The David Pakman Show - 10/10/22: Trump Raided by FBI, All Hell Breaks Loose (CLASSIC EPISODE FROM 8/9/22)

Episode Date: October 10, 2022

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' DAY / COLUMBUS DAY / CLASSIC EPISODE FROM AUGUST 9, 2022 -- On the Show: -- Andrew Sullivan, author, editor, and blogger at the Weekly Dish, joins David to discuss the current state of Trumpism and the conservative movement --The FBI raids failed former President Donald Trump's house at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, and Trump absolutely loses it -- MAGA-world flips out in reaction to the FBI raid of Donald Trump's house, including Mark Levin, Bernie Kerik, Lauren Boebert, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Dan Bongino, and more -- Eric Trump, Donald Trump's son, appears on Fox News in reaction to the FBI raiding Trump's home, and makes a complete fool of himself -- Could the 2022 midterm elections be the worst ever for Republicans? -- Republican Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker is still unable to explain if and under what circumstances he will debate his opponent, incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock -- Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' text messages have reportedly been turned over to the House January 6 committee investigating the Trump riots -- Republican Alaska congressional candidate Sarah Palin is visibly confused when asked to explain what her priorities would be if she were elected -- Voicemail caller wonders whether the FBI raid on Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home will inspire more Republicans to turn out and vote in the upcoming 2022 November midterm elections -- On the Bonus Show: Reconciliation bill includes nearly $80 billion for IRS, town dissolves police department after racist text messages, Florida prosecutor vows to fight Ron DeSantis' suspension, much more... 🎠 Busy Box Child: Save 10% with code PAKMAN at https://busyboxchild.com ❄️ ChiliSleep by SleepMe: Get 25% OFF your bed-cooling system at https://chilisleep.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanfinance -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

hey this is David Pakman inviting you to enjoy a classic episode of the David Pakman show today we will return with new shows before you know it Speaker 1 Ladies and gentlemen, one of the biggest political stories of the year, of the decade, of the entire time that I've been covering politics took place last night, August 8th, the anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon from his office. The FBI executed a search warrant at Donald Trump's home, Mar-a-Lago, including a search of his personal quarters as well as of a safe. It is an incredible situation. This all happening in connection with Donald Trump taking those massive dumps of classified

documents to his own house. NBC reporting FBI search at Trump's Mar-a-Lago home tied to classified material in a lengthy statement Monday night. Trump said they even broke into my safe. Former President Trump said Monday the FBI raided his home at Mar-a-Lago and cracked his safe. A source familiar with the matter said to NBC News it was all tied to the classified information that Donald Trump took with him from the White House in January of 2021. This is an extraordinary situation. The claims being made by those on the right are beyond parody. And we will get to that. But first and foremost, Donald Trump's own

reaction to this, putting out an unhinged statement saying the following. These are dark times for our nation. As my beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents. Nothing like this has ever happened to a president of the United States before. After working and cooperating with the relevant government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate. The fact that Trump is saying he was cooperating to me suggests he wasn't because he basically lies about everything. It is a prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the justice system and an attack by radical

left Democrats who desperately don't want me to run for president in 2024, especially based on recent polls. Now, remember, the current director of the FBI is Christopher Wray, appointed by Donald Trump. So to claim that this is the work of far left Democrats, it is being asserted without evidence. And until evidence is presented, I believe we can dismiss it as there is no evidence. Trump going on to say such an assault could only take place in broken third world countries. Sadly, America has now become one of those capital C countries corrupt at a level not

seen before. Wow. They even broke into my safe. What is the difference between this and Watergate where operatives broke into the DNC here in reverse? Democrats broke into the home of the 45th president of the United States. Big, massive dumps. Well, that's all going to remain to be seen. I do hope, given Trump's propensity to flush evidence down the toilet, I hope the FBI has plumbers on staff and that they have appropriate elements of plumbing with suction in order to figure out what on earth did Trump flush down that toilet? What records did he destroy? So Trump blaming this on the radical left.

The truth is, Trump selected the FBI director who would have had to sign off on this. And just as a reminder, here is Donald Trump praising the great Christopher Wray from the FBI. President Trump is just tweeting about the FBI director. Here's what he says. I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the next director of the FBI. Details to follow.

Right. That's the guy now that Trump is saying is the radical left going after him. Now understand such a decision to raid the house of a former president. It must have been approved by the attorney general, Merrick Garland. The top echelon of the FBI must have known about it. That is one very bad news for Donald Trump. And second, you don't do this on a whim. The FBI also would have required probable cause to have a belief that there were specific

places. Again, Trump's personal quarters, Trump safe. They would have to have probable cause to be able to say, here's where we want to search. It wouldn't be a shock if a very high level Trump associate flipped and was cooperating with the FBI. We don't know that. But for them to have such probable cause about the specific places in Trump's home to be searched, could it have been Mark Meadows?

We don't know. It's all speculative. But the most important part of this is that when Trump says they broke into my safe and later you'll hear Eric Trump say there was nothing in it, which is interesting, they would need some reason to include the safe as a search location. They would have some reason to think that the safe might have a nexus to potentially criminal activity. Now, if the raid was only about some low level staffer

and not about Trump or someone near Trump, it's unlikely they would go into his personal safe. Again, we're reading tea leaves and speculating based on what we do know. They couldn't have done this if they didn't have a good case to do it and that the belief, at least the plausible belief that Mar-a-Lago contained evidence of criminal activity. Now, attorney Mark Elias pointed out the media is missing the really big reason why the raid is a potential blockbuster in American politics. And that relates to 18 U.S. Code subsection 2071, the concealment, removal and mutilation generally. And it says that if indeed one is found guilty of mishandling documents in this way, concealing,

removing, mutilating, obliterating, the penalty is forfeiture of public office and disqualification from holding any office under the United States. That's potentially what is at play here, assuming that this involves the mishandling or unauthorized removal of classified information. And if they find those elements at Mar-a-Lago, the substance of the documents is less important. It's the fact that they were classified and that they were improperly removed. Their presence alone would be indicative of this crime. Now again, we're going to get to clips in a moment of all the people saying everything

done was improper. Merrick Garland would not have authorized this and a federal judge would not have okayed it if there was not significant evidence to warrant it. And recall with Hillary Clinton's case, the DOJ didn't prosecute because she may have been negligent with information. Maybe she was even reckless, but it was not an intentional mishandling that rose to criminality. And if this is what happened at Mar-a-Lago, we have to believe that at least potentially that is what the FBI believes Donald Trump did. Let's get now to Mago World exploding over the FBI raiding Donald Trump's house.

They are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They're all going crazy. They're doing emergency podcasts. They're saying this is going to be the undoing of the republic. It is a dystopian hellscape. It is over for the United States because of the FBI raiding Donald Trump. Let's look at some examples. These are great.

Here's Mark Levin calling this one of the worst attacks on the republic in modern history. Now you keep asking your guests, what's the justification? There is no justification. Oh, what's he going to say tomorrow? The attorney general. Here is no justification. What's he going to say tomorrow, the attorney general? Here's my guess. We've been negotiating with Trump and his lawyers since February when we found out they had this information. We were getting nowhere. And then we know or we heard that some documents were being destroyed. Maggie Haberman of the New York Slimes was on CNN.

They've been running pictures of hers that she's going to have in the book of documents being flushed on a toilet. That doesn't mean a damn thing. It could be anything. With Elise Stefanik's name on it. That's all it was. OK, but what I'm saying is you've asked what would the pretext be? Correct. And so it is a pretext is exactly right. There is no justification for sending 30 friggin FBI agents to the former president's compound in Mar-a-Lago in early morning and conducting themselves this way or in any other cases in which they've done exactly the same thing. The FBI is corrupt. This guy Garland goes after parents. He goes after

Republican state legislatures. He goes after states. He disagrees with their abortion positions. He doesn't do a damn thing to protect the border, which is compelled by the Constitution. Nothing. So let's be clear. Newt is right. They're all right. This is the worst attack on this republic in modern history. So Levin is flipping out. But the truth is, this would not have happened were there not significant eyes dotted and T's crossed. Next, we go to Newsmax guest Bernie Carrick, not a guy unfamiliar with legal problems. And he said he's worried the next step is they're going

to assassinate Donald Trump. And I just put out a tweet about this. If you remember back in 2016, when I went right before he got elected, I was in Washington, D.C., I was at a couple of different social events and I hear people talking. They said the Democrats want this guy so bad that they wouldn't put assassination behind it. And I'm going to tell you something. They've tried impeachment. They've tried another impeachment. They've tried one investigation after another. This is about one thing. This is about stopping him from running in 2024. And I'm going to tell you something. I'm not into conspiracies.

I'm not into anti-government rhetoric. This is the first time in my lifetime that I would say I am deathly afraid for Donald Trump. I would not put assassination behind these people. Right. A raid based on probable cause, a warrant signed by a judge and everything done properly could very clearly be a pretext to assassinating Donald Trump. Here's radical Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert saying this is the Gestapo. Guys, I'm pissed.

We are a nation of law and order. And this raid by the FBI on President Trump's home is totally un-American. This is Gestapo crap and it will not stand. Well, you know, I don't remember the Gestapo regularly having sworn affidavits, court orders signed by a judge and all of it when they conducted raids. Many such examples. I think you understand Alex Jones and Roger Stone, convening an emergency podcast over the raid, likening it to Nazi Germany as a former political

president himself. And what he believes this means. Roger Stone, thanks for joining us on this emergency broadcast. It's an emergency. Alex, it's a it's a very, very sad day for America. This is the kind of thing you expect to see in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, communist Cuba. They don't know how to handle this. Sean Hannity, we covered this last night on the live stream. He spoke for about 11 minutes without taking a breath. And here is some of his dystopian outlook on what took place.

First, a dark day for our republic, the Department of Justice, the rule of law, what looks to be potentially a shocking overreach. We'll find out in due time that we'll have serious ramifications potentially for many, many years to come. A lot of potential is in there potentially doing very, very heavy lifting for Sean Hannity. Marjorie Taylor Greene now says on Twitter, quote, Defund the FBI. Not exactly support the police type behavior by Marjorie Taylor Greene. And then lastly, right wing bomb thrower Dan Bong, saying that the left thinks this is all hilarious. I just want to say in closing, listen, America, they're laughing at you.

The left thinks this is hilarious. If you doubt me, just go to any of their goofy platforms, Twitter or elsewhere right now. They think this is hilarious. Now I have to tell you, Bongino is correct to a certain degree. I do think this is absolutely hilarious, but it also seems to be completely appropriate based on the facts that we have known for a very long time. No one that commits crimes against the American people should feel safe. And there's a lot of people that commit crimes and do feel safe because we have a two tier justice system. We don't know where this will go, but we are going to follow it. And you've got to

see Eric Trump's reaction to all of this. So in the midst of the FBI raid of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home and the right wing going apoplectic to try to figure out how can we attack what happened here today. Eric Trump, not known as Trump's smartest child, but that's OK. Eric Trump goes on Fox News and is so visibly triggered that he doesn't even know what he's saying. First, starting with the epitome of the victimhood that the Trump's are the biggest victims in the United States. You know, they went after him. They went after all of us. There's no family in American history that has taken more arrows in the back than the Trump family every single time.

Right. If you think of families who have been destroyed by simply having family members imprisoned due to having drugs, if you think of families who have lost children in mass shootings, if you think of families who can't even afford to feed their children. No, no, no, no, no. It is the Trump family that has been the most victimized of any family. Then Eric Trump pulling everything out of the hat, bringing up Benghazi and going back to Hillary. There's a whole lot of other things. How about the Benghazi scandals? How about the Clinton Foundation? I mean, how many, you know, shady oligarchs from Russia were contributing to that?

Look about how about uranium one? You want to talk about, you know, scandals that were never investigated, never vetted? Yeah. You know, I remember. Was it eight? Was it 12 investigations into Benghazi? Benghazi was a tragedy. It was horrible what happened.

But Hillary's involvement was investigated up and down. She testified under oath for eight hours, something Donald Trump has not done. Give me a break. Eric then goes on and says there wasn't even anything in the safe that they ransacked. We get another subpoena and they do it for one reason, because they don't want Donald Trump to run and win again in twenty twenty four. And Sean, that's what this is about today, to have 30 FBI agents, actually more than that, descend on Mar-a-Lago, give absolutely, you know, no notice, go through the gates, start ransacking an office, ransacking a closet.

You know, they broke into a safe. He didn't even have anything in the safe. Now, if there was nothing in the safe, that's almost more suspicious. I'd be wondering where was the stuff moved to? Then lastly, Eric Trump saying, where are where did these FBI agents go anyway? Shady deals with everybody around the world. And by the way, it's all on his laptop for the whole world to see in his own writing, in his own words, cooperated by everybody. Where were these FBI agents? Where

where is everybody? Why? So Eric Trump, highly triggered and making no sense at all. Let's now allow some time to let this settle and develop. We will learn more about it and we will see where it ultimately goes. What I want to ask you is, do you believe this is finally the levy breaking? Do you believe an indictment is coming? Let me know. Find me on Twitter at Deepak. One of our sponsors today is Busy Box Child. I know that there are many parents in our audience. This is for you. Busy Box Child offers really great subscription boxes for kids filled with sensory toys that will help your toddler to elementary age child stay off screens and do some really interesting stuff.

Technology use by kids is at an all time high, especially after the pandemic. Playing off of screens is really critical for development, for cognitive development, social, emotional well-being for kids. It's an ideal opportunity for parents to engage with kids as well. Carolyn is the founder of Busy Box Child. She's a mom and a child clinical psychologist who We'll be right back. and many kits for playtime on the go. Busy Box Child is a small business that supports the David Pakman show. Support them. Go to busy box child dot com and use the code Pakman for 10 percent off. You can find the info in the podcast notes. Could the coming 2022 midterm election be the worst midterm ever for Republicans in this particular situation,

the situation being one that should be very good for the Republican Party? If you look historically, I know many of you are sick of hearing this from me, but I want to remind everybody, normally when one party takes the White House from the other party in the first midterm election after that, that very party then loses a bunch of seats or potentially control of the House or Senate, meaning because Democrats took the White House from Republicans in 2020, 2022 should be very, very good for Republicans. And it was looking that way for a very long time. And all of a sudden, in the last month and in particular, in the last two weeks, things are looking dramatically different. We mentioned yesterday the Senate has approved this Inflation Reduction Act bill to fight climate change and cut drug

costs. This is a major accomplishment, assuming that the House passes it on Friday and then it is signed by Joe Biden, both of which are expected to happen. This is a massive Biden accomplishment. And then when you look bigger picture at the Biden accomplishments, you see that he did the covid stimulus. He did the Infrastructure and Jobs Act. He confirmed the first black female Supreme Court justice. He did some gun safety legislation, although I think it's pretty weak sauce, but at least it was something he did. The CHIPS Act for Semiconductor Manufacturing, the NATO expansion to include Finland and Sweden is in process.

He expanded veterans health care. He authorized the strike that killed terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri, which, believe me, I understand there are legal questions about whether the United States can or should be doing that. But it is an accomplishment that Biden can claim. Fantastic jobs report last week, three point five percent unemployment, 55 straight days of gas price reduction, which, again, remember, I don't even think it has anything to do with Biden. I don't think the upswing had anything to do with Biden. I don't think the downswing has anything to do with Joe Biden either. But the point is, what is reported and what can you take credit for? And tomorrow we have an

inflation number coming out, which I expect to be significantly lower than the peak numbers we saw over the last few months. I may be wrong, but that's what I expect. And if that's the case, it will be another indicator that the economy is looking better and better overall. Could this be a disastrous midterm for Republicans? Well, the polling data is increasingly pointing that way after looking for months and months like Republicans were going to take the Senate definitively from Democrats in the fall. The 538 forecast for the Senate now has Democrats at fifty nine percent likely to retain control of the Senate. Now, that's not overwhelming, but it is looking increasingly good for Democrats in terms of the Senate. Now, in the House, it's not looking very

good. It still looks like about an 80 percent chance that Republicans win. Remember, 80 percent is not 100 percent, but that's the way that it is looking right now. This is a massive, massive reversal from the way things looked and quite frankly, the way things should look, speaking historically for Republicans. What do you think we're going to see in November? And then the last piece of this is we spoke about this a little bit with political scientist Rachel Biddecoff last week. She has a slightly different view on it than I do. And I know many of you have different views about this because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

This actually does seem like it is a midterm election. We're running on abortion rights, on women having autonomy over their medical decisions could be very good for Democrats. Typically, it is not an issue that is so good for Democrats. Extraordinary circumstances. And as I've said before, there are some elections which just don't feel like they're that important. The 2022 midterm and the 2024 presidential election, which are honestly one in the same. I mean, the 24 election is almost getting going right now. And we're going to look at some of those numbers later as well, because what is happening with Trump and DeSantis is extraordinary. Could this be a disaster for Republicans? Let me know what you think. We've been covering what's going on in the Georgia

Senate race. This is the race in which former football player Herschel Walker is the Republican nominee. He became the Republican nominee without even participating in a debate. And now the question is, will Herschel Walker debate Raphael Warnock? Raphael Warnock is the incumbent senator, a Democrat in Georgia. The backstory on Herschel Walker that has been notable is that he is almost unable to speak and almost unable to express himself and to give us his opinion on any issue. He's asked questions and he puts together word salads of no meaning whatsoever. And there are questions as to whether he is even going to debate Raphael Warnock. Recently, Herschel Walker has started to claim that he has accepted a debate and the language,

to the extent that we can decipher it, is bizarre. It's about a debate in Raphael Warnock's backyard. It's not going to be for the press, but it's going to be for the fans. And it's extraordinarily weird. And over the last week, we have confirmed that Herschel Walker still can't speak and probably won't debate. Here is one appearance over the weekend by Herschel Walker on Fox Business, and he I gather he's talking about whether he will debate. But what he says is completely unintelligible. See if you can

understand it. Are you going to debate him? Well, I've called him on two debates. I've called him on two debates. What does that mean? It means nothing. On two debates, he turned me down on both of them because I said what I want to do is see a fair and equitable debate. I have seen no evidence that Raphael Warnock has turned down two debates. Where's for the people, not about some press, not about some party, but the

people get a chance to see the differences between my opponent and myself, where my opponent believe in raising taxes during a recession. My opponent believe being soft on crime. He voted with Joe Biden, the elect officials that is soft on crime. My opponent believe that he voted that put me in. Speaker 1 Remember, the question was, are you going to debate? Speaker 4 In sports where I do not think men should be in women's sports?

So there's a big difference in contrast. I think he's afraid to stand in front of his Georgia voters and stand up for the record that he's voted on. That is meaningless. Now, if there is such a debate, I will cover it. That would be an extraordinary debate to cover. But I am not getting the sense that Herschel Walker actually plans to debate. How could he debate if he can't even answer the question? Are you going to debate?

It doesn't make any sense. And, you know, he speaks with this very scrambled syntax. It's almost like trying to decipher a verbal Morse code to listen to Herschel Walker. But again, I don't know why it was ever claimed that he agreed to a debate, because the more I listen to him, it sounds like he's maybe saying there's going to be a town hall. I don't really know. Here's another clip of Herschel Walker. I hesitate to use the word explaining, but he's talking, I guess, about this debate. And then one next star media group offered to host a debate for us in Savannah. Now by the way, these are the new videos that Walker's doing very clearly reading off of some kind of notes, even reading off of the notes.

I still don't know what the hell he's talking about. I told the 14th in front of the people, don't be scared. I know you rejected previous offers I made. No evidence of that. But please consider this one. This debate is more than fair to you. And it's for the people. It's in your own backyard, Savannah. Right. You have hometown advantage. It's being hosted by a respected third party media group with multiple outlets in Georgia. It would be aired statewide on broadcast television.

By the way, Nextar is like this right wing media company. I'm sure they would host a debate. But again, nobody knows what Walker is talking about in prime time. So everybody will get a chance to watch it. Is a prime time showdown in Savannah. You know, I mean, come on, Raphael, let's do this for Georgia. October the 14th, I'll be there with you. Yeah, it sort of sounds like what Walker wants to do is some kind of town hall. It's not even clear what he's talking about, to be perfectly frank. But I have to tell you, when Trump is to your supporters, there's no downside to Walker

just saying, I want to debate and Raphael Warnock won't do it. And of course, it'll be a made up lie. Warnock might be perfectly willing to debate. In fact, I believe he is. But what Walker should do if I were listen, if I were his advisers, I would not want him to debate. I mean, he can't speak. So how can you debate? I would advise him start claiming that Warnock won't debate you. Make it up. It'll be a lie. I think that actually is his best strategy. And a lot of his followers will believe it. Let me know your thoughts. And we'll have these clips on our Instagram, which you can find at David Pakman show. The science tells us that one of

the best ways to get consistent deep sleep is lowering your core body temperature. When your body stays cooler at night, you're more comfortable and your sleep is better. Our sponsor, Sleep Me, is the home of Chili Sleep, the customizable climate controlled sleep solutions that can improve your sleep by keeping you cooler at night. There are three different Chili Sleep systems. There's the Uler, the Cube and the new dock pro with double the cooling power. All three systems are water based, temperature controlled mattress toppers that fit over your existing mattress to provide you with your ideal sleep temperature. You can go as cool as 55 degrees.

You can go really hot if you want. I keep mine at 60. Beautiful temperature for me. Don't wake up hot and sweaty. Chili sleep keeps me asleep all night. It feels great. I didn't know it was possible to love sleeping even more than I already did. Go to sleep dot me slash Pacman to learn more and get 25 percent off your new chili sleep system. Click on our chili sleep link in the podcast notes to start staying cool at night. It is great to welcome to the program today,

Andrew Sullivan, who's a blogger at The Weekly Dish. His book now out in paperback is out on a limb, collected writing from 1989 to 2021. You know, Andrew, it's so great to have you on, because as a progressive, my very left wing audience will say who on the right is interesting to listen to because I'm not getting what I need intellectually from Matt Gaetz, for example. And I will often say, you know, I actually think Andrew Sullivan writes a lot of really interesting things. But the strange thing is I see very little in common at this point between you and sort of where the American Republican Party is. I mean, do you feel like you still see your politics in that party?

I've never seen my politics in that political party, never identified as a Republican, have been pretty hostile to successive Republican presidents. I mean, Bush and Trump, for example, a big supporter of Obama. No, my view is really from a more English conservative position of limited government, free society, skepticism about grand changes to society in general, and a belief in the West and its core values. And that meant that I did not have a huge problem, for example, in supporting Barack Obama, whom I regarded as a bit of a moderate, a bit of an old school. Actually, I always thought of him as a 1970s kind of Republican. And so I I don't fit in is the truth. But I am definitely not a lefty and I'm definitely not a liberal in the progressive sense. I I'm a skeptic of those those traditions. When you look at to pick something specific, the increased willingness from the modern

American right wing to use government power to achieve whatever it is they're looking to achieve rather than stepping back into what might be called small government conservatism, doing the absolute least. Does that concern you above and beyond just, you know, whether you identify with the movement or not because it's antithetical to the way you believe governments should operate? Or is it is it not as broad a concern as some more traditional conservatives point out? I think that at some level, you know, the right in terms of the culture war particularly does have a right to self-defense. I mean, I, and I don't think that's

completely outrageous. I don't think it's outrageous, for example, that we should have states decide what their abortion regime is going to be through democratic processes. I don't think it's crazy for a state, for example, to look at its own educational curriculum and positions. And if that has been altered dramatically in ways that the politics of the state doesn't quite accept, then I don't think it's out of bounds for a governor or school boards to do within the classic democratic tradition a change of policy or a reversal of policy.

But I do think there's a sense of using the state as a wielding sort of a weapon to punish people. So, for example, let me give you a DeSantis is perfectly within his rights to say, no, in in Florida, we are going to have through the legislature change curriculum and and pass this this law. It's another thing for him then to use the power of the governor to punish a company, Disney, for disagreeing with him. So there's a distinction there. And I think sometimes it can get muddled up. I don't think the right has to constantly disarm. But I do think the right has lost a sense of the limits of government, the need to let society evolve on its own, and to be tolerant of other points of view and allow them their place in the sun. And that that goes for both sides, by the way. And I think a great deal of the pushback from the right on some of these cultural issues

is a response to aggressive acts by the progressive left. When it comes to democratically deciding abortion law at the state level, like you mentioned, Kansas had an actual vote of the people, of the population. Other states like Indiana, its legislators who got together and said we're banning it after I think six weeks is the latest proposal, with very, very few exceptions. One could argue that that's Democratic in the sense that it's legislators elected by the people who are deciding that.

But it runs counter to public opinion, as best we can tell at this point in time. So are both of those examples of democratically deciding or is only when the people vote an example of that? Well, I think the Kansas thing was a very particular question because they'd already had some sort of decision barring that made some kind of vote as a referendum inevitable? No, no, I don't think it really matters how that democracy is pursued. It may be that in the short term, for example, there are lots of people in Republicans elected as state legislatures who are more to the right on abortion than most of their voters are.

Absolutely. Well, vote them out or or or let your views be known to them to make sure they're not following some preexisting ideological commitment, which, you know, for many years it was so easy for Republicans to say I'm for banning all abortion, period. And they were never called on it because there were no one who's ever going to be enforcing it. Now that it's having to be enforced, I think you're going to get actual real compromises and decisions that are made state by state. And I think liberals are pro-life pro choices in general are way too pessimistic about their chances in that process. And I think we'll probably end up in the U.S. pretty not that far away from many countries in Western Europe.

And although we will have some outliers on the conservative front, but, you know, America is more conservative than parts of Europe. And I don't have a problem with states coming to different positions on questions like that. The other because we're talking about a lot of cultural and social issues. It was notable to me. I've sort of seen this building and look in watching Trump rallies over the last year to 18 months. But it was very notable at CPAC that the biggest applause lines were the more overtly homophobic and transphobic lines, jokes about pronouns. You know, I don't have the full list in front of me. But when you saw the crowd really get excited, they were dead when Trump was talking about

himself as the biggest victim in the history of the Western of Western civilization. That did not excite the crowd too much. But the stuff about trans swimmers and Ted Cruz's pronouns and there it really excited the crowd. Do you agree that there's been a sort of resurgence of that sentiment in the modern American right? And are you concerned about it? I think I am within some aspects of the conservative right. I mean, we're talking about the Texas CPAC. Yes.

So we are talking about the pretty hardcore fanatics. And they are so polarized that anything pro-gay, for example, gets attacked. But when you actually look at the polling data of regular Republicans, you now see a majority of Republicans favoring marriage equality. What I do think you're seeing is an understandable response to a very aggressive push by essentially gender, queer and gender critical theorists to redefine what sex is, to redefine what gender is, and to teach those redefinitions to three to four year olds without their parents even being informed. And I think that has led to a backlash. I honestly think it's understandable it's led to a backlash.

And there are plenty of us who are very supportive of gay and trans rights who are not nonetheless wedded to this rather postmodern understanding that biological sex is basically non-existent, that you pick and choose whichever gender you have and that there are more than 55 different genders to pick from and that all of them trump sex in every particular instance. I don't buy any of that. And I think insofar as there's been resistance to it, it's been a function of the left overreaching rather than the right demonstrating its its intolerance. That's not to say I defend some of this stuff. Well, I mean, I know some of the ugly some of the things you just said, I'm also against.

I've just not seen them being taught to four year olds anywhere. I mean, where and I'm not saying this rhetorically, like where are they teaching four year olds that there is no biological basis at all for gender and that there's fifty five choices to be made. I just haven't seen that. Well, I recommend you check a couple of pieces I've done recently at the weekly dish on this state curricula are now mandating places that were as in Florida, as in New Jersey and other places with that gender identity and homosexual and sexual orientation be taught from kindergarten

onwards now how that is translated is a different question but i can also show you plenty of children's books plenty of lesson plans in which this is uh argued for as early as three or four and what they say of course they're not using words like biological sex or they're saying, and this is the phrase that comes across quite starkly to me, you, this is, this is to a child who had kindergarten. You can be a boy or a girl or both or neither or something else entirely. And it's up to you to choose. Well, I don't I honestly I think telling three year olds that before they've even wrapped their heads around boy and girl seems to me outrageously over the top. And certainly not something a lot of gay people even think should be taught and certainly affects gay kids who themselves have a slightly different perspective, which is that, yes, we're boys, but we just happen to be attracted to other boys.

Now, they may not be, they will not be aware of that in any real sense at three, four, five. I don't see there's a problem with restricting it to kids who are eight years old or above. And I don't think that's some sort of fascist move. I think the ideologues got out of control

and they're being slightly reined back in. And I don't think that's think the ideologues got out of control and they're being slightly reined back in. And I don't think that's the end of the world. Speaker 1 Yeah, I mean, it's hard for me to respond substantively because I just haven't seen what you're describing. So I'll do some research on that. I think the books. Yeah, they're really they're ways in which you translate it to children. And I think it can be rather disorienting for children to be taught this that young. As a political question, what would you like to see the American right, whether it's through the Republican Party or outside of it, wherever you follow it? What should be the substance of the platforms on which those candidates run?

Because especially in the Trump era, they don't even really pretend to be about economic policy. They'll vaguely talk about taxes and regulation, but there's very little substance there. They're like, what substance is it? This stuff, the stuff about what four year olds are taught, because that seems sort of flimsy as well as a platform. It is flimsy as a platform. But I do think there is a potent policy mix that's on the table, and that is for the Republican

Party to go left on economics, to do things like supporting like take the pro-life position if they actually got their act together and decided to really fund health care for pregnant women, that they actually did put some beef behind support for bringing children into the world, along with more restrictions on abortion, then I think they'd have much a fairer hearing, at least. And I think moving left on economics in terms of trade, I think moving right on immigration and that combination with a certain amount of cultural, not right-wingery, but conservatism in the sense that we don't really want to redefine gender. We don't want to suddenly decide that everyone has to overcome whiteness in order to become

a fully functioning member of society, those kinds of things. I think that's a very potent platform. It's potent in Europe, and it would be potent here if it hadn't been consumed by all this awful authoritarian instincts, by the cult worship of Trump, by the anti-institutional, anti-conservative radicalism of many of these groups. And I think there is a center there, a center right that will be made a new in the new world around nationalism, around trade, around immigration. But that could be sane and would work very well. And unfortunately, I think the Republican Party seems currently incapable of coming up with that.

Is there anybody right now that embodies that? I mean, who when you I know you don't like Trump. My guess is you're not big on DeSantis. Are there people currently in politics in the US that match this ideology that you're talking about? Well, look, DeSantis has a certain edge to him and he's he's posing as Trump essentially at this point. Yes. But when you look at his early time in Florida, when you look at, for example, he's been quite sensible and pragmatic on climate change in terms of resilience in Florida, has been doing quite a lot of sane stuff on the environment.

I think if you could get past the the personality cult of like Trump, and I think if you could start delivering. So for example, if Trump had view, unless that is resolved, we can't support, I can reform the institutions but not destroy them and create a policy agenda that is more left economically, a more right socially, then that's a perfectly decent outcome for the future of the right in America. The question is who can do it. I think, to be honest with you, I have an open mind about whether DeSantis is that person or whether he is not that person. I will see people like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney. an open mind about whether DeSantis is that person or whether he is not that person. And we'll see people like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney. How what's your perspective on them?

I I have what we call a newfound respect for Liz Cheney. I do think that what she's done has required courage and integrity. And I think she's right. I really do. I think Mitt Romney's move on supporting family life and the economic stresses of young families with kids who are struggling to get by is also very positive. I hope it seems to me that until we get rid of Trump, someone like Liz Cheney is not going to be a player, but she's got a long life and we don't know what happens. But I'm, I'm very happy. I don't know about you, but when I look back at my worry about Romney in 2012, I'm like, Jesus, give me Romney any day of the week now. He would be far preferable to these, these nut balls. And And he's he's a good guy. You know, at some point, just someone who respects the rule of law and the Constitution and says so publicly is such a relief on the Republican side. No, I know what you mean. I recently rewatched this Netflix documentary about Romney's. I believe it was the 2012 run. And without, you know, rehabilitating his policies specifically, which I preferred

Obama at the time. But it's hard to feel like it would have been a crisis if Mitt Romney had won in 2012 in the way that we've seen in the last four years because he seems so comparatively benign and inoffensive. There are two things here. You can disagree with someone's policies. Yeah, that's what democracy is. Right.

Right. Vote for the other guy. But when you lose trust in that person's respect for the system, for the institutions and for the rule of law, it's something else entirely. We since Trump became the nominee, we have been a different world. We have been in a democratic emergency because this is someone at the center of our system who despises our system and who will seek to undermine it, doesn't even understand it. So putting that aside, it would be lovely to get back to a really good debate about policy. Right.

How do we best protect the environment? You know, I mean, and the current bill, for example, is a bit of a hodgepodge, isn't it? But it's a decent hodgepodge. It's a compromise that moves things forward. And the same with abortion in the States, even though you may hate the idea it's being done, it's still a process, a political process, find a compromise, move things forward in a way. And that's all liberal democracy should be about. We're not about solving every human problem. We're about making things a bit better if we can. And I want to kind of dial back these existential claims about what politics can do and get back to the difficult, unsatisfying, but absolutely phenomenally important compromising legislating. And I

think that the current Congress, after a rough start, has begun to hit its stride on that. I agree. I will be I'll be very interested to see how the public responds. Yeah, because I think the public wants this. I really do. Even though it won't solve everything, it shows that we can do something. And I hope I hope that's rewarded. Yeah. And some of the polling data over the last two months suggests that things are looking different for a midterm than than they would historically be expected to look. We'll have to wait two and a half months now and see the book now out in paperback is out

on a limb, collected writing from eighty nine to twenty twenty one. We've been speaking with blogger Andrew Sullivan, whose work you can read at the weekly dish. So great having you on. Thanks so much for having this conversation. I'm really, really grateful to be part of it. Don't forget that the best way to support the David Pakman show is by becoming a member, which gives you access to The Daily Bonus Show, the regular show with no commercials. You also get access to our entire archive of every episode dating back a really long time and plenty of other awesome membership perks. Go to join Pakman dot com and use the coupon code better 21 for a huge discount.

Join Pacman dot com. OK, a couple of other quick stories that we've been covering. The Alex Jones text messages have made their way to the Trump riot committee based on reporting from a number of different sources. So let's back up and remind you what's going on. We knew before the Alex Jones defamation trial that Jones was involved and in contact with people that were organizing and at the Trump riots on January 6th, 2021. We knew that it would be great if Alex Jones was somehow more involved and under scrutiny from the January 6th committee.

But it wasn't clear if and how that was going to happen. Then the Alex Jones defamation trial took place. And as you might remember, Alex Jones own boneheaded lawyer accidentally sent a full digital copy of Jones entire mobile phone, including text messages and other things to the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the defamation trial. And there was cartoonish stuff in there. Like, for example, there was a record of Alex Jones sending, according to the plaintiff's attorney, Alex Jones sent a naked picture of his own wife to Roger Stone, like bizarre cartoonish stuff. But also because of the timeline of those text messages in that digital copy, it was

reasonable to believe or to expect or to wonder that materials related to January 6th also would have been on that digital copy. And then we learned the January 6th committee wants Alex Jones text messages. And now the reporting from CNN is Alex Jones texts have been turned over to the January 6th committee. The article reads approximately two years worth of text messages sent and received by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones have been turned over to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. A person familiar with the matter said to CNN. The messages were handed over to the committee byth insurrection, a person familiar with the matter said to CNN.

The messages were handed over to the committee by Mark Bankston, the attorney who represented the Sandy Hook parents who successfully sued Jones in Texas and won nearly 50 million dollars in the civil trial. Bankston would only tell CNN that he is cooperating with the committee. The committee declined to comment during the trial. As you might recall, Bankston revealed one of Jones lawyers messed up and inadvertently sent him the two years of text messages that Bankston and Bankston also said during the trial, the committee expressed interest in the material. You know, it's a really good thing that so many of the people behind January 6th involved in January 6th and in this case representing individuals involved with January 6th, speaking, of course, of Alex Jones, attorney are kind of doofus. It's very useful and it aids the investigation to proceed that a lot of these people don't seem to be playing with a full deck or, you know, the wheel is spinning,

but the hamsters dead, whatever metaphor or phrase you want to apply to it. Now, none of this means that there are going to be consequences. I think as we now have learned of the FBI raid of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, it's entertaining. It feels like at least he's suffering a little because they raided his home. But I am not assuming that Trump is going to be indicted or that if he is, that there will be consequences. We will have to wait and see.

And similarly, the fact that the committee now has the text messages of Alex Jones, even though it was not Jones intention for the committee to have them, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be consequences. Now, one of the things that is important to remember is any time you're dealing with leaks or transfers of information, the right wingers love to pull this double standard when it came to the Hunter Biden laptop. They didn't care how the blind computer tech got it. They didn't care about anything in terms of due process or discovery or finding it. It didn't matter. It was what's on the laptop.

Now they're saying, what? Hold on a second. What about due process? This was an accident. What about attorney client privilege? What about invasion of privacy? What about free process? This was an accident. What about attorney client privilege? What about invasion of privacy? What about free speech? They'll throw whatever they can at the wall to say the content of the text messages does not matter. All that matters is how did the January 6th committee obtain the text messages? Predictable people. We will see what happens

and what the next step is in terms of the committee and Alex Jones. Remember, the committee expected to hold more hearings, I believe they said in September. So we will see one little final follow up from the weekend. CPAC This is Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is fascinating. We have covered Sarah Palin for a really long time because back in 2008, she was the late Senator John McCain's vice presidential running mate. And at the time, she became known to us for her incomparable word salads and her abject failure at using language to communicate. She just couldn't do it.

She you saw her mouth moving. You heard things coming out. Some of them were words, but it didn't fit together in any way that made sense. It's sort of like if you made a dish for dinner and like you see a plate and you're aware that there's pasta in the toilet and you saw tomato sauce on top of the fridge, like individually, these are elements of food, but it's not coming together in any way that makes sense. Now, similarly, when Sarah Palin appeared at CPAC over the weekend, she was apparently trying to quote Abraham Lincoln. And she is so visibly confused and so incoherently trying to use language that I don't know what the hell she's talking about. It also looks like she has a massive gaudy star of David hanging from her

neck. I mean, every aspect of this is whacked and whatever is going on with her seems to be getting worse and worse. Maybe she was referring to a Lincoln log. I don't know. But this doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard Lincoln say. And what they're doing is usurping the power from the other two branches of government, the judiciary and the legislative branch. We can't allow that to happen. Things like that that create this atrophy in the foundation of America will destroy America. It's like Lincoln said, we're not going to be destroyed from foreign forces coming on in. It's going to be from within if we allow things that are so anti constitutional to to be able to usurp, for instance, the balance of power. So, yes, Dan Sullivan is right.

You know, is she talking about Abraham Lincoln? Because I don't know what she she said. It's like Lincoln said, but let's really analyze. It's like Lincoln said, we're not going to be destroyed from forces coming on in. It's going to be from within if we allow things that are so anti constitutional to be able to, for instance, usurp the balance of power. I guess she means we must protect ourselves from domestic threats more than foreign threats. Is that my succinctly summarizing what she meant there? I don't know. I genuinely don't know. But Sarah Palin continuing to visibly struggle to use the English English language to communicate. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Will the Trump FBI raid get more Republicans

voting in November? That's the question this viewer asks. Hey, David, Angie in Wisconsin just finished voting in our primary. And I realized after last night's raid on Mar-a-Lago, I wonder if this is going to bring out a lot more Republicans than normal, which is not good for Wisconsin because we have our governor's race and Senate race where I'd like to see Ron Johnson go. Yeah, this is a completely reasonable question. And during our live stream yesterday of the FBI raid of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago house and toilet and safe and everything, one of the things that I was saying was, is it possible that Republicans will be so in the Maggots mostly will be will they be so infuriated

by the raid that now all of a sudden they will be revitalized and inspired to vote in November? It's absolutely possible. At the same time, would that be a reason for a law enforcement agency not to do what the evidence says they have to do? Of course not. You have to do what the evidence says. And if at this point there's probable cause to say we believe that there is evidence of a crime at Mar-a-Lago and it could be in Trump's personal quarters, it could be in his safe, then you have to follow that and then deal with the repercussions as they come.

I don't want the FBI. You know, one of the problems with the FBI in the past that we've talked about is they take actions that seem to go above and beyond, like, for example, James Comey's second press conference about Hillary Clinton, which arguably lost her the election in 2016. Was that a necessary press conference? No, they did an investigation. There was already a press conference. Why do a second one here? I don't want the FBI saying, well, maybe because it'll hurt. No, if there's probable cause and you have the evidence and a judge signs off on it and you've got all the I's dotted and T's crossed, then you have to do what the evidence says and we will deal

with the political repercussions. We have a fantastic bonus show for you today. We're going to talk about the new funding for the IRS and the reconciliation bill and what that might lead to. We will talk about a town dissolving its police department after a police officer sent a racist text. And we will talk about Ron DeSantis trying to suspend a prosecutor and how the prosecutor is reacting. All of those stories are on today's bonus show. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. Become

a member. That's our primary funding source for this program. And you will get instant access to the bonus show. We will see you on the bonus show in mere moments.