The David Pakman Show - 11/29/23: Biden crime conspiracy implodes, Republicans PANIC over Hunter Biden testimony

Episode Date: November 29, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Republicans panic as Hunter Biden offers to publicly testify -- Donald Trump's lawyers argue that Trump never actually swore an oath to "defend" the Constitution -- Republican Senator John Kennedy faceplants badly as he tries to pull the "dangerous urban gun crime" routine during a Senate hearing -- Republican Congressman George Santos is on the verge of tears as he claims he doesn't care if he gets expelled from the House of Representatives -- Liz Cheney says that Donald Trump was refusing to eat in the aftermath of the 2021 Trump riots -- Using a classic abuser line, Trump and his lawyers argue that the court clerk who received death threats "allowed herself" to be abused -- Failed former President Donald Trump calls for MSNBC to be shut down in a disgusting dictatorial Truth Social rant -- The conspiracy theory about President Joe Biden's supposed criminality implodes on Fox News in real time -- Donald Trump reportedly called Iowa evangelicals "so-called Christians" and "pieces of (expletive)" -- Voicemail caller suggests that left wingers need guns to protect themselves from right wingers with guns -- On the Bonus Show: Charlie Munger dead at 99, US life expectancy starts to recover after sharp decline, Sandy Hook families make Alex Jones an offer, much more... 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 🎁 Uncommon Goods: Get 15% off at https://uncommongoods.com/david 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get 20% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://www.ounceofhope.com/ 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman 👍 Manscaped: Use code PAKMAN for 20% off & free shipping at https://manscaped.com 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 🧠 Try Brain.fm totally free for a month at https://brain.fm/pakman 🚽 Hello TUSHY bidets: Get 25% off with code PAKMAN at https://hellotushy.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.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 -- 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

Speaker 1 Speaker 1 Well, Republicans finally are getting what they want from Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden has offered to testify publicly for Republicans to take questions, to explain his view, to, uh, be held accountable for all of the allegedly evil things he's done except all of a sudden Republicans don't want Hunter Biden to testify publicly. Now they want him to testify behind closed doors. Why? Well, they tell us why so So that they can spin what happened

so that the American people can't see a Democratic members of the House ask him basic questions, get straightforward answers, which will all make the conspiracy theories about Hunter and Joe Biden evaporate. Why won't he talk to us? Oh, I'll talk to you. Well, no, no, no. We can't do it publicly. We must do it behind closed doors. They are not serious people. Let's start with the reporting in the news. Hunter Biden. This is from Rolling Stone. Hunter Biden offers to testify publicly. House Republicans say no way. James Comer is accusing him of trying to, quote, play by his own rules, play by his own rules. Hunter Biden agreed to testify in a public hearing.

Republicans shot him down. James Comer said that given Biden's willingness to address this investigation publicly up to this point, we would expect him to be willing to testify before Congress in a letter. And indeed, he is now willing to do it. But Republicans want it to happen in private. This really tells us a lot about their confidence in this probe and their confidence in this probe is very low. Here are Fox News hosts really trying to convince their audience it would be bad for you. It would be bad for all of us if Hunter Biden were to publicly testify. It's better for it to happen behind closed doors. Yeah, that would be interesting.

But I agree that I prefer hearings to be done behind closed doors because I think that they actually get to the to the heart of the matter and they get some. And everybody's nodding along. They're like bobbleheads. And they can ask questions without preening for the camera, without all the grandstanding. That is my preference. And for Abby Lowell, his attorney to say, well, you all use that to misinform and to distort the facts.

Well, you know what? You can do that too, Abby. After he comes out of his closed door session, you feel free to knock yourself out and you can distort too. I mean, it's, it's, it's a silly argument and, and commerce said fine, sit, sit before us publicly, a public hearing. We'll do that later. We want the closed door one first. And I, and you know that if the closed door hearing doesn't go well, we will never hear again about a public hearing. The the idea that we generally always want these things done in private is laughable because look at what they did to Hillary Clinton with the Benghazi hearings.

The difference is they felt that doing the Benghazi hearings publicly would make Hillary Clinton look look bad. It happened not to go that way. And in fact, she showed up, spent hours and hours asking questions, many of the same questions over and over again with Hunter Biden. Many of these Republicans know that the ship has sailed. They're just not going to get the bombshell they believe they are going to get. So now they have to convince their audience. No, you benefit. The American people benefit from this being done privately.

Here's another Fox host saying, oh, you know, the reason he wants to do it publicly is because he wants attention. The guy who we couldn't get to show up, who was hiding, who was nowhere to be seen because he just wants to stay out of potentially any harm. Now all of a sudden he wants attention and we shouldn't give it to him by not allowing him to testify public looking for the spotlight for this. So that I or do you think this is really an effort to tell the whole truth and nothing but well, interestingly, I think it's I think it's a seeking attention.

I think it is the continued seeking attention and the fact that he perceives himself as the ultimate victim. And I know as well, remember, he wrote an op ed, you know, crying out to the world to please have pity on him because of a certain habit that he had that millions of Americans have that don't seem to excuse vile behavior. There you go. Now he just wants attention. The guy who was hiding all of a sudden wants attention and that attention should be denied,

even though he's saying he's willing to do the very thing we've been asking him to do. But now we don't want him to do it. We only want to do it our way. They are doing this with your tax dollars, not Fox News. Fox News is doing it with your cable subscription dollars. That's a different story. Congress is doing this with your tax dollars, with my tax dollars. And they finally after all this time and resources and money they've spent saying we need accountability, we need to hear from him. Now they want to deny the American public the ability to hear what he has to say. Here is Congressman Ben Klein, who says the whole idea of him testifying publicly is to interfere with our investigation. He's going to interfere with

the investigation by testifying publicly. That's weird. Hunter Biden's attorney wanting to do this publicly. Again, the chairman of this committee, the oversight committee saying, no, let's do this like the subpoena says, like the procedure says, behind closed doors, and then we can potentially do it publicly. Do you have a comment for that, Congressman? Well, this committee is trying to get the facts, get to the bottom of the corruption that was going on in the Biden family between Hunter Biden and the rest of the family, and exactly follow the money to where it leads. And they're preparing a report to give to the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats are stalling. They've essentially sent the message to Hunter Biden that

we will protect you if it's in public. And for show, you won't have to give any facts. You won't have to give any. This is a completely based in nothing allegation. This isn't now. This is a new thing. So he wants to do it publicly for attention. Oh, OK. Well, that's that's one story. Next story is Democrats told him we will only protect you if you testify publicly. So now that's why they want to deny him the public testimony information, as you would

in a deposition, because in a deposition it takes hours and hours and hours. You ask the little questions that won't be kind of interfered with by counsel for the other side, by members from the other side who just want to play for the cameras. So that's what this is all about. It's about blocking and continuing to block Chairman Comer and this House of Representatives from finding out the facts for the American people. Right. The new before they were blocking the investigation with Hunter not testifying.

Now they're going to block the very same investigation by having Hunter Biden testify in public. So that's it's they've been at this con for so long that they've forgotten their own lies. Lauren Boebert, before she got the message that Republicans are supposed to be against this, she tweeted out excitedly, quote, Hunter Biden has agreed to testify before the oversight committee before the end of the year. The big guy and the Biden crime family are going down. She was excited about this. But then Republicans said, oh, no, no, no, this is not actually something we want him to do. Now, Josh Hawley, who's a disgusting person, to his credit, Josh Hawley said the American people have a right to see the testimony.

I happen to agree with him. My view is that the American people have a right to see. And also, you know, they should evaluate this for themselves. I mean, if you do this stuff in private, what happens is there's inevitably bunches of leaks. And then it's it's, you know, well, so-and-so said this and so-and-so said that. It's like, oh, just do it in public and let the public see. Let open the door so you all can report on it. There you go. And on this particular issue, I agree with Josh Hawley. And then lastly, here is James Comer appearing on Newsmax. He gives away the game and he says, you know what, if he does testify publicly, Democratic members of the House are going to get to ask questions and that's going to look really bad for us. But, you know, as these congressional investigation, these hearings

go, you've got 20 members on each side that have five minutes each. We have tens of thousands of pages of documents where we need to sit down and ask specific substantive questions without filibustering, without interruptions, without going five minutes back and forth with with Jamie Raskin's and Dan Goldman and little Moscow, it's jumping up and down. Speaker 1 There you go. That's the thing. They don't want Hunter Biden testifying publicly. And then Jamie Raskin would get his five minutes and Dan Goldman would get his five minutes and Jared Moskowitz, little Moskowitz, as he refers to him, would get his five minutes. Think of the insanity of how first it was imperative that Jim Jordan and James Comer

get their whistleblower so-called to testify in public, get all the information out. The whistleblowers imploded. There was nothing there. Now, all of a sudden, it's really important that these folks testify in private because that's how we're going to maintain the integrity of this. There's nothing here. And later in the show, I'm going to get to the latest elements of this with

regard to the Joe Biden criminal bribery, so-called scandal, which is a whole other thing. But they're getting what they claim they wanted. And now suddenly they don't want it. Donald Trump's lawyers are now making a new legal argument. The new argument is Trump never swore an oath to defend the Constitution. This is borderline treasonous and it is a technicality that is of absolutely no significance when we want to think about what did happen on January 6th. What was Donald Trump's role in inciting that insurrection? Well, the in the most treasonous technicality we've maybe ever seen. Trump didn't say I will defend the Constitution or support it. He said I would uphold or whatever the case was. Look at this insanity. Newsweek reports Donald

Trump's legal team has argued against an attempt to have him thrown off the presidential ballot in Colorado by suggesting the wording of the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause simply doesn't apply to him. The section states a person who engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution should be barred from running for office again. Pretty clear. We already know, as I told you, that a lower court has decided Trump did engage in insurrection. However, she feels it's not clear that that provision, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, applies specifically to the president. OK, Trump's lawyers have now appealed this ruling that Trump did participate in an insurrection, but that it doesn't bar him from being on the ballot.

And they are saying Trump never actually swore an oath to support the Constitution. He swore to preserve it. He swore to protect it. He swore to defend it, but he never actually swore to support the Constitution. We have the video of when Trump did swear an oath. Let's listen to what he said and see if you think that this is a substantive defense of Trump that they are making. Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear. I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear. That I will faithfully execute.

That I will faithfully execute. The office of President of the United States. The office of President of the United States. And will, to the best of my ability United States and will to the best of my ability and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, the constitution of the United States. So help me, God. So help me, God. Preserve, protect and defend. Does anyone in my audience believe that when you say you will preserve, protect and defend

the Constitution, that inciting an insurrection doesn't violate that because that's relative to supporting the Constitution rather than preserving, protecting and defending. This is maybe the most absurd, pedantic, semantic way that you could come up with to defend Donald Trump's actions related to January 6th. And, you know, do you think Trump supporters are going to see this and they're actually going to say, oh, you know what? He didn't say support. That's absolutely true. He said this other stuff because protect and preserve. And those are equivalent terms to supporting. And this is the epitome of a distinction without a difference. But the big takeaway is the brazen nature of saying support the Constitution. I never said it. It's not what it meant.

So it was fine that I incited an insurrection. It is splare. It is hair splitting. To a treasonous degree, and it's just a reminder of the dangers of giving this guy another four years. If you are willing to go out and make the argument through your lawyers that when you swore an oath to the presidency, you didn't say you would support the Constitution on a linguistic technicality. Just imagine what

you would be willing to do in an unrestrained four years as president when you have no other campaigns coming up to run. Hard to imagine a more dangerous scenario. Let's hope it doesn't happen. We all have someone on our shopping list who is tough to find a gift for. Here's an out of the box idea. Cannabis as a holiday gift. Our sponsor, Ounce of Hope, ships psychoactive THC cannabis products right to your door all over the US. It is completely federally legal and they are giving you 20 percent off for the holidays with the code Pacman. Ounce of Hope has an amazing selection of recreational Delta eight and nine THC edibles, including sweet treats perfect for the holidays, brownies, rice, crispy treats, chocolates, caramels, even honey. They also have gummies, beverages, soft gels, oils, topicals and CBD.

Ounce of Hope grows their own cannabis plants and produces all of these products in-house in their indoor aquaponic farm in Memphis, Tennessee. They do so much for their community, including feeding the homeless, donating supplies to local co-op gardens. That's where the hope in Ounce of Hope comes from. Ounce of Hope are big fans of The David Pakman Show. They love supporting the work we do here and you can support them. We all have that friend on our list who should enjoy some cannabis for the holiday. Pick yourself up some, too, as long as everyone's 21 or older. Check them out at Ounce of Hope dot com.

Take advantage of the holiday sale, giving you 20 percent off everything. When you use the code Pacman, that's O-U-N-C-E of hope dot com. Use code Pacman for 20 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Thirty million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the U.S. alone. So toilet paper is a big contributor to deforestation and climate change. Thank you, David. Forbes, five times as much carbon from the atmosphere as pine trees and bamboo toilet paper is stronger than regular toilet paper and even softer. So bamboo toilet paper is all around a win for you and for the environment.

It's time to move on from that toilet paper from trees that you're using at home. When you use real paper, it doesn't feel like you're sacrificing anything. It's soft and fluffy and they'll ship it to your door in plastic free packaging on a schedule. Super easy with every box of real paper you buy. They are funding reforestation efforts across the country through their partnership with one treeanted. So unlike the toilet paper that cuts down trees, real is helping to actively plant them. Go to real paper dot com slash Pacman and use code Pacman for 30 percent off your first order and free shipping. That's R.E.L. paper dot com slash Pacman and then use code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes.

One of our sponsors today is Manscaped. They make excellent products. You've got the lawnmower five point. Oh, ultra. This is Manscaped fifth generation body trimmer and groin trimmer. You've got two next gen blade heads, your standard trimmer blade for taking off a little bit of hair, the foil blade for taking off a bunch of hair. All of Manscaped's devices are waterproof and perfect for the shower. You'll also want to pick up Manscaped's crop soother aftershave lotion

and crop preserver anti-chafe deodorant. Whether you're shopping for yourself, maybe there's a guy in your life. Manscaped offers the perfect bundle with everything. The performance package 5.0 ultra includes the lawnmower 5.0 ultra groin trimmer, the weed whacker 2.0 ear and nose trimmer, Manscaped liquid formulations and two free gifts. Manscaped Boxers 2.0 premium underwear with moisture wicking technology and the Shed 2.0 toiletry bag. I have all of this stuff at home. Get 20 percent off and free shipping with the code Pacman at Manscaped dot com. That's M.A.N.S.C.A.P.E.D. dot com. Use code Pacman for 20 percent off and free shipping. The info is in the podcast notes. There was a very interesting hearing yesterday, a Senate hearing related to gun violence and

looking at gun violence as a public health issue, something that should be done. There were a number of different witnesses and there was a very interesting exchange involving Republican Senator John Kennedy, who was speaking to one of the witnesses, Dr. Megan Ranney from the Yale School of Public Health. And he brings up why do you think there's so much gun violence in Chicago? What sorts of people do you think are committing the violence in Chicago? Is it, you know, constitutional conservatives? He doesn't say this, but this is the picture he's painting. Is it the constitutional conservative types who

are either hunters or just buying a rifle for self-defense or is it urban gang type people? And Dr. Megan Ranney, uh, points out, you know, when you look at the states with the most per capita gun crime, it's actually not blue states. It's red states. Kennedy doesn't like it. This is typical John Kennedy behavior. He's not terrible at this. But fortunately, Dr. Megan Ranney was prepared. And then we're going to talk about some of that data. So here he is bringing this up seemingly out of the blue. Let me ask you this. Why do you think that Chicago has become America's largest outdoor shooting range. Do you think it's because of Chicago citizens who have no criminal record, but who have awfully a gun in their home for protection, or perhaps for hunting?

Right. Or do you think it's because of a finite group of criminals who have rap sheets as long as King Kong's arm? So Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri actually have higher firearm death rates. Obviously, there's certain— What about Chicago? So I don't live in Chicago. It's not my primary area of research. You don't have an opinion on that? I think there's easy access to firearms

combined with environmental conditions, lack of great education. There have actually been studies showing that when you green vacant lots and repair abandoned buildings in urban neighborhoods, you see decreases in gunshots and violence, as well as in stress and depression in the neighborhoods around them. No disrespect, Doc, but that sounds a lot like a word salad to me.

It's a word salad. And what we know is John Kennedy does not like salads. He's mentioned it before. There are so many different aspects to this that are really important. First of all, it's often framed. The Chicago gun violence situation is often framed as Chicago has such tough gun laws. And yet there is so much gun crime in Chicago. The reality, of course, is that when you can drive forty five,, maybe 35 minutes from the, from the Southern part of Chicago over the border into Indiana. And we've actually looked at the exact gun store. That's right over the border. When you go into Indiana, when you can drive to Indiana so easily, uh, and obtain firearms, when people from Indiana, uh, can come to Chicago with firearms so easily, is it really relevant

that Chicago itself has so-called strict gun laws? You can't go up north to Wisconsin, as I once did and myself. It's 50 minutes, something like that. The specific gun laws of Chicago become less relevant when you're surrounded by places where it's far easier to get guns. But we don't even have to go to that. If Dr. Ranney is correct, if you look at gun deaths per capita, which you have to do, obviously, if you have a city with millions of people and then rural areas with a couple hundred thousand people by sheer population difference alone, you would expect that there's a lot more of different kinds of crime

where there's millions of people rather than a few hundred thousand. But let's put up on the screen gun deaths per capita. It's Mississippi, red state, Louisiana, red state. New Mexico is a blue state. Alabama's a red state. Wyoming's a red state. Alaska's a red state. Montana's a red state. New Mexico is a blue state. Alabama is a red state. Wyoming's a red state. Alaska is a red state. Montana is a red state. Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee. These are all red states other than New Mexico. The exception to the rule is that you would have high gun violence per capita in blue states. And of course, why do we talk about states rather than cities? In most cases, the overriding legislation mandating or restricting or related to gun ownership is state level. There are cities that have their own rules when it comes to gun safety legislation. But this is primarily governed at the at the state level in sort of the broad

sweeping policy mechanisms that would impact the general ability of people to obtain firearms. So this entire discussion always gets away from a super basic reality. I'm willing to go beyond the reality. We should talk about mental this basic reality. We should talk about mental health, this basic reality. We should talk about mental health. We should talk about socioeconomic status. We should talk about gang violence versus mass shootings versus suicides with guns. All of these are real issues, but they're all separate issues that make up this whole. And the whole that is made up is that imagine that there were only 30 million firearms in circulation in the United States rather than 400 million. If there were only 30 million firearms in circulation, can anyone honestly say that

we would have just as much gun violence? Of course not. And so we have to start with the ready availability of these firearms and the limited mechanisms that exist to not even necessarily restrict, but just ensure that we know everybody who's getting a firearm, that they are actually being properly vetted. Now, I'm not going to do it again. There's 20 or so, 12 or so different provisions I've suggested for gun safety legislation. No single provision would prevent every single gun crime, but we would deal with a lot of them. You can go back. We'll link to some of those videos. I've done it a dozen times at this point,

but this entire well, how do you explain Chicago? Explain what about Chicago that you can drive to Indiana or Wisconsin and easily get guns? And also the fact that Illinois is nowhere near the top 10 list of states in per capita gun crime. What about that? And Dr. Ranney was well prepared. George Santos was on the verge of tears yesterday. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Couldn't happen to a more honest guy. Almost in tears, George Santos says he doesn't care anymore if they kick him out of Congress. He'll just take his toys and go home because you know what? It doesn't make any difference to him whether he's there or not. This is all happening because once again, it appears as though George Santos is very close to getting expelled from Congress. I know we've said it before. It actually seems

like it's going to happen this time. There's a report that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson went to George Santos, not with tears in his eyes, at least not then, and said, listen, if you resign, we can avoid what will likely be a very uncomfortable vote that we will take on expelling you. And George Santos is saying he's not going to resign and he doesn't care if they kick him out. Here he is. George Santos almost in tears.

You all want to sound by this is the third time we're going through this. I don't care. I was sent here by the people of the third district of New York. Not really. They meant to send a different guy that doesn't exist. I represent them, not the political class in Washington, D.C. If they want to send me home, if they think this was a fair process, if they think this is how it should be done, and if they're confident that this is a constitutional way of doing

it. Right. God bless their. Is it inevitable? Have you spoken to your colleagues to get their support? I'm sorry. I've spoken to your colleagues to get their support. No, I've never done it. This is a third.

What support is he going to get from his colleagues? It seems they're all abandoning him. We've gone through this. I didn't do it the first time. I didn't didn't do it the second time. Not going to do it the third time. Why not? Why not?

It's not a good use of my time. Do you know what's a good use of all of our time is fixing the massive inflation in this country is fixing the issues we have. All right. So now he's fixing the massive inflation. Inflation is down to 3.2% over the last year. Inflation was zero last month. What are you talking about? And then here is his impassioned and courageous speech. You tell me if it's impassioned and courageous on the floor of the House yesterday. I will not be resigning a principled and defiant George Santos. Madam Speaker, on the matter of expulsion, we are now going down a third attempt for a

privilege resolution to expel me from the House of Representatives this week. Just introduced one earlier today and just earlier this evening. We had a second. Here's the case in point. In history, five members of Congress have been expelled. All five had suffered convictions in a court. All five had due process. This expulsion vote simply undermines and underscores the precedent that we've had in this chamber. It starts and puts us in a new direction, a dangerous one that sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. Are we to now assume that one is no longer innocent until proven guilty? And by the way, I don't know what he keeps looking up at. I don't know if there's like a clock or there's someone he's looking at, but it's a very weird,

distracting thing. They are, in fact, guilty until proven innocent. Or are we now to simply assume that because somebody doesn't like you, they get to throw you out of your job? Or bettermore, does the Constitution bear no consequence where a duly elected member of the House of Representatives is elected by the general public, but then a couple of politicians decide that they don't like that person? These are all matters and questions that can be brought up. But I'll leave it at this. The process in which

the Ethics Committee engaged was incomplete, irresponsible, and littered with hyperbole and littered with biased opinions. The chairman of the committee himself admitted that it wasn't the full extensive process, and therefore he couldn't recommend from the committee a punishment or action. Therefore, cheapening the process of the ethics committee, cheapening the process that this country has expected from this chamber. Look, it is not a right to be a member of Congress. The media will always remind me of that every time I talk to them. But it is a privilege, a privilege that you work hard for and you get elected to Congress as a privilege to represent those who have chosen you. Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that due process matters and that we should all be

very concerned about the way that we are conducting this process. I ask that all my colleagues in the House consider and understand what this means for the future and to set the record straight and put this in the record. I will not be resigning. There he is. And by the way, the guy sitting behind Santos is a gentleman named Vish Bura, very interesting political operative who is a big defender of George Santos. There's a couple of good long form pieces about Vish Bura. It's not our subject today, but I did just want to mention that. So, you know, I have to tell you,

I actually happen to agree with George Santos that expelling him only because he has been charged with crimes is not really due process. Now, it's not illegal. There are many employers who say if you are charged with certain crimes, then you get fired. If you were later acquitted, then we can look at rehiring you. But it's it's there's no legal issue. It is true, though, that it is not due process in the sense that if you are innocent until proven guilty,

an indictment is only an allegation. And does it make sense to expel George Santos for that? It doesn't matter to me. The fact that George Santos has lied about everything, the fact that George Santos has committed all sorts of different financial frauds that are not the subject of criminal complaints. But we just have people who told us, hey, he raised money for my dog and then he took the money and all these different things. It's outside of the judicial process. And just because he is such a liar, he deserves to be expelled. The people who voted for him voted for a candidate they believed had an education he doesn't have, had a business

experience that he doesn't have, all these different things. So for me, he should have been long gone even before he was indicted. We already knew he had lied enough not to be not to be there. It does seem as though at the end of the day, Santos is going down and Mike Johnson giving him the opportunity to resign, to avoid getting kicked out. He says he's not going to do it. He may soon be told you're gone, my friend, and that will be a good day for the United States. When you browse the Internet with an unencrypted connection, you're just inviting all sorts of people to watch everything you're doing online.

Your Internet service provider can see what you're doing in Canada. Google and Facebook have started blocking Canadians from accessing news content. That's something else. A VPN lets you circumvent the VPN. I trust is our sponsor, Private Internet Access, because they are the only VPN that have proven in court that they do not log your activity. Private Internet access is also super fast. If you're doing streaming or downloads, you can watch content on platforms like Netflix and Hulu, not normally available in your country. It's one account. You can protect unlimited devices, computer, phone, tablet, even your TV. Just take control of your online privacy and the paper

trails that document your online activity. These records of your online activity can be monitored, hacked, sold. It's happening all the time. You just don't want your personal data floating around out there. Private Internet access is giving my audience a huge 83 percent discount so you can subscribe for just two or three a month and get four extra months for free. Go to PIA VPN dot com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. If you're like me and I know so many of you are just like me, you hate the sticking and the rubbing that comes with traditional underwear. I'm sure most gentlemen in my audience know what I'm talking about.

Our sponsor, sheath underwear solves the problem. They have a patented ergonomic underwear design, separate compartments in the front. Everything stays dry, cool and comfortable with sheath. You do away with the chafing and the sweating. Everything can air out and breathe and be fresh. Large variety of designs, something for everyone. The air circulation in sheath underwear allows for a huge difference. And you've got to try it yourself to understand. I can tell you firsthand next level comfort down there. Sheath also now is offering super comfortable women's

underwear as well as silky smooth base layer undershirts and bottoms for men. Sheath has world class customer service, super fast shipping over twenty thousand five star reviews. Sheath is the perfect gift for the men and the women on your shopping list. Check it out at sheath underwear dot com slash Pacman and you'll get 20 percent off with the code Pacman. That's S H E A T H underwear.com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman for 20% off. The info is in the podcast notes. When I'm working on the show or doing stuff on my computer, staying focused and getting in the zone is super important. It's not always easy. I would try Spotify or YouTube playlists. I'd end up actually more distracted than focused. And then someone told me about Brain FM's Focus Music, which is actually made by scientists

working with musicians specifically to help you focus. I tried it and it worked really well for me, which is why I asked them to be a sponsor. With Brain.fm, I just feel more productive and focused, easier to start on difficult work, easier to stay focused without getting distracted and do that really important deep work that I love to talk about. The team behind Brain.fm actually won a National Science Foundation grant related to ADHD. And the app includes a special mode just for ADHD if you need it. They even have amazing sleep sounds that I've started using at night. You can try Brain.fm totally free for an entire month. Just go to brain.fm slash Pacman.

The link is in the podcast notes. My prediction is what I'm about to tell you is the funniest thing you will hear today. After the January 6th riots, Donald Trump was reportedly refusing to eat down at Mar-a-Lago. He was refusing food. And so Kevin McCarthy went down to visit him. Supposedly, that's why McCarthy found himself at Mar-a-Lago, because people were calling McCarthy saying Trump's not eating. We need you to come down here. This is all as relayed by Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney says that McCarthy claimed I had to go down there because Trump was depressed and he wasn't eating. Let's take a look at a report from CNN about what Liz Cheney has alleged in in her book. This is just unbelievable stuff. And she writes, get ready,

Cheney Mara Lago. What the hell, Kevin? Kevin McCarthy. They're really worried. Trump's not eating. So they asked me to come see him. Cheney, what? You went to Mar-a-Lago because Trump's not eating McCarthy. Yeah, he's really depressed. This is not about any fat jokes, OK? Like we all know Trump's obese. We know he lies about his weight. The concept of Trump refusing food, you know, it seems like something he very rarely does. This entire situation in which people around Trump are seeing, oh, the big the big guy's not eating. He's refusing. He's refusing his chicken nuggets and he's refusing his Big Mac and his tortilla bowl and the entire thing.

How are we going to get this guy to eat? I know. Let's call Kevin McCarthy. Seeing Kevin McCarthy come down and make a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, that's going to get his appetite going and Trump is going to start eating again. This is insane. This is a former president of the United States who I believe at the time in question here that I think this was in the days between January 6th and

January 20th. So Trump was still president for that two week period. This is just beyond parody at this point in time. And there's actually a picture of when Kevin McCarthy went down to visit Trump and, you know, they're both smiling. And apparently this visit was precipitated by Trump refusing to eat and them sending McCarthy down because Trump was essentially hungry and not eating. Now, maybe more substantively, here is Liz Cheney describing what was happening on January 6th in the infamous Republican cloak room. And she said people were sort of pejoratively referring to Trump as orange Jesus and saying, look at what we're doing for this guy. This is

a more interest. This is a more substantive allegation. Listen to this in the cloakroom on January 6th before the attack happened. I was in the Republican cloakroom. I was working on my remarks and I was supposed to speak that day. And there were sheets of paper laid out on the desks. And I asked one of the staffers in the cloakroom, what are these sheets of paper? Because members were coming in and signing them. And this person said to me, well, those are the objection sheets because, you know, it's only actually required that one house member object, but there were so many who wanted to show they were objecting that they'd set up these signup sheets in the cloakroom. And as I was

sitting there, a member came in and he signed his name on each one of the state's sheets. And then he said under his breath, the things we do for the orange Jesus. And I thought, you know, you're taking an act that is unconstitutional. So I for me, the most important takeaway here from Liz Cheney is if Republicans were actually believing and supporting the things they claim to support when they, for example, signed these objections for Trump, that'd be bad. That would genuinely be bad. As she says, they're doing something unconstitutional. They don't actually have any reason to think that Trump won, but they're signing something saying I object to this election going for Joe Biden. The more we hear stories like this,

the more we start to realize a lot of these people were just dishonest publicly. They knew that the things that they were saying weren't true, but they still went with it because of a desire to maintain a grip on power or whatever the case may be. And in my mind, that's actually even worse. If you're if you're ignorant and come to believe things I disagree with. OK, that's one thing. If you actually agree with me, but are publicly saying, oh, I believe this other thing because you think it's politically expedient. I consider it more disgusting because it's not only it's blatant dishonesty rather than simply ignorance. And that's exactly the argument that Liz Cheney is making here. But as we know,

ultimately, the attempt to subvert democracy failed, fortunately, and Trump did eventually go back to eating. We know that for a fact. Donald Trump and his lawyers are pulling the classic abuser line. She allowed herself to be abused. Look at how she was dressed. Maybe that's why she was raped. This is the equivalent of what Donald Trump is now arguing. Donald Trump, through his lawyers, now say that the court clerk who has been receiving

death threats and violent threats, quote, allowed herself to be exposed to abuse. How? Well, she works in a courthouse as if she has any control over the cases that come before that court. This is wild stuff. This is disgusting. Here's a Newsweek article explaining it. The court clerk in Trump's fraud trial exposed herself to vile threats because of her partisan politics and by allowing herself to be photographed in public. This is what Trump's lawyers are arguing in court filings. Here's what's going on. A court security officer told an appellate court that he transcribed 275 pages of death threats and abusive phone calls left for two people, Judge Arthur Anger on and Anger on law clerk Alison Greenfield. Now, you will remember that Trump supporters have been targeting Alison Greenfield because

Trump targeted Alison Greenfield, saying this is Chuck Schumer's girlfriend and she's from a Democratic family and all this different stuff. This led to endless death threats, violent threats against her. And the argument that Trump's lawyers are making is she has only herself to blame because she is being voluntarily photographed. Look at this. In their filing Monday, Trump's attorney said Greenfield allowed herself to be voluntarily photographed, videotaped and identified by name in national and international media, despite the prior existence of reported security concerns. She didn't cover her face. When a person with a camera showed up, So she is allowing herself to be abused,

allowing herself to be abused. This is the equivalent of the rape victim was dressed provocatively victim blaming that we hear so much. And by the way, how is any of it voluntary by working in the courthouse in plain view? Well, that's her job. Should she be also wearing a sheet covering herself while in the courthouse or something along those lines? Now, Mago logic is this sort of thing. She invited that they could go further. They could go.

Should women even be working? I mean, really, this is her fault at the end of the day. To be clear, they haven't said that. But that would be like the next step in this complete and total insanity, making an official court filing that argues the victim is responsible for the endless threats because she put herself in a position to be working in this court. She didn't wear a mask anytime there was a camera around as she was arriving at or leaving the courthouse.

At the end of the day, it is just her fault. We have not yet gotten a ruling on this, but I hope that no serious judge falls for that absurd argument. One of the things I've been insisting that we all bear in mind as we approach the 2024 election is that we evaluate candidates by believing what they tell us they are going to do. And one of the latest disgusting and authoritarian elements of Donald Trump's 2024 promises are that he is going to target media that he doesn't like. And he is doing it again, taking to Truth Social yesterday and saying the

following about MSNBC, quote, MSNBC, MSDNC, as he calls it, uses free government approved airwaves. And yet it is nothing but a 24 hour hit job on Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party for purposes of election interference. Brian Roberts, its chairman and CEO, is a slime ball who has been able to get away with these constant attacks for years. It is the world's biggest political contribution to the radical left Democrats who, by the way, are destroying our country. Our so-called government should come down hard on them, meaning MSNBC, and make them pay for their illegal political activity. Much more to come. Watch. Trump is telling us he will sick the Justice Department on MSNBC if he is president

because he doesn't like their point of view. Where are the MAGA free speech warriors who are going to come out and condemn this and say, no, no, no, that is actually a violation of the First Amendment? I don't see them. And we should believe that he will try to do it if he is president. Whether he will succeed is a different question. But this is one of the most important institutions. When we talk about defending democracy, you know, we've all become somewhat desensitized to this stuff. I've said it before and I'm with you. But oh, yeah. Trump threatening media again. Trump threatening his political opponents with prosecution yet again. We can't

allow ourselves to become desensitized because if we become desensitized, we are less incentivized to vote and every single one of us must vote. But this is one of the main hallmarks. This is it sounds so cliche. It is one of the bedrock elements of a Western democracy. You have media outlets. They're allowed to say what they want, what they want without fear of reprisal from a government that is going to target government agencies against them. That's exactly what Trump is telling us he's going to do. Also, here's a bonus. Trump continuing to insist he'll replace Obamacare with something great.

Remember, he wasn't able to do it in four years. Why would he be able to do it if he wins again? Trump saying, quote, Getting much better health care than Obamacare for the American people will be a priority of the Trump administration. It is not a matter of cost. It is a matter of health. America will have one of the best health care plans anywhere in the world. Right now, it has one of the worst going on to say, I don't want to terminate Obamacare.

I want to replace it with much better health care. Obamacare sucks. Honest question. At this point in 2023, does anyone think Trump could explain what Obamacare actually is? Like, I get that he could say, oh, it's a Marxist takeover of health care, but that's meaningless. Does Trump actually know the provisions of Obamacare? Does he genuinely understand what it does and what would be lost if he finds some way to get rid of it? My bet would be that he doesn't. But the most important

reminder here is this was the promise Trump made in 2015 and 2016. And he had the opportunity to do it in 2017. His proposal would have led to 24 million people losing health insurance. He could have done it in 2018. He could have done it in 2019. In August of 2020, he told us in two weeks we will have a new health care plan signed into law. It never happened. Why would anyone believe it was Bush who said something along the lines of you fool me once. Shame on. You fool me twice. You can't get fooled again. And even though George W. Bush mangled it, what he meant was fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me. He's making the same promises again. He's not going to do any of these things. It would be great if some of his supporters came to that realization. You know, one of the odd things

that goes on in bathrooms in the United States, where is this going, is, you know, when I moved to the U.S. from Argentina, there's really no bidets in the United States. The bidet is just a part of life in Argentina. And why would you make a compromise in the bathroom? Why not have the elevated level of comfort and cleanliness, which is now easy and affordable with our sponsor? Hello, Tushy. The Hello Tushy bidet cleans everything with a fresh stream of water two times better than alternatives like paper. You just spray and pat. It cuts down toilet paper use by 80 percent. It saves you money. It reduces paper waste. So a hello, Tushy bidet really pays for itself in under a year, attaches to your existing toilet. You don't need an electrician.

You don't need a plumber. You install it takes eight minutes or less. Super easy. I got one and it is fantastic. And with over one hundred thousand five star reviews, every bidet comes with a 30 day risk free guarantee, 12 month warranty. Stop wiping and start washing. Take advantage of Tushy's cyber cheek sale. Visit Hello Tushy dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman to get 25 percent off site wide. That's Hello Tushy dot com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman for 25 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Thirty million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the US alone.

So toilet paper is a big contributor to deforestation and climate change. Our sponsor, Real Paper, makes toilet paper from bamboo. Bamboo plants keep growing, which means no deforestation. Bamboo also absorbs five times as much carbon from the atmosphere as pine trees. And bamboo toilet paper is stronger than regular toilet paper and even softer. So bamboo toilet paper is all around a win for you and for the environment. It's time to move on from that toilet paper from trees that you're using at home when you use real paper. Doesn't feel like you're on the show at David Pakman dot com. the Speaker 1 and the That's our EEL paper dot com slash Pacman and then use code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes.

The Joe Biden criminal bribery, nepotism, extortion, conspiracy theory continues to crumble before our very eyes. And I'm going to admit I am enjoying seeing this happen. We have now numerous examples of when a Republican alleges all sorts of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, a reporter, sometimes a good reporter, sometimes a shill. Who knows? Reporter asks, oh, what evidence do you have? And they go, well, we we don't really have any actual evidence.

Here's the latest hilarious moment. This is Fox News propagandist Maria Bartiromo interviewing Republican Congresswoman Lisa McClain and asks, OK, there's this general allegation that Joe Biden was setting policy based on who had bribed him. Maybe China bribed him. Is there any specific policy you can tell me that was influenced by Joe Biden being paid? And Lisa McClain says, no, there there kind of is the witness testimony, of course, all indicating or suggesting that there could be some serious crime here like bribery or there really could be. We just can't find the evidence laundering. Have you been able to

identify any actual policy changes that Joe Biden made as a result of getting money from China? The short answer is no. That's what we're trying to get to right now. That's why Jamie Comer, our chairman, Comer is requesting those documents that the FBI knew he had had those classified documents for 18 months and sat on those. What were in those documents? We don't have any single policy we can point to. You know, you could actually go further. You could even say, all right, let's forget about policies that Biden was bribed to do. Can you name any policy at all

that Joe Biden has done that is suspiciously good for China that would even make us think maybe it was something he was paid for? They don't even have that. And there are so many examples of this. You'll remember Ken Buck. He was on CNN and he said, you know, there's all these allegations. But when it comes to evidence, I really haven't seen any at this point. Two days ago, you said that the time for impeachment is when there's evidence linking President Biden to a high crime or misdemeanor. You said, quote, that doesn't exist right now. Do you still feel that way tonight? I have not seen any evidence that links President Biden to Hunter Biden's activities at this point. I will be getting a briefing later

in the week. I'm looking forward to understanding more of what the Oversight Committee has uncovered. But at this point, I have I have not seen that evidence. That's the theme. OK, these are not outliers. The theme is Republicans make a ton of claims about Joe Biden. Republicans admit they don't have any evidence against Joe Biden. And there's some overlap in those two groups. There are those making the claims about Biden and still saying they have no evidence. Here's Nancy Mace. Nancy Mace asked, can you name any policy decision?

Forget about just China. More generally, is there any policy decision at all that Joe Biden has made that you believe he was paid for? Have you been able to identify specific policy decisions that Joe Biden made that he was paid for? I have not had the the ability to research that. I've been looking more at the LLC's, the bank records, all of the lies that Joe Biden has told and what evidence we have so far in meetings, dinners, appointments, White House records, et cetera, phone messages, text messages, emails, et cetera, connecting the dots with Joe Biden. So that's a no. She also can't identify,

even though Biden has reportedly been taking cash, just fistfuls of cash to make good policy for whoever. She doesn't even have a hypothetical policy that he put in place. And then lastly, and we could do so much of this. Here's Congressman McCaul, who says we don't have any evidence, but maybe we'll find it. I don't know. Well, first of all, I've been tasked by the speaker to assist the oversight and government reform with respect to foreign policy decisions the president may have made or vice president at that time with respect to money coming in to try to tie the two. We don't have the evidence now, but we may find it later.

We may. We may find it later. That's what we're trying to do. These are not serious people. This is not a serious investigation. At some point, shouldn't reasonable people and I'm not saying these are the reasonable people, but if there were reasonable people around at some point, wouldn't they start to say, you know, maybe the reason we can't find the evidence is he didn't do the thing we basically accused him

of doing. And it was a very similar story with Trump actually won the election. Well, we're really we're doing audits and we're checking the ballots for bamboo fibers. We've got 63 court complaints, all the everything. We're not finding any evidence. That just means we have to keep looking rather than maybe Joe Biden actually won this election. Democrats are aborting babies after birth. Oh, can you find any examples of that? Well, no, but they're they're certainly doing it. Oh, well, maybe the reason you can't find the evidence is that it's not actually happening. They don't seem like they're ready to give up on this one, but it is going terribly poorly for them. And I can only imagine that if indeed Joe Biden wins reelection, one view would be

they'll stop doing this because there won't be any more elections to run. That's incorrect. If Joe Biden wins reelection, these same people are going to keep doing it with the idea that, OK, he may have won, but now we're going to get him out through impeachment. To be totally clear, if there's evidence against Joe Biden, I want to know it. I don't care what party anyone is a member of. If someone that is an elected official working in an official capacity at this level, any level, but in particular at this level, if that person has done the things they've accused Joe Biden of doing, I want to know. I don't want it covered up because he's a Democrat. In fact, I would want to know as soon as possible in order to be able to say, hey, well, maybe he does need to be impeached.

In this case, there is no evidence. And it's increasingly looking like the reason is that Joe Biden actually isn't a mafia style crime boss who has a 40 or 50 year career of what they're accusing him of. He's just a guy who has a relatively clean background that it may be that boring and that simplistic. Call me crazy. One of the other. So going from Biden to Trump now. One of the realities that we've come to understand over the last seven years of watching Trump is that he only cares about people to the extent that they are useful to him. And when they're no longer useful to him, he doesn't really seem to care anymore. We now have

allegations that Donald Trump referred to Iowa evangelicals as so-called Christians and pieces of S were on broadcast radio. So you'm going to try to keep it FCC compliant. There's a very interesting article from The Guardian in the heat of the Republican primary of 2016. Donald Trump called evangelical supporters of his rival Ted Cruz, quote, so-called Christians and real pieces of S. The book is The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory, American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism. The book is by Tim Alberta, reporter and writer for The Atlantic. The book's coming out in a few days. The Guardian got a copy. All of this centers around an event at Liberty University. That's that evangelical college in Virginia. And it was shortly before Iowa voted

in 2016. Candidates were being sort of asked to represent their Christian bona fides. You may remember that Trump was asked to name his favorite Bible verse. And Trump tried to go with the whole two Corinthians thing rather than second Corinthians. People laughed at Trump. Everybody was making fun of him, so on and so forth. And then apparently Trump later said that the evangelicals in Iowa that laughed at him are so-called Christians and real pieces of S. So as is always the case with these, this is a secondhand source. This is someone saying that Trump said it. It's not a recording of Trump saying it, but the themes here are what is most important. Theme number one, Trump's not actually a Christian. He's maybe not even really a right winger in any conservative

sense, but he's an opportunistic grifter. He likes people to the extent that they are useful to him because they can vote for him or because they can defend him legally lawyers or because they can donate money to him or could endorse him or whatever the case may be. Once they are no longer useful, either because a cabinet member becomes, quote, disloyal because they say, oh, Trump's wrong about X or whatever, or there is not immediately a campaign or there is not immediately a fundraising element. Trump abandons you. That is one theme. And that hasn't changed. The other important aspect to this is that my guess is Iowa evangelicals, the Iowa evangelicals

that Trump was allegedly talking about when he called them so-called Christians and pieces of ass. I think they'll still vote for him. I think that Trump could urinate on his on supporters or potential supporters in the Republican Party, and they would still support him as long as he has an R next to his name. And the alternative is a Democrat. So a number of different layers here. Trump's not actually a religious guy, and it's not even really clear that he likes religious people. Trump is amoral, a religious, a political. It's all about him and what's good for him. Even the people that he insults are almost certainly still going to vote for him. And that's just another reason why we have to remember how important it is to get out and

vote in November of twenty twenty four. There will be more time to talk about that, but no surprise here about what Trump is accused of doing. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine to David P. Here is a voicemail that is suggesting we don't want only the magas to have the guns. So left wingers should get firearms. Listen to this. Hey, David, I want to say you should warn all your viewers that all of your viewers should get guns because right now the biggest threat to America is maggots. So listen, I know many people personally who aren't gun people in principle. They're not hunters. They don't want to do target practice.

They don't think carrying around a gun all day is a good idea. But I know many people on the left who have obtained firearms over the last few years exactly for this reason. And the reason is for the time being, we can't do anything about the availability of guns. Do we really want the magas and the extremists and these sorts of people to be primarily the people that have the firearms. And many of my friends and acquaintances have said, no, that's actually even scarier. All the guns are bad enough. The guns being disproportionately in the hands of the magas is worse. And so I hear from people in the audience, left wing gun owners, et cetera. That message is resonating with many

people. Now, as a practical matter, do I believe that at some point anything is going to be decided, so to speak, by some kind of gunfight between MAGA and non MAGA? I don't believe that that's ultimately what's going to happen. I hope that that's not ultimately what's going to happen. That's a situation that would generate all losers and essentially no winners. But if you zoom out and say for as long as there are guns and they are this widely available, do we want it to be mostly the MAGA people who have the guns? I understand why many progressives would say, no, that's scary. We don't want that. So interesting voicemail and a sentiment that I've heard from many people before on the bonus show today, Charlie Munger, the friend and business partner of Warren Buffett has died. And he's a super interesting guy, a guy that I have sort of

studied his background. And we're going to discuss Charlie Munger life and death. We will also talk about how American life expectancy has started to recover after a decline that took place during the pandemic. Why? What's happening? What did happen and where are the numbers now? And lastly, Sandy Hook families are offering Alex Jones a deal. Pay us 6 percent of the one point five billion you owe us and then get out of bankruptcy.

Is that a deal that Alex Jones is likely to take? Is it a deal Alex Jones is likely to be able to afford? We will discuss that and so much more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join pacman.com. If you like the show, it doesn't have to end here. You could join us on the bonus show. I hope to see you then.