this trump indictment in the future but it's looking

i i think trump should be able to get away with this maybe i don't know get away from it i shouldn't say away with but um i we're hoping that somehow his lawyers are are clever enough or the jury is sympathetic enough i think and we'll get off on this charge

i hope so we'll see we everything's up and i don't want to predict anything i'm not going to defend anybody who breaks a statute i will defend them if the other people i'll defend them on the grounds that if they are indicted and convicted for something that was illegal, then

that's wrong.

But it's also wrong to indict one person based on their political affiliations and not another.

So we'll see.

We'll see.

All right.

Thank you very much, Victor Davis-Hansen.

Thank you, everybody, for listening.

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