The David Pakman Show - 11/3/23: Don Jr testifies, Trump lawyer discusses risk of jail

Episode Date: November 3, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Donald Trump Jr struggles to remember much during his testimony in the New York civil fraud trial, insisting frequently that he "does not recall" -- Alina Habba, one of Donald Trump's current lawyers, is asked about the possibility that Trump gets sent to jail for violating gag orders, attacking witnesses, court personnel, judges, and prosecutors -- Caller talks about the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade -- Caller asks why the Capitol pipe bomber hasn't been found -- Caller discusses income inequality and the diminishing returns of money -- Caller explains how Democrats are becoming the true conservatives -- Caller comments on Israel's reaction to the October 7th terror attacks -- Caller talks about young people not having kids -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Sam Bankman-Fried found guilty on all counts, all-nighters helping with depression, and much more... 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.com/pakman 🍜 Use code PAKMAN5 for $5 off immi ramen noodles at https://immieats.com/pakman5 👨 Fix Your Lid: Get 25% off with code PAKMAN at https://fixyourlid.com 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF a year subscription at https://startmail.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, I don't know that this is going to come as a big shock to anybody, but Donald Trump Jr., in his testimony, just doesn't really remember much at all. It's really all a blur. I mean, sure, he was in charge of so many aspects of the Trump businesses, but it's really blurry and hazy what was going on. And you're going to have to talk to someone else. I'm, of course, talking about Donald Trump Jr.'s testimony in the New York civil fraud trial against the Trump organization, which may lead to no more business in New York for them. There's a Guardian article so damn predictable. Trump Jr. distances himself from documents at center of fraud trial. I don't recall.

I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. Donald Trump Jr. took the stand in the ongoing fraud trial and just tried to distance himself from the documents in question. These are, of course, the documents in which unrealistic values were assigned to real estate holdings. Trump's eldest son, who's 45 years old. Remember, they're going after a really good kid. Talking about a 45 year old man here who's running important aspects of the business. Trump's eldest son is the first to testify. His younger brother expected to testify Thursday. Trump and his daughter Ivanka expected in court next week. Trump Jr. was polite and courteous. I should have worn makeup, he

joked. When asked to slow down, the fast talking Trump Jr. said, I apologize, Your Honor. I moved to Florida, but kept the New York pace. He was asked a series of questions about the roles he and his father and the financial chief financial officer, Alan Weisselberg, had. And when he was asked, is your father still a trustee? Trump Jr. said, I don't recall. He didn't recall much, including why was there a brief period in 2021 when he resigned and then was put back on the trust? He didn't recall a whole bunch of other different things. Now, there is something really interesting about I don't recall in a bench civil trial. Let me explain what I mean by that.

As usual, when I make any kind of legal comment, these are not things I come up with on my own, but I talk to lawyers and try to understand what is going on in criminal trials that will be judged by a jury. Very often, I don't recall is sort of a reasonable strategy. And usually lawyers won't straight up tell you just lie and say you don't remember a thing. But it's sort of understood. Listen, if you're not completely confident, just go with I don't recall. And I don't recall and I don't recall fails to maybe provide actual factual basis for some finding. And then it's sort of useful in that the jury might interpret. I don't recall among a whole bunch of different witnesses in a certain way. And I don't recall is actually useful to you.

The difference is that in a civil trial, that is a bench trial where it is up to the judge who is a professional in legal matters to make a determination here, frequently saying, I don't recall, particularly when it's not trustworthy, when it's not believable, when it's not plausible, can be seen negatively by a judge, a judge who has legal training and experience who might look at I don't recall as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and may not give benefit of the doubt with I don't recall in the totality in a way that a jury would. Now, of course, a judge is not going to hear. I don't recall and interpret it as I do recall.

And I'm guilty as hell. That's not what I'm saying. That's not what any lawyer told me. But a number of lawyers said, I don't recall in civil bench trials has a number of risks associated with it that are not there when you use I don't recall in a criminal jury trial. So we'll see how this works out. We'll see about the Eric Trump testimony. And next week, when Ivanka and Donald Trump themselves are there and potentially testify, we'll get a sort of bigger picture of what the Trump family strategy is going to be here. But I don't recall at your own risk in this

particular situation. We've been talking a lot about if and when and under what circumstances would failed former President Donald Trump end up in jail for a night or for a weekend, as so many legal experts, including Ty Cobb, not the baseball pitcher, but Trump's own former lawyer, said he ultimately believes Donald Trump will end up in jail for a night or a weekend. Well, Trump's current lawyer, Alina Haba, was asked about this on Newsmax. She claims that they aren't even thinking about the possibility of Trump being jailed. Let's take a listen with the gag orders real quick, because these things are just absolutely whack to me.

Yeah, he's campaigning for President United States again, and they're putting gag orders on him. So he can and can't say about a trial that is actually fueling his campaign, raising millions of dollars on it. How is this? Could they even possibly throw him in jail? What would that look like? He's protected by Secret Service, period.

So I always tell people when they're panicked, listen, he's protected by Secret Service, number one. Number two, he did nothing wrong. So when people go to jails because they've done something wrong, do we have crooked situations in and out of court? Absolutely. Could they try? Probably. But it won't work because there is still trial process. There is still facts.

And unfortunately, they're not. This ignores completely that the people who are saying Trump really risks ending up in jail are talking about jail, not prison. Alina Habas saying he gets due process. He gets his day in court, so on and so forth. Absolutely. The question is, is he going to end up in jail with bond revoked for violating the gag orders? And obviously there's the implication that they're just trying to silence him with the gag orders. He's able to say whatever he wants about who won the election. He's going to be able to testify. He is just being told you can't attack people involved in the trial. So she's kind of obfuscating, which may not come as a shock to you. Going to win on the facts.

Secret Service will always protect President Trump. That's the truth. They have to wherever he is. But it's not it's not even something we think about, to be honest, because this is all political. It's really not. He's there's no criminal acts that he's done. There's no civil wrongs that he's done unless making money for banks is a civil wrong. All of a sudden, again, she's talking about the content of the cases. What we're talking about here is the possibility of being jailed

for violating the gag orders. Now, there's a reason why they may not be talking to Trump about it, even though it's not because there's no chance that Trump ends up having to spend the night in jail. And that would be because Trump would absolutely lose his mind and maybe even fire his lawyers if his lawyers went and said, you know, you may end up having to serve a night in jail if you keep this up. So I wouldn't necessarily go by Alina Haba's explanation of why that is her belief. Man bad. I mean, that's that's terrible.

It's Trump derangement syndrome at its best. I'm not worried about him. He's not worried. And the American public shouldn't be worried. He's succeeding for a reason. I will. I will dare this judge to try to throw him in jail. First Amendment.

First Amendment is a thing. It is. And remember, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. We have extensively talked about do limited gag orders violate the First Amendment? You could. I think the argument they are trying to make is a judge is part of the government. And thus, if a judge says you can't say certain things, it is the government violating your First Amendment right. Of course, there is extraordinarily extensive legal precedent that limited gag orders would say, hey, you know what?

One of the things that we have to do, one of the things the court has to do, it must do. It is a duty to discharge is prevent the tainting of a jury, influence of a jury, influence or coercion of witnesses, et cetera. And that is the point of these gag orders, because Trump is publicly attacking individuals involved in these trials. And that is not a violation of the First Amendment. It's been studied extensively. There is wide precedent. Here's my question to you. What this Trump in jail question is actually about is Trump ending up in pretrial detention for violating a gag order. Alina Habba, when asked about it, seemed to be talking about Trump doing prison time based on whether he committed the crimes he is accused of. Do you think Alina Habba doesn't know the difference or didn't understand what the question

was about? Or do you think she's just deliberately obfuscating because it's more convenient to say that the criminal charges are a political attack rather than actually dealing with Trump's obvious violations of the gag order? I can't really tell which it is. I'm not really able to discern her level of competence at this point. So I'll leave it to you. Which of the two is it? Let's take a very quick break. Packed program today. Just chock full of stuff and things. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. We're getting very close to that two million subscriber number. I'll give you an update on Monday of where we stand. Stay with us in the United States. They publish personal profiles on millions of

Americans for people to see. It's crazy. They can show your address, your Internet activity, license plate can be there. Even your political and religious beliefs. People buy and sell this information about you. And sometimes it's even shown online for free without you being aware. Our sponsor, Incognii is a powerful platform that will simplify this whole process for you. You create an account on Incogni within a minute, they go to work getting your data taken down from these data broker databases. They'll keep you updated every step of the way. They'll handle disputes or websites that try to refuse to take your info down. It can cut down on robo calls.

It can make you less susceptible to scams. Even identity theft is a risk that they can help mitigate. Folks, you do not want this type of personal information floating around out there. Let Incogni take care of it for you. The first hundred people to use the promo code Pacman get 60 percent off when you go I'm David Pakman, the David Pakman Show, the David Pakman Show at David Pakman dot com. As many of you know, I spend a lot of time working on the show, doing research, preparing for interviews, filming the show. And when I need just a quick and easy snack during a break, I love whipping up instant

ramen noodles, low maintenance. But ramen noodles have never been known to be the healthiest thing in the kitchen. Our sponsor, Amy, has changed that every pack of Imi ramen noodles has only six grams of net carbs, up to 21 grams of protein. That's three times more than traditional brands. Helps you feel fuller, longer and 18 grams of fiber, which is great for gut health and digestion. The best part is it tastes better than any other instant ramen you've ever had. Six delicious flavors. These are all vegan black garlic chicken. It's vegan, spicy red miso, spicy beef, vegan pork tonkatsu, vegan. Imi is a fun and tasty instant ramen

experience like you're used to with more to offer nutritionally and without all the carbs. Having me around will keep you from going for the junk food. Go to me. Eats dot com slash Pacman five. Use the code Pacman five for five dollars off. That's I am M. I eats dot com slash Pacman five. Use code Pacman five for five dollars off. The info is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show continues to be funded and supported by our audience. Really, truly, if you are someone who listens to the podcast or watches a clip here and there on YouTube, you are the sort of person that is responsible for the show doing what we do through something called the membership program. You can sign up at

join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code for years for indictments to save. And it comes with a great list of member benefits, including the daily bonus show, which is just great. Let's hear from some people in the audience and see what's been on folks minds this week. We do this on discord. You can join our discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. And we're going to start today with Billy from Colorado. Billy from Colorado. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hey, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Great. I have a question regarding your position on the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Sure. So it's clear to me that you take a position

against the effects that overturning Roe's had on states with really restricted abortion laws and whatnot. Yep. But I'm curious whether you actually believe in the substantive due process jurisprudence that created an affirmed Roe, or if you are more so a believer that unrestricted abortion access needs to be codified with the law and that the legal arguments providing a constitutional right to abortion are not correct. I have absolutely I am not a legal expert and I don't pretend to be. arguments providing a constitutional right to abortion are not correct. I have absolutely I am not a legal expert and I don't pretend to be so really these

it's sort of like which arguments from actual legal experts do I find most convincing? Right, because at the end of the day, I am not a legal expert. I have not seen any convincing arguments that Roe was wrongly decided to begin with and was bad law and exceeded the authority of courts to begin with. I just I that that does not resonate with me as a worthwhile critique of Roe v. Wade. So I have no issue with how Roe v. Wade was decided. OK, yeah, great. And obviously it can still be codified by law without the Supreme Court. Yes, I can't one way or another.

But yeah, great. Thank you. Speaker 1 Hello. All right. It looks like we lost Billy there. I think Billy was probably going to say bye. Let's let's assume that was the case. Let's go to Jeremy from Chicago, who is indeed is a website member and seems to have some kind of delayed speakerphone on the phone.

Jeremy please turn off whatever that is that's making my own voice feedback to me. Oh, dear God going haywire, haywire. Jeremy, now you've and Jeremy is gone. Very good. I think it was destined to be bad. Let's go to Rick from Ocean Island. Rick from Rick from Ocean Island. Oh, Ocean Isle Beach.

Welcome to the David Pakman show. Hi, David. Can you hear me OK? Yes, I can. Thank you. Great to be on your show. I'd like to say i'm thanking my lucky stars on that david packman today right but that's but that's only because i like being wrecked from

ocean isle beach so thank you feel free feel free to be happy you're not uh i mean rick combs from ocean isle beach i feel less guilty about it all right um my question is, I want to not be a conspiracy theorist, please. OK, but there is something that's sticking in my mind that I can't resolve. OK. And that is why haven't they found the people that placed the pipe bombs by the RNC and DNC locations on January 6th? I have absolutely no idea. Now, we know that there is a contingent that believes the pipe bomber is Marjorie Taylor Greene. They will look at videos of the pipe bomber frame by frame like the Zapruder film and say the way this person is walking, it's just everything about it is like Marjorie Taylor Greene. I have no actual evidence that it's reasonable to think it's Marjorie Taylor Greene. I just I don't know. I haven't seen anything reasonable. Feds have boosted the reward to half a million

dollars for information leading to the to the arrest of the Capitol pipe bomber. And seemingly there is very little going on with it. I don't know the answer. Now, when you say you want to avoid being a conspiracy theorist, I take that to mean that the fact that no one has been arrested suggests to you what about it? Well, it Occam's razor is find the simplest solution. The simplest solution is they truly don't know. But with today's technology, I find it hard to believe they don't know. Add that to the fact that during the January 6th committee hearings, they really didn't focus on it very much. I didn't hear much on it.

And I would think that that would have been an area of concern. Who planted the bombs is a huge question. Yeah, I I agree with you that it is a huge question. We need to know we need to figure that out. There is some testimony related to this from those hearings, although it's not much. And weirdly, it's not even really clear right now whether authorities believe that the placing of the pipe bombs was a deliberate diversionary tactic or whether it was actually a real sort of like potential attack. Or I don't even know what the right words are. I, like you, hesitate to fall into conspiracy theories, particularly when I don't have good

evidence. I also don't really have any good explanation as to given all of the feeds that now exist, public feeds and the effectiveness of motivated law enforcement at tracking down perpetrators. I don't have a good answer as to why we haven't figured out who it is yet, other than, as you say, they just don't know. They just haven't been able to find it. I don't know. Yeah, you know, I appreciate your candor, your truthfulness.

This is an easy thing to go on conspiracy theories for. Yeah. And the fact that you avoid stuff like that is a reason I really appreciate this show. So thank you very much. All right. Rick from Ocean Isle Beach, thank you very much for the call. Why don't we go next to David from Wisconsin, who is also a member at Join Pacman dot com. David, I thank you for your support. What's on your mind today? Hi, can you hear me OK? Yes, I can. Hey, yeah, long time listener and also proud owner of both of the children's books.

And thank you. Yeah. So got kind of an economics question for you. Sure. So, you know, the 1% has something like 99% of the wealth, but they also don't consume 99% of goods and services. So when we talk about wealth distribution, how do we do that without demand growing disproportionately and then, you know, causing a bunch of inflation? So if I understand correctly, what you're saying is because of the diminishing marginal

utility of buying stuff, the wealthiest one% have a lot of the wealth. I think it's actually 31%. So the 1% have 31% of the wealth, not 99%. But still, your point that it's very skewed is accurate. Your argument is that, you know, how much food are you really going to eat? You don't eat 10 times more if you have 10 times more money beyond a sort of like you get enough calories. And this applies to a lot of different things. So if all of a sudden we had more egalitarian income and wealth distribution, there are people who suddenly would be able to afford a lot more stuff and to some degree would want more of it than maybe the wealthiest do. And therefore, there would be a huge increase in demand. And you're saying, how do we deal with that? Yeah, exactly. I don't know that it's something to deal with. I think that's the whole point of demand side

stimulus. I mean, let me explain what I mean. One of the big arguments that those who believe in demand side stimulus rather than supply side economics is it's really great for the economy to give people who don't have that much money more money. It's much better than giving the money to the very rich. Why? Because like we said, the very rich have a diminishing marginal utility for money. There's only so many cars and so much food you could eat and so much travel that you can do. And therefore, we stimulate demand by giving the money to people who have less money already. That's great for businesses. By increasing demand, it will get businesses to hire more. It will then generate more business revenue, which goes to the employees. I mean, it's not something to deal with. It's the whole point of demand side stimulus. Gotcha. So then the the assumption then is that supply will just grow proportionately

and then we wouldn't have to worry about inflation. Yeah. I mean, to some degree, of course, supply is also going to grow when more of it is demanded. If there's demand for way more, if all the restaurants are full in a neighborhood because all of a sudden everybody has more money, then, yes, you may see restaurant prices go up a little bit. But what you'll really see is more restaurants open to meet that demand. Gotcha. Gotcha. Now, that's not the case.

It's not the case in every industry necessarily. And you can have more or less elastic demand. It's far more complicated than I'm acknowledging here. But the whole point of demand side stimulus is to generate the very demand that you're talking about. Gotcha. All right. Thanks. That was my question. All right. David from Wisconsin. Great to hear from you. So many people wanting to get on today. Let's let's talk to some some more folks. How about, oh, I don't know, maybe Jason from Texas. Jason, welcome to the show. What's on your mind today? Hey, David. Well, first, I want to give you a little credit. I am what you might call

a former like Christian nationalist. Yeah. Back in the day. And so Christopher Hitchens was pretty critical for getting me out of the, you know, let's call it magic thinking. Okay. And you have been instrumental in getting me out of my kind of conservative craziness. So I appreciate you for that. My pleasure. So I wanted to just throw something at you and get your comment. I still am, you know, in Texas, I'm in heavily Republican circles, including kind of the donor class. And one of the things that I think that the left needs to be careful of is with sort of silly little things like the dress code issue, because there are a lot of Republicans who really concerned about conserving institutions, right? And they view people like Donald Trump as there to tear down our institutions. And so some of the people that I saw were open are now starting to close off over little things like the dress code I mentioned, because they see

it as that they're starting to see the Democrats as the party protecting things worth conserving, if that makes sense. And little things like that seem to undermine that my experience. I want to get your comment on it. I honestly, I'm not totally sure I know what you mean. OK, so a lot of conservatives are conservative because they think there are certain things worth conserving. Yeah, they want to maintain a certain way of doing things. Yes, I'm with you. That's right. Yeah, that's right. And so there's been something of a shift, not a huge shift, but maybe 10 or 15 percent, if I guess, of people like I know who are starting to see the Democrats as the party that is conserving things, maintaining things worth keeping. What sorts of things?

So like the DOJ, the Democrats seem to trust the DOJ and rely on evidence instead of just throwing out accusations against the DOJ or even the military, where Trump is going after Milley or Mattis or whoever else. And so the Democrats are starting, as far as I can tell, to gain some inroads with conservatives who want to maintain these institutions. And they're starting to view Republicans as tearing those institutions down. Yeah, I think to some degree that's true. I mean, if you look at someone like a Steve Schmidt, who I had on the show and then I was on his show recently, he's a he's a historical Republican who believes that a lot of these

institutions are worth saving and worth having. And that's one of the big areas where he disagrees with Trump. I don't think, though, that it's really causing a huge shift of former Republican voters to vote for Biden. I just think that they become kind of disaffected. Maybe some maybe a sliver. Yeah, in my experience, it looks like about, you know, 10 percent, maybe 15 percent of kind of the donor class, which is who I spend my time with. That's fair.

I mean, I think your anecdotal observation is fine. I don't know big picture that I have better data. I would just say your observation in Texas among the people, you know, may not be fully representative. I mean, 15 percent of the Republican Party is not going and voting for Biden. This 15 new an additional 15 percent in November is not going to vote for Biden. So clearly it's some number, I guess, between zero and 15. Yeah, it's somewhere in between there. I would just put it out there that Democrats, I think, have an angle that they're they're putting a point in a wedge worth driving.

Right. If that makes sense. I agree with that. I agree with that. Some of these institutions are worth saving. And the attacks from the right have been totally based in fantasy, not in fact. Yeah, that's it. Thank you, David. All right. Jason from Texas, great to hear from you. Just as a reminder to people waiting to chat, you your name should be your name and location or location and name as a nickname. I see nickname. Let me see if I can screen name, I think is what I mean. I see people with just like single letter nicknames or one word, you know, characters and different things. None of those folks are going to get called on. Just so you know, let's go to Jean from Long Island. Jean from Long Island. Welcome to the show. What's on your mind today? Speaker 4 Hi, David. Thanks for taking the call today. I want to know about Israel and Hamas.

My dad was Jewish and he always wanted to bring me to Israel. And so we went a couple of years ago and it was really, really interesting. We went to Jerusalem, which was in the Palestinian area. Now, hold on a second. Let's see if I can. So you you might mean when you say you went to Jerusalem and it was in the Palestinian area, do you mean you went into East Jerusalem or you went into the quarter of the old city? Where did you go? What do you mean? Speaker 4 I don't remember specifically, but it was I had to do with one of the churches that Jesus

was went to or something. Speaker 1 So you went to the Arab quarter, you went to the Arab quarter of the old city, it sounds like in Western. OK, yeah. Yeah. So so, you know, only tour groups are allowed to go there. Nobody else is allowed to to cross the border. It was just such a very interesting, just something very interesting to experience. But yes, just I wanted to actually talk about last week. You guys talked about, you know, getting rid of Hamas and, you know, killing all the adults. But I talked about somebody had called in and talked about eradicating Hamas. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. But I had seen like published videos from some of those Hamas GoPros.

I don't know if you've seen any of those where. Yeah, I've seen a little bit of it. It's pretty hard to watch. Yeah, but they have pictures of young, young children being indoctrinated into this, you know, and I was just thinking that we could eliminate Hamas all we want. But all of these kids are being indoctrinated into these terrorist organizations. I feel like they're going to live on forever. You know, how do we address that root issue? Speaker 1 Speaker 3 Yep. I mean, listen, there's a bunch of different answers to this. Yeah, we're not going to solve it here right now, but I think there's a few different things that can be discussed. There are

a lot of people who believe that while what you're saying is true And there's a lot of radicalization among the youth in Gaza that if the Palestinian Authority took control of Gaza rather than Hamas, it's not a solution. It's not a perfect solution in any way. The Palestinian Authority has a number of shortcomings, but that it would dramatically improve circumstances, particularly if there could be some additional normalization of folks in Gaza who can more easily go and work in Israel the way many in the West Bank do. And that dramatically improve. It doesn't it doesn't doesn't fix it, doesn't perfect everything, but that improves willingness to negotiate and to coexist and may serve as an entryway into genuine peace negotiations.

You're the other complexity is also, you know, a lot of these Hamas people, if you show up, they're just they're dressed like civilians. They'll put their gun down and go home. I don't know anything about Hamas. I don't know. I'm just I'm just here. I don't know anything about it. And if given the opportunity to go into Egypt or elsewhere, they'll do it.

They go, I don't know Hamas. I was never part of Hamas. So there's also that reality, which is this is not like an organized army in the way that is the case in many countries. So there's no shortage of difficulties and complexities here. Speaker 4 Is it the Palestinian Authority that Fata group was opposite Hamas, which is why Hamas ended up taking over the Gaza Strip. Right. So I still imagine there would be people in the Gaza Strip who would oppose. Yes. The then in authority and actually could make, you know, things worse, although I don't know

how much worse they can possibly get. But you're absolutely right. Now, all everything you're saying is absolutely true. And, you know, I think the biggest frustration here is there are so many people who write to us and they just they argue like, hey, guys, the solution is simple and here's what the solution is. It's so obvious. And there seems to be a total lack of self-reflection about the fact that, like, you know, maybe it's a little bit naive or arrogant to think you've figured out the solution. Like maybe as a starting point, you should ask yourself, am I even informed enough to be

proposing solutions? And so many people just don't have the humility to do it. You should see these emails I get, Jean. Speaker 1 And also, you know, if it was an easy solution, don't you think it would have happened already? Speaker 2 Well, you could argue that even if the solution is easy, it might not be convenient to some of the people, the players. And so that they are prevent. And by the way, that is also true to a degree. I mean, I don't Netanyahu benefits from the people being afraid of imminent attacks.

And I don't think he is a credible path to peace. Hamas quite literally just wants to kill Jews. So they're not a path to peace. So there is a degree to which that's actually true as well. Yeah, that whole area now, now that this has gone on, I actually took the time to learn a lot about the area. And even during my visit, we learned like the fight over the Holy Land has been going on for centuries and centuries. Yes. So, you know, so it's not just this going on here. It's just a very interesting situation. But yeah, that's why I want to call talk about the, you know, eradicating those. Children, not the eradicating the children, eradicating the beliefs that lead to radicalization. Yeah.

Yes. Yeah, exactly. All right. From Long Island. Thank you so much for the call. Bye. All right. There she goes. We're going to take a quick break and get back to hear from some more people. If you're holding, just hold on because we'll go right back to the phones in a moment. I'm on camera every day, so I do what I can to control my out of control hair. Many of you have seen what it looks like without any product. And it's a very, very ugly situation. As you know, one of our sponsors today is fix your lid. They make super quality hair products for men. They've got the gels, the pomades, the fibers forming creams.

Fix your lid has everything you need to keep your hair under control so you can look your best. Fix Your Lid is carried in a ton of barber shops across the country because it's a product that professionals trust. I've always had amazing results with the Fix Your Lid fiber product. When the company was founded, they had two guiding principles. The first is be 100 percent made in the USA. That includes not just manufacturing, but all of the ingredients as well. Second was to sell barbershop quality products at a reasonable price without animal cruelty. Since their founding, fix Lid is proud to say they have never wavered in those principles, even when supply chains were at their worst. You will get 25 percent off when you go to

fix your lid dot com and use the code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes. If you're familiar with me and my show, you know that I don't promote crazy supplements, drinkable silver, wacky stuff that right wing shows do. I don't offer miracle cures or anything like that. I promote products that are backed by science and that make sense at the end of the day. That's what our sponsor, AG1, is. It's really simple. Instead of taking dozens of different

vitamins, potentially spending hundreds of dollars on them. What I do is before my morning cappuccino, I have a scoop of AG1 in water. Simple. I get the entire day's worth of vitamins, minerals, prebiotics, probiotics. It's in a form that you can absorb and utilize. It tastes good. You can put it in a drink. You can put it in a shake. Whatever works for you. Unlike routines that involve all sorts of pills and gummies and the inconvenience and

the difficulty of maintaining it, AG one is just foundational nutrition made easy and affordable. I've even gotten some friends and family hooked on AG1 because it's just simple. It's simple and more cost effective. Go to drink AG1 dot com slash Pacman. You'll get five free travel packs of AG1 and a year's supply of vitamin D for free. That's drink. A is an atom. G is in green. The number one dot com slash Pacman to get five free travel packs of AG one and a free year supply of vitamin D. The link is in the podcast notes. All right, let's hear from some more people via discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. We are going to go to. Oh, I don't know. How about Marcus from Chicago? Marcus, welcome to The David Pakman Show. What's on your mind

today? Hello. Can you hear me, sir? Yes, I can. I've been a very long time listener and I really appreciate the work you do. Thank you. You actually formulated a lot of my political beliefs. So, well, you know, after I did my own retrospection and, you know, confirmed that that's something that makes sense for me. So well, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Staying on the topic of Hamas and Palestine and Israel, you know, I was watching CNN last night and I've never been so angered by something that anyone generals just saying, you know, that attack in the refugee camp, you know, yeah, let's let's see what intelligence they had, you know, whatever they would do. It just it just seems, you know, when they're when they're making their assessments on whether or not they dropped that bomb, you know, they killed 50 ish civilians.

Yeah. And injured about 150 more to maybe get the commander. Yeah. Yeah. And I just think of all the leaders that I've had in the military, I don't think anyone would have said to hit the button on that. You know, they would have sent in special forces. They would have done something, you know, to mitigate the effect on civilians. Even the worst of the air raids or that, you know, the drone strikes under Obama or Trump or, you know, to mitigate the effect on civilians, even the worst of the air raids or that, you know, the drone strikes under Obama or Trump or, you know, Bush there, that risk was never acceptable for us. And I mean, I feel like, you know, why is the United States government not doing more to tell Israel, hey, we're giving you this money, we're giving you the support, you have to value civilian life a little bit more.

I just, you know, it blows my mind. Well, listen, on the Wednesday show, I talk about this in some detail and I talk about what is international law with regard to under what grounds would something like that be acceptable? I'm not able to find any specifics about the bombing of the refugee camp that would make it acceptable. I completely agree with you that it's the sort of thing to handle with special forces. I do think it's worth mentioning that when Israel does use special forces for operations in Gaza, there's a whole bunch of people who then go, that's illegal. They're not allowed in there.

They were supposed to have withdrawn in 2006. That's completely against the law. And so I do think you have to pick your battles. I would much rather the special forces operation so that you don't kill 50 and injure 150 to maybe get one Hamas commander. Then then what what took place? It's important to also remember, Marcus, that there will be people that will flip out if that's the way Israel does it as well. Yeah, I completely agree that, you know, there's no good answer. Yeah. And people are always going to flip out. But that and here's the thing, Marcus, objectively wrong, super 30000 foot level.

Imagine a spectrum on one side is Hamas does what it did on October 7th and Israel literally does nothing. They do nothing, nothing, nothing. OK, that's one side of the spectrum. The other side of the spectrum is Hamas does what it did on October 7th and Israel destroys Gaza, period, and then annexes it. OK, let's imagine those are the sides of the spectrum. I know only a few bloodthirsty right wingers who want that latter option. I know very few people who believe that the option would be Israel does absolutely nothing. And so once you've said, OK, we need to find some point in the middle. What is the acceptable amount of whatever that Israel can and should do? That's really where the conversation is. And I tend to lean more

towards the special forces side rather than the airstrikes side. I'm also not making these decisions. I'm not a military expert. There's a million, right? I mean, who, who the hell am I? But the bulk of the conversation really should be focused on sort of like between special forces, small operations only. And what Israel is doing, that sort of, to me, seems to be like the spectrum that's reasonable. Whereas when you go beyond that into like do nothing or destroy Gaza completely, we're wasting a lot of time being on those edges of the spectrum, I think. Yeah. And I'll just add one more nuance. I know you have a plethora of different colors to go to, so I won't try to take too much of your time.

No, you're doing great. I think looking at the context of 9-11 and the United States' response to 9-11, if you're looking at that spectrum, if you're looking for an optimal response to a heinous terrorist attack, it's got to be a little bit somewhere between what we did in 9-11 and not responding at all. And I would say that refugee camps should hospitals. That's a situation where you have to do something that's a little bit more surgical than just dropping a huge bomb. All right. Marcus from Chicago, really appreciate your insights. Thank you. All right. There goes Marcus. We are going to go next to Pam from Florida. Pam, welcome to the show. What's going on today? Speaker 6

I hear me. Speaker 1 Yeah, you sound kind of like you're underwater. Speaker 5 I can see. I thought I saw the line. How are you, David? Yeah. So still on Gaza, but not about the war, more about how it's affecting the possibilities of losing voters for Joe Biden based on the retaliation. And it obviously mainly affecting thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent people in Gaza, you know, and people seeing the carnage now. And somebody like Sean King, who's, you know, hugely popular and has almost 5 million followers and has, you know, given his word that he will never vote for Biden based on this. I am concerned that I will vote against Trump no matter what and any other Republican at this point. But do you see a lot of people, you know, not now wanting to vote for Biden, looking at him as part of, you know, this along with the leader of Israel being the one that's allowing this carnage to happen.

So listen, I know the polls you're referring to, and I think it's still an open question as to to what degree will Joe Biden's support be eroded based on the position he's taken on this Israeli Hamas conflict? I do want to mention one thing. You mentioned Sean King. I am not a Sean King fan. I think if you research Sean King's lack of financial transparency regarding money he raises for social justice causes, problems with management regarding former employees and colleagues, accuracy and truthfulness, personal behavior, his motives. I think that he's sort of the worst type of activist for the left.

And I would rather, you know, just I wouldn't even be talking about Sean King one way or the other. I just don't. It's just it's not for me. The reason why I brought that up is because the five million followers. Yeah, he has a lot of followers. Sure. He's saying that these people are going to see a lot.

I see a lot of people saying, well, forget him now. Yeah. Regardless of the consequences of not our vote will mean another vote for Trump. They don't at this point. How many people is he can bring over? We need every single vote. We need every single vote. So here's my take right now, Pam.

Here's my take right now. I do think that, listen, there's 330 something million people in the United States. There are some people who might otherwise have voted for Joe Biden in November who won't because they don't like how he's handling the Israeli Hamas situation. I'm sure that that group exists. The vast majority, if and when Donald Trump becomes the nominee, are going to correctly assess that Trump becoming president is so disastrous in its potential consequences that it would be irresponsible to say, I don't like how Biden because, listen, they wouldn't like how Trump would have handled an Israeli Hamas conflict either. I think the number that is actually going to punish Joe Biden

over this a year from now is relatively small. That's my instinct right now. I mean, I hope so. It's just it's awful. And I wish that they would stop the airstrikes because it's just devastating and too many people can witness it now, which. Yeah, and I think it's defeating I think it's destroying some of the new found sympathy that Israel garnered after October 7th as well. Right. Oh, it absolutely has. But then you see, you know, you see you see the bad side of them and there's you know, and of course, it's our extreme right wing leader. But and I just hope they're also comment. I told you, Jack wanted to run. I'm sorry, you said what? He said, I told you, Jack, you wanted. Oh,

Jack. Yeah, no, you were right. I mean, listen, he's right. I still I don't think he's eligible to be president. You were like, I hadn't heard of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you were right. You were right. All right, Pam, thank you for the call. Great to hear from you again. Thank you. All right. There goes Pam from Florida. And let's go to Gina or Gianna from Hampton, Virginia. I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly. Is it is it Gianna or Gina? Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. You're on the air. You're on the air. Gina, you're on the air. I can hear you. OK, sorry. It's actually it's Jenna. Jenna. Oh, all right. Yeah, I know. It's that's my

fault. What's on your mind today? First, I just wanted to say a quick thing before getting to my actual question. But a couple weeks ago, you and Patrick talked about violence against the other side and how the data was kind of surprising. And it was for me, too, but. A couple of years ago, Jenna, I hate to interrupt you, a lot of people don't know what you're referring to because it was on the bonus show and because we have limited time, if you had a question, I would love to skip the two things that you needed as preambles. Just with total respect, I say this. OK, so getting getting to the next thing. I know that Elon has gone a little bit kooky with the whole Twitter thing, but as far as SpaceX goes, I still firmly believe in it and the fact that humanity will probably need to expand, not leave, but expand.

And he talks a lot about the next generations. And I was wondering if you also felt that maybe our new generations, like the younger millennials and the Zers, they don't really want to have children. And if that's. Like on his face, a bad thing. Well, I some of them don't want to have children. Obviously, at some point in about five billion years, the sun will run out of fuel, become a red giant and potentially engulf the earth and vaporize it. So long term, long term, if humans will continue in some form related to what it is now, we're going to need to figure out some path elsewhere because the sun is going to exhaust itself and then that's going to be it. If people stop having kids altogether, that would simply lead to the end of civilization of Homo sapiens sooner. And in order to solve

this issue of the sun expanding to engulf the earth in five billion years, people are going to have to keep keep having kids. Even if fewer people have kids, as long as some people keep having kids, then we may end up in a position to deal with that problem five billion years from now. But yeah, I think that if nobody has kids, obviously we can all mathematically imagine how that also would be the end of Homo sapiens. So a lot to think about. And Jenna, I appreciate the call from Hampton, Virginia. That'll do it for today. But we will take calls again if I have anything to

say about it. And I plan to. Think of your most personal emails. If you're using a free email provider, you should know that they're scanning every email you send and receive even after you delete it. They're usually using the data to build a picture of your life, to show you ads, which many find creepy. Our sponsors startmail, never scans or tracks your emails. Privacy is what comes first. And unlike other email services, when you delete an email and Startmail, it is gone forever. It also protects your data by blocking tracking pixels in emails, which companies and hackers can use to track you. You can create unlimited email aliases to the David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. All right. Let's get into Friday feedback for the week. We look at emails, YouTube comments, tweets. votes. We receive over 20000 different sorts of feedback pieces every work week.

That's like Monday to Friday, plus then weekends. So we only feature a few. And they try. The idea is we try to get a representative sample of the different praise and criticism that is coming in. And we start with some of the most unhinged criticism. I genuinely do not understand this. I don't know what this person's talking about, but this is what we're up against.

This is what Roy wrote in. Kill Biden dot com is a global warming climate change site. It is with a Z, a redirect to co-train. I don't know what that means. Check it out and report unless you're Y-O-U-R a pussy. Kill Biden dot com goes to co-train dot com has a link to Rain Man Tom on the co-train site. The Rain Man Tom site tells how to modify the weather with a water hose, a bathroom air vent exhaust and fire. L.O.L.O.L.O.L.O.L.O.L. Well, I couldn't possibly comment. On the level at which this exists, so I think we will leave it at that. But remember, those folks are allowed to vote. They're allowed to vote. Delaine Harmon says, Where did you get your info?

This is one of the best presidents in history. Referring to Trump, he couldn't have become the millionaire billionaire he is if he was ignorant or never read a book. You don't know what you're talking about. So first of all, you can become a millionaire or a billionaire without reading a book. Trust me, I know many not billionaires, but I know many millionaires who don't read any books. So so your instinct there is wrong, sir or ma'am.

But more importantly, the reason Trump became a billionaire is he started as a millionaire thanks to his dad's money. Mathematically, you can look at if Trump had just dumped the money into the S&P 500, he'd also be doing incredibly well, including actually by some calculations better than he is doing. So this notion that because you've secured a net worth of a million or a billion dollars, you must be reading books. Getting a whole bunch of money from daddy is actually a much better way, I would argue, statistically than than than reading books. You could be reading bad books also. Who knows? Someone named Sabby Sabs says David Pakman is a Zionist. Dismiss anything he says about this subject. As I've mentioned before, this is one of the silliest

arguments that one can make. This is like saying dismiss the arguments of gay people when it comes to LGBT rights. It's just as dumb. And most importantly, if the argument is, by the way, Zionist could mean anything like sometimes when someone says you're a Zionist, you might just think. I don't think wishing for the destruction of Israel or elimination of Israel is legitimate Zionist. Now, some people who are Zionists believe that Israel should take over all the land that is currently the West Bank and Gaza. I don't believe that. I actually think there should be a Palestinian state. But you should be very suspicious when you see that word, because it can mean a million different things or nothing at all. But as I said before,

if anyone who is Jewish, that's what I said before, if anyone who is Jewish, that's what she really means. If anyone who is Jewish can't have their opinion considered with regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict because they have a, quote, stake in the game, then by definition, anyone who's Palestinian also must be ignored because they also have a stake in the game. It's one of the dumbest arguments usually comes from left wingers. I don't know who this person is from a hole in the wall, but usually comes from left wingers. Very, very silly argument, easily defeated the sign of an unserious person. When you see it Next comment. Do you teach the kids the science between the unlimited number of genders they can choose?

Maybe you can help them transition to a cat or dog or whatever they feel like that day. This is a reaction to my new children's book. Think like a scientist. The book doesn't go into gender. This is not a show where we talk about lists of genders you can choose or transitioning to an animal or anything like that. This is a show where we talk about respecting everybody, treating everybody the way we'd want to be treated. And we're going to continue doing that. So you can figure out for yourself if the book has anything you find inappropriate in it. You can check out

a preview of the book of all of the children's books I've written at David Pakman dot com slash. And that's a forward slash book user true slicky posted to the David Pakman show subreddit. Nobody tell Jenk. Presumably Jenk Uyghur. Nobody tell Jenk that Biden has outraised all Republican candidates combined over the last quarter might just prick whatever balloon Jenk is hiding in and let unwanted reality challenges narrative that nobody wants Biden to continue for a second term. Yeah, listen, this is not about Jenk to me. This is something else.

It's really easy to say no one's excited about voting for 80 year old Biden. I can't really comment on that. What I can tell you is I am extraordinarily motivated to prevent Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis or any of these lunatics from getting four years in the Oval Office. So you could say, oh, but David, you're voting against Trump and you're not really voting for Joe Biden. Who cares? OK, we have candidates. We say who's better, who's worse. I'm going to vote for whoever is better. Biden's better than Trump. Biden's better than DeSantis. And so I am very motivated and maybe excited is the right word to do what I can to prevent Trump from being the

president. The chips can fall where they fall and we can leave it there. Randall wrote in about Lauren Boebert and said, again, you speak about Lauren Boebert, but not about literally more than half of the Democrats who have done worse things. The double standards you have are crazy. Well, Randall, tell me which Democrats I'm not talking about. When it was Anthony Weiner, we talked about him. When it was the congressman with the bricks of cash in his freezer, Democrat, I forget his name. We talked about him when it was Senator Menendez. We talked about him. Tell me which Democrats am I not talking about that are doing more outrageous behaviors than Lauren Boebert? I'd love to know because I think I've talked about all of them. Marvin Whitler asks, Dave,

what's the difference between running a drag show to make money and then writing book telling kids it's all right to be gay for money. What is this person talking about? I guess they're saying that if I write a book that says to kids it's OK to be gay. That I'm just as bad as someone running a drag show. I don't think running drag shows is bad. I also don't do it. I don't think telling kids it's all right to be gay is bad. That's also not a topic in my children's books. So as usual. Confusion meets ignorance meets weaponized intentions. A lot of commentary about the book, actually, Daniel wrote in and said this guy's next book should be named Think Like a Psychiatrist, but then you would have to

diagnose the mental disorder of liberalism. Wow. Really well thought out, you know, really, really, really well thought out. And lastly, I got a ton of feedback about the vegan caller who challenged me to a debate. And here is one reaction from Quincy. Quincy says, as a vegan who is also a David Pakman show supporter, I do not want David to debate debate veganism. Veganism is one of those areas where I think it's OK to agree to disagree. It's a shame that some militant vegans try to harass anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle, diet or worldview. While I do think it would benefit the environment and the world, if people move toward a more plant based diet, I know that it's not for everyone. So the overwhelming majority of

respondents said they don't want me to do the vegan debate, not all for this particular reason, but overwhelmingly, people said for a number of different reasons that they don't think the vegan debate is worth it. To be totally honest, I already have decided I'm not doing it. So you don't need to continue writing in about the vegan debate. It's just it's just not an interesting debate to have for me on this show. And the vast majority of the audience seems to be on the same page. So that'll be that. That is the final adjudication on the vegan debate, at least for now. And if something changes that makes me want to do a vegan debate on the show, then we will do it.

And I will let you know if that happens. Info at David Pakman dot com. You can write in. Remember that following this is, of course, the Daily Bonus show. We do a bonus show every weekday for our members. You can sign up at join Pakman dot com and you can also use the coupon code four years for indictments. All one word, four years for indictments with the number four to get a 50 percent discount. So I hope to see you on the bonus show. If that is not in our futures collectively, then I'll see you back here

on Monday.