The Traditionalist: Investigations of John Solomon

When empires debase their currency, citizens who hold gold survive the transition.

That's not opinion, it's documented fact.

Trump's economic warning isn't speculation, it's pattern recognition.

The same signals that preceded every major currency crisis are flashing now.

Unsustainable debt, foreign nations dumping our bonds, and central banks hoarding gold.

But Trump's also revealing the solution.

The IRS strategy he's used for decades is available to every American.

It's how the wealthy preserve their fortunes when paper currencies fail.

American Alternative Assets has documented this strategy in their free 2025 wealth protection guide.

It shows exactly how to position yourself before the turbulence Trump's warning about arrives.

Call 888-615-8047 for your free guide.

That's 888-615-8047 or visit victorlovesgold.com.

The patterns are clear.

Make sure you're on the right side of them.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Victor Davis Hansen Show, the traditionalist.

We are recording on Friday, August 13th, 2021.

Put aside your triscodectophobia and whatever other fears you might have, because this is a special edition of the Victor Davis-Hansen Show.

I'm Jack Fowler, the host, the director of the Center for Civil Society at American Philanthropic and author of its new weekly newsletter, Civil Thoughts.

But the star of the show.

Victor Davis-Hanson is the Martin and Ely Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Wayne and Marshall Busk, distinguished fellow in history at Hillsdale College.

He's a best-selling author, and his next book is sure to also be a bestseller.

That's The Dying Citizen, How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America.

You can find a link for ordering that book on Victor's website.

That's victorhansonson.com.

You should check it out anyway, because there's new and groovy things that have happened there over the last couple of days.

You'll find links to all sorts of stuff, original content.

So that's victorhanson.com.

Now, we have a special guest today, and we're going to tell you about him right after this important message.

Like you, when I bought my last pair of shoes, I looked for stylish comfort and beautiful engineering.

And that might make you think Italian, but if you're buying sheets, it should make you think bowl and branch.

The colors, the fabric, the design, bowl and branch sheets are made with long-lasting quality, offering extraordinary softness to start and getting softer and softer for years to come.

Bowl and branch sheets are made with the finest 100% organic cotton in a soft, breathable, durable weave.

Their products have a quality you can feel immediately and become even softer with every wash.

Plus, Bowl and Branch comes with a 30-night worry-free guarantee.

I've been sleeping like a baby in my Bowl and Branch sheets, which keep me cool on those hot summer nights, and they're the perfect place for sunrise and morning coffee.

So, join me.

Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Bowl and Branch.

Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com/slash Victor.

That's Bull and Branch.

B-O-L-L-A-N-D-B-R-A-N-C-H dot com slash Victor to save 15% off and unlock free shipping.

Exclusions may apply.

And we'd like to thank Bolin Branch for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hanson Show.

We're back, folks, with the being recorded on August, Friday, August 13th, 2021.

This is the traditionalist.

And yeah, we have our first ever special guest.

And that is John Solomon, the great investigative journalist, the great journalist, period, the founder of Just the News, wonderful website that happens to be the host of this podcast and a number of other really, really important, worthwhile podcasts.

John, it is wonderful to have you here.

And I know right in two seconds here, Victor is going to hip check me aside.

He's going to take, he's going to be both host and star, or in this case, co-star.

So the two of you are going to have an engaging conversation about current politics.

And then at the end of the show, I'll nose my way back in again.

Victor, take it away.

Thank you.

John, I know everybody's...

Victor, very good.

I'm happy you're on here with Jack and I.

Could we just survey some of the stuff that you've looked at and met a lot of opposition and tell our listeners what you think, even though there'd be no information that anybody has other than you probably.

But

what is the status you think of the Durham investigation and what will ever become of that?

And just speculation.

Yeah, it's an amazing thing.

You know, what I really pride myself on doing is trying to find stories.

You know, I tend to run in a different direction and look at things from a different perspective.

And from time to time, that leads to some really amazing discoveries.

And early on in the Russia case, I had some FBI sources that were just telling me everything that's in the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post, it is bogus.

It's bunk.

We know it is bad.

It's a political, dirty trick.

Don't go narrow it.

And of course, over three or four years, with a lot of folks working hard on it, Sarah Carter and Molly at the Federalists and others, we were able to roll back that story.

And so then in late 2018, John Durham, at that time, the U.S.

Attorney, Connecticut, dives into a real investigation.

And I have been chronicling it and watching it and checking things out.

There's been a lot of grand jury activity in the last four or five months, a lot of witnesses being brought in for not one or two hour debriefings.

I've talked to witnesses who've spent 30, 40, 50 hours with the prosecutors.

So they are doing an extraordinarily deep dive on the FBI's conduct and did they have the right to open the investigation?

What did they do during the investigation that might be illegal or unlawful or harm people's civil liberties?

And my sense of it is it's in the final stages.

I think they were kind of ready to do this late last summer, but they ran into a fight.

They had a grand jury subpoena they were executing and a witness or series of witnesses opposed it and they had to go through a long process with COVID.

The judges aren't taking cases as quickly.

So that grand jury subpoena had a prolonged fight.

I think they're over that.

And I get the sense that they're in the final stages.

They're still acting like, you know, when you look at it as a reporter, that they may have a small number of criminal charges or indictments to come.

So far, they've charged just a single person, a now former FBI lawyer, who admitted that he falsified documents to make it look like Carter Page was a Russian spy when, in fact, he was a CIA asset.

But that's the only criminal charge.

Still a lot of sign that they're working on things that look like could result in an indictment.

And then I think they also have a report that they're working on.

Do you think, if I could just wildly speculate, when the Durham rubber hits the Biden-DOJ road, do the Biden people feel they, do you think, in pure speculation, maybe, do you think they're invested in particular people who might be targeted and would apply pressure?

Or do they feel that these people are now orphaned from any government agency and they're going to let them hang?

It's a great question.

The Biden people I talk to remind me of this because I sometimes forget this.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were never really that chummy.

In fact, they disagreed a lot over foreign policy in the Obama years.

There's a belief that Hillary was looking to push Joe Biden out of the 2016 race, make sure he didn't run so she had a clear path to the nomination.

So they're not particularly close at all.

Most of the Biden people I talk to say, listen, to us, this is not an Obama-Biden scandal.

This is a Hillary Clinton scandal.

And we got no skin in the game.

And we're glad to let.

the investigation fall where it falls and to let prosecutor Durham do what he wants to do.

And everything I've heard and seen from the outside is that Durham's had free reign, very little interference.

He's been able to do, I think he's a very respected U.S.

attorney, a guy that comes from a democratic state connecticut but was a republican appointee but he is sort of a larger than life prosecutor people really like him they trust him and he's pretty much been able to do his own investigation by the accounts that i've been able to see fascinating i'd like to turn maybe to these triplex of hunter biden's computers i'm losing count but there was a

computer store that was lost and then the feds confiscated one and now he claimed i don't know if that's disinformation that another one was perhaps in the possession of the Russians and on these some of these communications at least from the first one

we get the impression that when he talks about the big guy or the 10% or he says in the latest one that he's making you know gazillions of money is there IRS exposure on that income whether it's been reported or anybody looking at them the what's the role of the feds in this purported second laptop or is there any federal action on any of these

So we know from Hunter Biden's own announcement that was also propagated by the Biden transition team.

So they joined the announcement that Hunter Biden announced last December that he was under criminal investigation by the FBI and U.S.

Attorney's Office in Delaware for possible tax issues.

They weren't more specific than that.

We later learned through reporting that that investigation began in late 2018 and had been going on for quite some time.

Now, I did a lot of work and some of it comes from a laptop that Hunter Biden dropped off at the Delaware Repair Shop, and some of it comes from other people and other partners and interviews I've done.

But in the spring of 2016, when the race between Trump and Clinton was heating up, Hunter Biden was panicked, according to emails and witnesses that we talked to, that a business associate of his, in fact, a very close business associate of his, Devin Archer, the man who served on the Brisma board with him in Ukraine, had many other business ventures.

He was about to be indicted for fraud.

He was eventually, Devin Archer was indicted for fraud.

He was convicted of fraud and he's awaiting sentencing now.

He is accused and convicted of fleecing an Indian tribe on some contracts of millions of dollars.

When that investigation was coming forward, Hunter Biden got a subpoena and it sent shockwaves to his inner circle, his lawyers, his accountant.

And in the course of having discussions and getting ready and realizing, hey, you're going to face the music here.

Your business partner is going to be indicted.

The feds are coming to you.

What do you got problems on?

And they went through a lot of stuff and they discovered by the emails, and I put these emails up for everybody to see.

I've corroborated these emails with partners who've seen them, that he had not paid taxes on most of the money he had made in Ukraine through Brisma Holdings in 2014, the first year that he worked there, and a lot, not all, but much of the money he got in the second year.

that he worked for Brisma.

So here he is, the vice president's son.

He gets this crazy lucrative job in Ukraine and he's not paying taxes on the money that he's getting.

And his accountants and his lawyers and his business partners are scrambling to come up with a story.

I think they use that actual word, a plausible story of how he messed it up.

And they get through the subpoena process.

They get through whatever they needed to provide.

And then.

early 2017, Donald Trump's coming in.

His business partner, one of the other business partners of Hunter Biden, writes back and said, hey, hey, Hunter, you still haven't paid your taxes.

It's now 2017.

I think the inference was, hey, Donald Trump's coming in.

You might want to get good with the IRS.

And that's what we know.

So we know there was a period of time where he missed paying taxes.

Whether that becomes criminal or not will depend on the U.S.

attorney, who, by the way, is a holdover from the Trump administration.

Wow.

There's a couple of other

stale things, but at one time you broke a lot of the stories.

And I was just wondering, are they completely gone?

And they're filed away.

And one is the Uranium 1, Hillary Clinton.

Was there any fallout from that?

Is it dead now?

What do you think?

Does it have any legs?

Will it ever reoccur?

Because it seemed like there was a lot of exposure there for the Clintons.

Yeah, there was.

There's no doubt that there was a pay-to-play scandal there and that the FBI was aware of it.

I've talked to law enforcement officials.

I interviewed and talked to the informant who was undercover inside Vladimir Putin's nuclear industry for six years.

And, you know, several people were indicted, most of them Russians, for illegal activities such as bribery and extortion and kickbacks and racketeering.

They got four or five of the Russians and they rolled them up at the end of the Obama administration.

And it's very interesting because in the final sentencing that occurs in the fall of 2016, I think it is, the federal judge who's read in on all of the evidence, including some evidence that is under state secrets, meaning it's national security information, and he says publicly, I can't understand why the case ends here.

There's clearly a lot of other people involved, but I guess that's where you're going to end it.

And who is he talking to?

Well, he's talking to the team that worked for Rod Rosenstein, who at that time was the Maryland U.S.

Attorney for Barack Obama and then becomes very quickly after that, the Deputy Attorney General under President Trump.

The judge's inferences are to two things.

There was significant evidence that the Russians working in the United States were taking the kickbacks and they were giving them to people much, much closer to Vladimir Putin.

They could have made the case that these kickbacks are really enriching Vladimir Putin's inner circle.

And the judge clearly was referring to that when he talked about, hey, you could have gone a lot further, not sure why you didn't, but I guess we end here.

And then the second part is there were people on the inside in Washington, some of them very close to the Clintons, who were lobbying and doing work for the Russians, and they had their own exposure.

And the case just never tilted that way.

The investigators saw a lot of wrongdoing.

They were very concerned about it, but they never got the go-ahead.

And there's a famous moment.

I'm interviewing the informant, Douglas Campbell, and he says, you know, at the end, I keep wondering why in God's name are more people not going down.

And then he's shocked when the Russian uranium company, who's engaged in all this criminality, the FBI knows it all, they get the right to buy a large swath of uranium in the United States.

And he goes to the agents upset, like, hey, I dug all this stuff up.

What the heck is going on?

And they said, you know what?

You want an answer?

Check your politics, meaning this was a political decision not to go at the Clintons.

It was a political decision to give the Russians the uranium, even though their behavior justified doing that.

Now, since all that time has passed, there's been hearings and there were documents released.

I won a lot of FOIAs, got the entire FBI file on this.

There's one tantalizing piece, and I asked President Trump repeatedly before he left to declassify this, and to the best of my knowledge, he did not.

But there is a series of memos from the Treasury Department to the committee called CIFIAS that oversees all important sales of sensitive information to foreign governments.

And there's a strong indication that they had been warned, meaning the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, her team, they had been warned back in 2012, 2013 that this transaction was flawed, that the Russians had engaged in serious criminal activity, and they still proceeded ahead.

If that document exists, and I believe it does because there's been some correspondence with members of Congress confirming it, it would put the lie to everything the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, and the Justice Department told us when the scandal was really brewing back in 2017 and 2018.

We've not been able to get that document.

What I have been able to get is one single document from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Senator John Barrasso that unequivocally states the multiple components of the intelligence community informed the CIFIAS that there were legal issues, meaning the criminal investigation, about this uranium company, Rossatom.

before they made the decision to give the American uranium to it.

So we'd like to get more records there, but I think that's where the story ends.

What happened?

Just a final coda on that.

You remember there was a time when people in the Trump administration might even be in 2017 early on with Jeff Sessions.

They talked to John Uber.

Remember, he was the guy, the attorney in Utah, and he was supposed to be the great savior.

And then I think it was 2019 or at the beginning of the year, he kind of folded his tent.

Whatever happened to him, or what that investment?

No evidence that he did anything at all from, or very little from what I can do.

And at the end of the Trump administration, I had a chance to talk to somebody close to Bill Barr.

And I said, John Huber, what was up with that?

And he looked at me with a giant smile on his face.

And he said, that's the place that Rod Rosenstein sent everything so it could die.

So I think there was a belief in the Justice Department that it was a dead end place.

And it created a head fake.

It made everyone on the conservative side think, oh, hey, they're going to look at this.

But in fact, there was very little done.

I do believe that some of the things that got referred to Huber, such as some Clinton Foundation stuff related to Russia, did get referred to John Durham.

And in fact, there was a confirmation of this last year, that there was an element of the Durham investigation looking at the Clinton Foundation and whether it funded some of the activities around creating the false story about Donald Trump and Russia collusion.

I want to remind all of our listeners, I haven't talked to John prior, so I'm just throwing out things that I think you're interested in.

It's pretty amazing that John's got this photographic recall of all of them, but I'm going to press my luck and and ask you another one what was the uh this very strange relationship in the first impeachment you wrote a lot about the ukrainian phone call and varisma etc etc but what do you think the relationship was between the sanctimonious self-righteous lieutenant colonel venman and the anonymous quote-unquote anonymous whistleblower and then their relations to adam shift i never quite figured all that out was there is it all speculation

It is still all speculation because every time somebody tried to do something to shine a light on it, such as file a FOIA or a file an inquiry into the relationship, we were told, you can't have that.

It's a whistleblower.

You'll compromise his life.

Now, the Justice Department ultimately concluded.

that whistleblower was not actually technically a whistleblower under the definition of law.

He didn't enjoin those protections.

And what he provided, as we know, turned out to be a bogus story because his claim was he he knew that President Trump had directly tied Ukrainian aid to an investigation in Ukraine of Hunter Biden's dealings.

And we know that's not the case.

The two subjects were discussed in the course of a conversation, but there was no quid, pro or quote in it.

So that also made the whistleblower's allegations to be spurious or inaccurate, I should say.

But the Democrats did a good job, and the Republicans were too afraid to really ask the hard questions.

I remember during impeachment, there was the big moment where the ambassador, Yovanovich,

star of the Democrats.

And I had been told from really good senior State Department and senior FBI officials that Yovanovich's testimony during her depositions was just simply inaccurate.

She said she knew nothing about Hunter Biden and Burisma except what she got in her briefing before she became the U.S.

ambassador to Ukraine in 2016 and what she read in the newspapers.

And I pressed everybody.

I pressed the Trump legal defense team.

Hey, get these documents.

This would change the story.

She's a sympathetic character, but if she's not telling the truth, there's something there they're hiding.

And I got a blank stares and, oh my God, we don't want to make her cry.

I heard all these different excuses.

Well, I sued after the impeachment trial, and we got thousands of pages of documents from the State Department and Sherraz Baloney that showed that Ambassador Jovanovich had had.

extensive contact after her confirmation hearing with people involving Burisma, including their chief criminal defense lawyer, who was trying to get the U.S.

and Ukraine to drop investigations of Burisma, including to one of the lobbyists who was a Democratic-connected lobbyist that Hunter Biden hired to help the case go away.

And she was so versat in the wrongdoing that Burisma was alleged to have gained that one of the last emails she sends.

from her post to the Obama administration before Barack Obama fades into history is an email saying, hey, there's a good chance that Burisma, this is while Hunter Biden is on the board, just paid a bribe in the form of cheap gas they dumped onto the market in the middle of the night and the ukrainian government officials got to buy it low sell it high make a bribe and that's how the final part of the criminal investigation against burisma got dropped it's a dirty dealing and she sends that to the top ukrainian official in charge of ukraine a policy in the state department victoria newland and all of that debunks what she said at her testimony.

And the Republicans never went to get it.

And even after the documents came out, other than Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassy, no one went back to pursue what went on there.

But the stories that the whistleblowers and those very sympathetic government officials made simply aren't true when you unravel what we now know.

Funny you said that they were afraid that she might cry or didn't want to distress her when that seemed to be the opposite tactic on the January 6th that people had a flood of tears every time they testified, which brings us to that.

I know that Tucker Carlson has been under a lot of heat for comments.

Julie Kelly is taking flack from the left with her investigations, but almost all of the elements of the initial counts, you know, those blaring New York Times headlines, five dead, five killed.

And we've learned that only one died violently at the hand of another.

That person, Ashley Babbitt, was a Trump supporter.

She was unarmed, very petite, small woman who burst through a window illegally, perhaps, trespassing, etc.

There were heavily armed armed guards there that apparently were not as worried about their safety or the safety of people around them as this quote-unquote anonymous planes poles officer who shot her lethally.

We also know that Officer Sicknick probably died, according to the autopsy report, of natural causes 24 hours later.

We don't have any evidence yet of a the head of the snake, a conspiratorial leadership that had intricate plans for a takeover that might justify the subsequent militarization of Washington.

Where is the status of all that?

And these people that seem to be either under indefinite incarceration or they haven't, nobody has been charged, have they, with racketeering or conspiracy or treason or anything?

Well, there have been a couple of conspiracy charges, but yeah, but the truth of the matter is this story on January 6th, which by the way, the activities of the people who went into the Capitol unauthorized were illegal.

Let's be honest about that.

Those are bad bad acts they shouldn't have done it there are people who fought with the police shame on them for striking a law enforcement officer i grew up in a family of all cops i find it reprehensible that someone would strike a police officer or hit him or spray him with bear yeah

things happen as i do as i do i think yeah we all do we all have common sense what went on that day was very bad criminal behavior but it's not an insurrection there was at least all the evidence that the government has put into play there does not appear to have been a plan to have an armed insurrection.

There's almost no guns.

There were a couple of guns found in the car, maybe one person on the grounds, but people who come to an exurrer tend to bring a lot of military hardware, like guns, to overtake it.

It was a spontaneous act of stupidity and criminality, but it fits the mold of what the media, the democratic establishment, and the deep, I want to call it the deep state, I want to call it the permanent bureaucracy inside the FBI and other agencies have repeatedly been able to do, which is to create hyperbole, to create a big, giant scandal that when you're all done two or three years later, trinkets down to either no scandal at all or a much smaller one that a common sense person will say, that's bad, but you know, it was an insurrection.

No, we saw that.

Let's go through all the ones we know, right?

We saw it with the Russian collusion, gone now, right?

It doesn't even exist, completely reversed.

We saw it with Ukrainian stuff.

Almost everything that the Democrats alleged early on turned out not to be true.

We saw it with Lafayette Square.

We saw it with the allegations that the Russians had bounties on Americans' heads and Donald Trump didn't care.

Not true.

And I think at the end of the day, you're going to find out that the body of evidence shows a lot of stupid people did a lot of stupid criminal things on the Capitol on January 6th, but it was not some militant armed insurrection where people came, John Brown style, to take over the United States government.

If you're going to call this an insurrection, every time code, you know, the argument that the media now makes on why it's an insurrection is they came there to interrupt the proceedings of the Congress.

Well, there have been many times when Code Pink came to a hearing and tried to interrupt the proceedings.

If you're going to call this, I'll be a little bit more physical violence evolved, an insurrection, then every time Code Pink interrupts a congressional proceeding, I guess they've engaged in insurrection.

It's kind of silly.

And I think most Americans now have absorbed all the facts universally.

Everybody condemns the behavior, but it's not an armed insurrection that is a hyperbole just like russian collusion was a hyperbole absolutely i remember i think it was 1954 maybe it was 56 when we had puerto rican independence terrorists go into the house of representatives and shoot it up and try to assassinate i think carry truman at the time that's an insurrection yes that's an insurrection but um

let me ask you another question

So let's finish up with this pot-parie of all of these stories of voter irregularities and challenging the vote in Arizona and Georgia.

And I think there's two schools.

There's one, and I think I more in that school, that the Trump effort was harmed fatally in March and April and May, when in key swing states, people on the left went to court and got favorable rulings from either magistrates or local judges or state judges or bureaucrats themselves that change the state legislature's rules governing elections.

And they could range from everything from you don't really need both of your names on the ballot.

If it comes in too late, we'll

give you a pass.

If your address is not there wrong, it's okay.

And then when you add to that,

the extensions and early balloting, so we went from, I think it was 46% up to 62, 63% of ballots who were not cast on election day,

102 million ballots.

And then the error rate went from a typical 4% of non-Election Day ballots down to 0.4.

And I could go on, but I think all of that might explain better why Trump was at a disadvantage.

I could add in Mark Zuckerberg's variously reported $400 to $500 million that he poured into swing precincts, where he kind of, in a way, if you just look at it objectively, he kind of drafted government employees with his own army of partisans, and whether it was to get more mailbox

drop boxes out there or to instruct them in better ways of counting, but whatever, all of those machinations seemed to explain a lot of the discrepancies.

Or, and then we're not going to go into Sydney Powell cracking territory.

Good idea.

Yeah,

I thought that was pretty outrageous.

And

from the beginning on, it was prima facie obvious it wasn't true.

Yeah, you know, the Dominion signaling and all that.

But what was the status of either the legal procedures or the investigative reporting about some of these recounting or re-examinations of voting and that their role maybe in the new Georgia or Texas laws or anything you want to comment on that before the midterms are coming up?

I've done an enormous amount of work, predominantly using the open record laws of all the states that we've been talking about, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, the key battleground, Pennsylvania.

And there were irregularities.

There were clear law changes that quite frankly, listen, if the Republican Party really wants to put a finger somewhere, they ought to point it inward at themselves because the RNC and Ronna McDonnell and her army of lawyers could have gone in at every point and challenged some of these changes, and they did not.

And then they concocted this idea that there was some machine-driven Chinese espionage effort to hijack the elections, which was never true.

There are some real concrete findings that we have.

We've used 30 reporters in six states.

We did six months of work.

We filed over 150 FOIAs, and we found some important things.

One of the most important that hasn't gotten the attention I think it deserves is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that as many as 200,000 ballots were filed in violation of Wisconsin law.

They said that the Evers administration, the Democratic governor and his Wisconsin election commission, said that, listen, there's always been a provision in the law that if you're handicapped, you can't get out of of your house because you're wheelchair bound or you're bedridden from sickness, you can declare yourself a permanently invalid and then you can send your absentee ballot in without having to have an ID check.

Well, the Evers administration said, you know, everybody is disabled by COVID.

So anyone who doesn't want to go out at all because of COVID, we'll just call you disabled and you can file your ballot without having to use voter ID.

Bad idea.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court said so.

And by they ruled several months after the election that that instruction was unlawful.

And someone would have to go back and mitigate each ballot.

But it was likely that many, if not most, of the 200,000 ballots that were filed that way were unlawful.

But the Republican Party's never gone back and tried to find out how many there were.

That state was settled by 20,000 votes.

There's 200,000 in question.

You think the Republicans might want to go back and find out how many of those 200,000 might have met the definition of unlawful and maybe got them disqualified, but they didn't.

So when you look at this, the Republicans are the biggest thing.

I think the most important thing we found was just last week, and it brought us back to Florida in 2000.

You remember hanging Chad and all the human intervention?

That's a process called adjudication.

That's a fancy name for humans are going to decide what the ballot really says.

We haven't worried about adjudication for most of the last 20 years because everybody moved to electronic voting.

In 2020, the mass use of paper ballots brought paper ballots back.

And with paper ballots comes lots of problems and mistakes.

And And so we filed in Atlanta, in Fulton County, a FOIA.

We would like to know every time a Dominion voting machine kicked out a ballot as non-compliant and what happened to it.

And to our great amazement, we got 5,000

ballots that were rejected by a machine and they went to a human adjudication.

Let's be clear.

Dominion machines did the right thing on all 5,020.

All 5,028 ballots we looked at had problems that made the ballot at least partly unable to be counted under the definition of the law.

Most times it was people voted twice.

They put one mark next to Donald Trump's name and one next to Joe Biden.

Well, you can't vote twice.

The normal thing is that's supposed to become a spoiled ballot.

And a spoiled ballot shouldn't be counted under Georgia regulations.

Someone should get a new ballot, fill it out again.

Well, the Democrats didn't go through the process of getting people new ballots.

They took a look at these spoiled ballots and they tried to divine what the person might have meant.

And so they literally 1,400 times removed one of the votes on one of the ballots.

They literally said, that doesn't belong to Donald Trump.

I'm going to get rid of that and we're just going to count the Biden vote.

Or that doesn't belong to Joe Jorgensen, the Libertarian candidate.

We're going to give that to Joe Biden.

And they did that very much like what we saw in Florida.

The Republican National Committee never went in and even looked at these ballots, challenged these ballots, raised any questions about them.

If they had, you know, there was a couple thousand votes where they would have had some pretty serious heartburn.

And then go statewide in Georgia, the numbers become much bigger than 5,000.

Well, this has been fascinating, John.

Will you promise to come back?

Because I know you're working on some new things on the horizon and maybe we can visit those now that we've caught up with the past, because I know you're a busy guy and there's a lot of stuff that I think our listeners would want to hear about.

So come back with us in say a month or so.

How's that?

I would be honored.

And congratulations that we are so proud at Justin News to have your podcast on our platform.

Our listeners love it, and you are truly an American treasure.

We're so lucky the wisdom you share every day.

I can't wait for your new podcast to come out each week.

And I know so many of our listeners and readers do too.

So thank you for joining us.

Thank you, John.

We appreciate having you.

Yeah, I'm going to turn it over to you for Jack for a second.

Yeah, thanks, Victor.

And to pick up on what John just said about our great listeners, we do thank.

you who do listen and there are a lot there are a lot of people and some who we encourage to leave reviews and comments at itunes they do there's a significant amount actually your average is 5.0 victor out of over 1300 ratings everyone except for about maybe six or seven people have given this podcast five stars many are leaving comments want to recommend sometimes if you're leaving a comment maybe consider a question if you have a pertinent question you might want Victor to address.

We'll take it that way.

But let me just read two comments.

One is by Zero Control 42, and he wrote last week titled, Upholding the Legacy of Rush Limbaugh.

Here's the comment.

Victor is a great American who continues in the tradition of Rush by being true to his convictions and teaching about the true heritage of America, what makes our country exceptional.

I always look forward to his wisdom from our classical forebears and the Greeks, Romans, or whatever ancient civilization he chooses to bring.

to life.

I love his stories about frontier California and farm life.

Please keep it up.

I need my daily dose of sanity to remind me that I am not the last rational man on earth.

And one more, Victor, this is kind of cute, funny, whatever.

It's from

Kimachka 62.

This came in a couple of days ago.

These podcasts are excellent.

Lots of exclamation points.

And here's the story.

I just drove.

out to Indianapolis and back to Kansas City over a two-day period, eight hours each way, and listened to podcasts with Victor Davis Hanson the entire way.

I can't say enough great things about this man.

And the interviewers are terrific too.

I think she got mistaken there.

I would have fared poorly on my way if I didn't have Professor Hansen to keep me company.

Thank you so much and keep up the great work you do.

I've read a couple of his books and pre-ordered his upcoming book.

Can't wait to receive it and dive into it.

So thanks, Kimacha 62, Zero Control 42, and the many others, folks who have left these comments.

we do read them, and they are inspiring and instructive.

So, that's all the time we have today for this episode of The Traditionalist.

We'll be back in a couple of days with another episode of The Classicist and of the Culturalist.

So, thanks very much for listening to the Victor Davis Hansen Show.

Thank you, everybody, and thanks again for listening to us.