The David Pakman Show - 11/8/22: Election Day, They're Claiming Fraud, Future Is at Stake

Episode Date: November 8, 2022

-- On the Show: -- Andrew Seidel, civil rights and constitutional attorney with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and author of the new book "American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom," joins David to discuss the weaponization and politicization of the Supreme Court. Get the book: https://amzn.to/3Efvvk8 -- The future of the United States of America is at stake in today's 2022 midterm elections -- The pollsters this year in particular really do not know what is going to happen in today's 2022 midterm elections -- Republicans are already suing to have mail-in ballots thrown out in multiple states -- Donald Trump's lawyer Christina Bobb admits that they are going to claim fraud at the first opportunity as election results come in today and tomorrow -- Fox News doctor Marc Siegel wildly claims that Democratic Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman will either have another stroke or die in office if elected to the US Senate -- Donald Trump holds his final rally before the 2022 midterm election in Ohio in support of JD Vance, and it is truly horrifying -- Anti-transgender activist Matt Walsh appears on the Joe Rogan program and is confronted with facts when spreading obvious lies -- Voicemail caller asks whether our correspondent Luke Beasley is safe going to Donald Trump rallies to interview people -- On the Bonus Show: Nancy Pelosi says retirement decision will be influenced by attack on husband, Facebook parent Meta plans to lay off thousands, Nike suspends relationship with Kyrie Irving over antisemitic post, much more... 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman 🌿 Sunset Lake CBD: Get 20% OFF using code PAKMAN at https://sunsetlakecbd.com 🌳 Established Titles: Code PAKMAN for extra 10% OFF at https://establishedtitles.com/pakman 🧻 Reel Paper: Use code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman 🌳 Use code PAKMAN for 20% off HoldOn plant-based bags at https://holdonbags.com 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 82% OFF + 3 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanfinance -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 It is Election Day 2022, and as is often the case on election days in the United States, everyone has their take. Everyone has their view. Everyone likes to say this is the one thing that this is really all about. It's really, you know, in times past, it's really a referendum on Trump or this is really about corporations versus individuals or whatever. And almost always there really is no one thing. And so I've resisted that type of language. But this time there really kind of is the one big thing. The one big thing at stake here today is are we going to make a move in the direction of being for democracy where the candidate that gets the most votes wins and assumes office

without controversy? Or are we going to make another move away from democracy where even if you don't get the most votes, people claim you should still assume the office you ran for and they may even be able to make it a reality if we aren't careful and if we don't make the correct votes today, that is fundamentally what today's election is about. Imagine 2050, 100 years from now and think about today as an inflection point. One story that could be told is, well, Trump came to power in 2016.

He was defeated in 2020 after a very dangerous four years of insanity. And then the MAGA movement moved in in 2022, took over the Senate and or House, a bunch of the governor's houses. Then as a result of that, was able to steal an election in 2024, leading to the end of American democracy as we knew it in 2028 and on downhill from there. Right. That's one story that if we think about today as an inflection point could be told 2050, 100 years from now, there's a different story which could be told again because it's an inflection point. It could be Trump did come to power in 2016 and then was defeated in 2020 after that very same dangerous four years of insanity. But then in 2022, a little bit of

sanity returned. There's still tens of millions of lunatics and we see them all the time, but a little bit just enough sanity returned that the tens of millions of anti-democracy lunatics were defeated on November 8th, 2022. Absolute disaster was just barely averted. And then things got onto a more logical path in 26 and in 24, 26, 28, et cetera. It's a divergence point. It's an inflection point. And those are two possible stories that could be told.

Consider these contrasts. Rolling Stone's Aza Win subsang and Patrick Rice are reporting that, quote, Trump is calling Republicans to ask how many times they will impeach Biden if they win tonight. Think of that. Now, on the other hand, Joe Biden and Barack Obama have been touring the country saying we need to save democracy. This is not fundamentally about should the top tax rate on the richest Americans be 35, 37 or 39 percent? That's a question. It's a perfectly reasonable question. And at times past, we talked a lot about questions like that. We're dealing with something very

different here. OK, now, by the way, in the meantime, Joe Biden is predicting that Democrats win on the basis of an improving economy. That's also possible. We just don't know. Based on the polling right now, the pollsters really don't know. And we're going to talk about that next. But before we do that, I really hope every single one of you that votes in the United States has already voted or is planning to vote. And I keep getting this in my email. David, I care about what's happening,

but one vote never makes a difference. These elections never come down to one vote. So it's really hard to feel like my vote actually matters. And I've been talking about this on our streams lately. I understand that feeling. I think the same thing. When has a gubernatorial race or a Senate race come down to a single vote? Therefore, my vote doesn't matter. Wrong. The way you have to think about it is as follows. Tons of people have that thought. Tons of people consider staying home because it never comes down to one vote. And they all say my vote isn't going to make the difference here. Think about that as a group you're a part of. And once you think about it that way, elections often come down to do the people who wonder,

is my vote going to make a difference? Does that constituency, does that group stay home or vote? We all have that thought. If every one of us who thought it never comes down to a one vote, I'll stay home. If we all do stay home, we lose a bunch of elections that we could win. OK, so don't fall for my vote doesn't make a difference. That's another way that these right wingers like to suppress the vote. Don't let them do it. We'll have results live tonight on YouTube, Twitch and Facebook starting at 730 Eastern 430 on the West Coast.

All right. The pollsters really don't know what's going to happen tonight. And I have been a defender of polling to the extent that we understand the methodology being used. You might remember that the right loves to say the pollsters got it really wrong in 2016. They really didn't. The national popular vote polls said it would be a three point margin by which Hillary would win. And Hillary won by a little over two points in the national popular vote. The polling was correct, but it did not correctly get the electoral vote because that came down to very

small margins in a few states. So the the general overarching attacks on polling, I'm not big on them. They're not super interesting to me. But it is true that in these particular midterms, the polls may not reflect what's going to happen tonight. There's a very good Daily Beast article called Pollsters Have No Effing Idea What's Going to Happen This Election. And it says pollsters and election handicappers are very worried they could be wrong in decisive ways for the 2022 midterms. Now, this is a this is a the this is a result of

two big things. Number one, the margins, particularly in the Senate, are expected to be very small. So when your most likely outcome is one party has 51 seats or the other party has 51 seats, that's already a range that only comes down to a couple of seats. Many of these races are super close. Oz Fetterman is a tie. Walker Warnock is a tie. That's your Senate right there. That's your all else being equal.

Those two races that are ties determine who controls the Senate. So because it's very close, even a small margin of error can be one party controls the Senate or another party controls the Senate. The other thing that's going on is that there are growing issues and you can read the article. We'll link to it. There are growing issues with the polling in two particular ways. A lot of the aggregators like Real Clear Politics are using a lot of overtly right wing pollsters in their calculations. So just for example, like if you look at Walker Warnock, you see that Trafalgar is being included in the average. Trafalgar is a known right leaning

pollster. So is that throwing off the numbers? That's one thing. And then number two, to some degree, you know, a lot of people don't pick up calls from unknown numbers at all anymore. And there is starting to be aside from the stuff that's done online for the phone stuff, there's starting to potentially be a sort of self-selection bias in the people that are interested in getting on the phone and talking to a pollster. And it can include people who want to sway the polls in a particular way. OK, so the point here is it's Election Day. Ignore the polls. But also the polls really may not be telling us what's going to happen tonight. Now, here's the danger of this right wing skew to the polls, if indeed there is one. You know, we're going to look at

clips later. The right is telling us they're going to claim fraud. They're going to do it. They're going to claim fraud. And one of the ways they may claim that fraud is by saying, did you see the polls leading up to the election? You expect us to believe that despite the polls, all these Democrats won. Now, these are the very same people who in elections past say you can't trust the polls, but they are going to weaponize this right wing push polling to say, look at the polls and look at what you tell us was the actual

vote. That's not believable. It must have been rigged. That's the danger. We will have results in a few hours and then we can put the polling question aside. Republicans are already suing to throw out mail in ballots. OK, today is Election Day 2022. Republicans aren't even waiting. They're already suing to get thousands of mail in ballots thrown out. There's a good Washington Post piece about this. Republicans sue to disqualify thousands of mail in ballots in swing states. The lawsuits coincide with a systemic effort by Republican leaders to persuade voters to cast ballots in person and not absentee. Critics are calling it a concerted attempt at partisan voter suppression. Of course it is. In Pennsylvania, we've talked about this before. The state Supreme Court has agreed with the RNC.

Election officials should not count ballots on which the voter neglected to write a date on the outer envelope, even if the ballots arrive before Election Day. Thousands of ballots have been set aside as a result, enough to swing a close race. That could be your race right there. In Michigan, Christina Karamo, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, sued the top election official in Detroit last month seeking to toss absentee ballots not cast in person with an I.D., even though that runs contrary to state requirements. Understand that's not what the requirements say must be done.

When asked in a court hearing, Karamo's lawyer declined to say why the suit is only targeting the city of Detroit, a heavily Democratic majority black city and not the entire state. I wonder why. I wonder why. And in Wisconsin, Republicans won a court ruling that will prevent some mail in ballots from being counted when the required witness address is not complete. Look at some of the things they've done this election cycle alone, continued gerrymandering based on the 2020 census. Of course, that's the default. Some of it has been has been blocked.

Some of it has succeeded. Eliminate polling places in minority neighborhoods to create long lines. So disproportionately Democratic voters might say the lines too long. I got to go because I have a life. I have a job. I have kids. I have errands. OK, make job. I have kids. I have errands. OK, make it illegal to give people water when they are waiting in line. Again, dissuade

them from sticking around to vote, but only do only try to have it enforced in certain areas. Sue to stop mail in voting altogether. Sue to have mail in ballots thrown out as they are doing here. And then, of course, as we saw in Arizona, have armed poll watchers at polling places to intimidate, but only certain polling places. OK, it's not happening, you know, for all of the conspiracy theories about secret cabals and subterfuge that we're not aware, you know, all these different things. It's all happening in the open. It's all happening in the open. And so I

hope that you were able to vote without incident. After the break, we're going to talk about a Trump lawyer admitting, oh, we're going to claim fraud as soon as there's any delay in getting results, which there will be because of how the state laws are set up. But I hope you were able to vote. If you weren't, if you had problems, email info at David Pakman dot com. And we will highlight some of those stories if there are any. Hopefully there aren't. Butman dot com. And we will highlight some of those stories if there are any. Hopefully there aren't. But if there are any, we will highlight some of those stories on tonight's results stream. Make sure that you are subscribed on YouTube and that you are following on Twitch or Facebook. Those are the three platforms where we will be streaming tonight,

starting at 730 Eastern. I want to tell you about something I use every day because it simplifies my life. I don't have hours to mathematically plan every meal or take multiple different supplements and vitamins to make sure I'm getting exactly what I want to get every single day. And the solution is our sponsor, Athletic Greens product, AG1. I've been taking AG1 for over a year. It's just great. It's just one small scoop of AG1 in the morning. I get 75 vitamins, minerals, probiotic, all from whole food sources. It's what I want. It's no more. It's no less. It's no extraneous stuff making wild claims. I drink it straight with water because I like the taste. You can put it in a smoothie or juice or a shake. It's just simple.

AG1 is a sustainable routine because it's just one scoop in the morning. Takes one minute once a day. I know I'm covered and getting what I want. I can really be sure that I am properly nourishing my body with the things I'm trying to get. That's the most important part. Athletic Greens knows I'm a vitamin D guy. I've talked about in the winter. I take vitamin D to make up for the lack of sun exposure. I take that every day as well. I've mentioned it on the show.

And so Athletic Greens is giving you a free year of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. When you go to athletic greens dot com slash Pacman, that's athletic greens dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. One of our sponsors is Sunset Lake CBD, giving you 20 percent off when you go to Sunset Lake CBD dot com and use the code Pacman. Unlike other companies using these cheap synthetic cannabinoids, Sunset Lake CBD extracts natural CBD oil from hemp grown on their family farm outside Burlington,

Vermont. Sunset Lake CBD believes this transparent farm to table approach is the best way to spread the benefits of CBD. But don't just take their word for it. A certified third party lab tests every product to ensure accurate dosing. You can easily view the results yourself at Sunset Lake CBD dot com. Just click on the quality tests tab. A lot of people report CBD being useful for things like insomnia, stress, pain. Producer Pat uses Sunset Lake CBD gummies for sleep. He loves them. I've had their CBD coffee. It's excellent. They also have oils, flour, topicals. Maybe you've been thinking of giving CBD a try. Sunset Lake is where you want to go. They support the David Pakman show. They're socially responsible as a company.

Go to Sunset Lake CBD dot com and use code Pakman for 20 percent off your entire order. The info is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show podcast, YouTube channel, radio show, TV show and live streaming all is primarily funded by people in the audience. You go to join Pakman dot com. You get a membership. It's quick, it's easy and it's great. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad.

We do a daily bonus show. Alex Jones, who sells, you know, other things, is furious about the fact that what we offer is just extra content. That's not a joke. That's not an Alex Jones impersonator. That's really Alex Jones furious about the bonus show. Get instant access to the bonus show. Get the commercial free audio and video feeds every day. Get the invitations to the members only live town

halls with me and anger Alex Jones by virtue of supporting progressive independent media at join Pacman dot com. Today is the last day for the coupon code big to go far. Or speculate. To know or predict what the MAGA right is going to do tonight and tomorrow and over the next few days when it comes to the election results, they are going to claim fraud. How do we know this? Because they're telling us, much like we figured out in the summer of 2020, that the Trump campaign was going to be claiming fraud over mail in ballots and other things in the 2020 election. that the Trump campaign was going to be claiming fraud over mail-in ballots and other things in the 2020 election. They're telling us they're going to do it.

Here is Trump lawyer Christina Bob, who also is an anchor on the right wing channel right side broadcasting. This is last night in Vandalia, Ohio. And she says if any results are delayed beyond early in the morning tomorrow morning, they are going to claim fraud. Listen to this. We do have a better chance of knowing who won and who lost an election. I think so.

I expect to know who won by like the middle of the night, maybe very, very early Wednesday morning if we don't. And if Democrats try to extend the vote, I think they're going to have a very, very hard time doing it with any level of credibility. Speaker 1 All right. Now, did you see what she just did there? She did. She slipped something in that's totally incoherent. She says if we don't have the results early tomorrow morning. And Democrats try to extend the vote. No one is this is no one's extending the vote. OK, extending the vote is allowing more time for people to vote.

It's that's not even an issue here. OK, she's already mixing two different things and they love to do this. One thing is just allowing people to continue. The rules are clear. You have to get your absentee ballots in. If you're in line at the time that polls close, you're allowed to vote. And beyond that, that's it. Separately, there's the issue of how quickly your votes counted. And we'll get back to that in a moment. In 2020, they were able to do it because they claimed covid and they had this excuse, which we all know was baloney because they had to go find more ballots and do all of their ballot harvesting. None of that happened. That's just a lie. There's no evidence for that whatsoever. But I think it's going to be

really hard to do tomorrow because everybody knows what you should be. There's no reason you can't have a tally in the first state. Let's say there's four million voters in Michigan or Ohio and they get through three and a half million by midnight. You're telling me you can't get through another half million in a couple hours. I mean, it's a no brainer. Yeah. Now, what she doesn't mention is that the reason that in a lot of the states they stop counting at a certain time or it takes a long time is because of rules that Republican legislatures and secretaries of state have put in place. Many states, as a result of laws enabled by Republican legislatures, aren't allowed to even start counting mail in ballots until after the polls close. You could have the mail in ballots counted as they come in

or at designated times. You could say, OK, on November 7th, we'll count everything that's come in and we'll get a very good jump start on getting those final numbers. Republican legislatures in many cases say we don't touch. We don't count anything until the polls close. In other states, the legislatures decide you stop counting at a certain time, 10, 11 p.m., midnight, and you don't start until the next day, no matter how close you are. So Christina Bob now wants to make it seem it's very suspicious. I mean, listen, if you're almost done counting at midnight, just keep counting. They pass laws saying that you can't do that. And it is almost certain that. Listen, we have to know what to expect.

If Pennsylvania is close and it may be very Shapiro is going to easily defeat Mastriano, but Oz Fetterman could be very close. We could be talking about hundreds or thousands of votes making the difference. When they stop counting. We're not going to know. And there's not going to be anything inherently suspicious about that. These are the rules that the state legislature put in place. So they are telling us what they're planning to do.

They are going to use this to try to steal some races, as they did in 2020. And we have to be prepared. There's two things from a legal standpoint. Democrats have to be prepared to prevent shenanigans. But from an emotional standpoint, we all have to be ready not to react when they go, oh, it's so suspicious. They brought in ham sandwiches at eleven thirty. It was the wrong number of sandwiches. And there were two Orthodox Jews and they still brought ham. And that's very suspicious. It's probably because Fetterman stole it. But we have to remember these these people, they're nuts. OK, and not to get fired up. We know what the processes are in states like this. We went through the Pennsylvania

thing two years ago and not to allow them to rile us up. But they're going to try. They're going to claim fraud. Carrie Lake will claim fraud in Arizona. She'll just claim victory if we don't know the results. If she doesn't win, they're going to do it. They're going to claim fraud. Carrie Lake will claim fraud in Arizona. She'll just claim victory if we don't know the results. If she doesn't win, they're going to do it. They're telling us that they're going to do it. I'm going to play for you something horribly irresponsible. Fox News Dr. Mark Siegel went on Tucker Carlson's show last night and in a sort of final salvo to try to hurt John Fetterman said John Fetterman is either going to have another stroke while in office or even will die in office. He says he's statistically he's not going to survive a six year term as senator. As many of you may know, Oz versus Fetterman, Pennsylvania Senate race. John Fetterman suffered a stroke

some months ago. Everything that we have seen from his doctors and everything we can glean from when we see Fetterman writing, for example, it's abundantly clear that he is cognitively fine. However, the stroke has left him with a deficit in terms of auditory processing, converting things that he hears into meaningful messages instantly the way we all do and turning what he wants to say into coherent speech. He sometimes struggles with that. And Mark Siegel went on and said this, this guy is not even going to survive a term. And I'll tell you in a moment where where the information is coming from. And of course, remember that Mark Siegel is not Fetterman's doctor.

He is not well positioned to really comment on this. And Fetterman himself has said that his stroke was due to a blood clot from the heart. That is very significant, Tucker, because a study out of a journal called Stroke, very prominent journal looking at over 6,000 people from Great Britain, have found that if your blood clot comes from the heart, you have about less than a 60% chance, more than a 60% chance of either not living five years or

having another stroke within those five years, greater than 60 percent chance. So I say to the voters of Pennsylvania tonight who are ready to check a box tomorrow. Yeah, he's he's a doctor, but he's telling voters how to vote. OK, I think before you check a box, you should consider a statistic like that greater than 60 percent chance that someone like Fetterman with a heart in his condition, having had a stroke, will either have a recurrence or won't survive the term. OK, so, Tucker, it's like, why not just I mean, this happened in May. They had time to put a real candidate in it. OK, so let's go through this. First of all, imagine if CNN did a segment like this

about any Republican. Just just just imagine what would be happening if they did that. That's number one. Secondly, where did the doctor get this information? I don't know. He talks about a British study. I was not able to find that study. The study I was able to find on stroke survival rates is from Denmark, and it did not include 6000 people that included 5000 people, and it included 5000 people who suffered strokes between 1982 and 1991. So first and foremost, it's a period that started 40 years ago and ended 30 years ago. So right away, we should be saying, OK, has stroke treatment and recovery improved in the last 30 to 40 years? And the answer is absolutely. So if again, we don't know what study he death increases to 60 percent in the five years

following certain types of strokes for this group who suffered strokes between 1982 and 1991. Now, the problem with assessing Fetterman in this way is that the mortality is overwhelmingly skewed to people in their 80s, followed by people in their 70s, followed by people in their 60s. OK, so Fetterman's 53. So right away, you've got to take that 60 percent and say this was based on treatment 30 to 40 years ago. The mortality is heavily skewed to the 80, 70 and 60 year olds.

OK, but what's the most important thing here? The most important thing is that this is a very dangerous road to go down. If you want to just play statistical games. Let me explain. Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa, up for reelection. He's 89 years old. How likely is it? Remember, folks, we're we're just looking at the numbers.

Facts don't care about your feelings. Statistically, 89 year old men, once you make it to 89 years old as a man in the United States, you're likely to live four more years. And the Senate term is six years. Statistically, you can say what Siegel is saying about Fetterman, about Grassley. Grassley, why is anyone? How is this guy? They should have put a real candidate up. Grassley statistically won't survive a term. He will die in office if we elect him. Why is no one talking about that? The reality is these people know there's no rational reason not to vote for Fetterman. There just isn't. Oz isn't even really

from Pennsylvania. He's a moron. He's a quack TV doctor. He's a flip flopper, but not because his views have genuinely changed for good factual reasons. It's because he's putting his finger to the political winds. So they go after Fetterman's character and they go after Fetterman's health in a way where, listen, if we want to play an actuarial game, there is a hell of a lot of Republicans who you should not be electing because statistically they are not likely to survive a six year Senate term. These people are pathetic. And just imagine for a second. Imagine for a second how they would be reacting if CNN did this about a Republican candidate. We'll have this clip and other clips from today's show on our Instagram, which you can

find by searching Instagram for David Pakman show. You can also find my personal Instagram there by searching for David Pakman. If you have a friend or loved one who is passionate about the environment, here is a perfect holiday gift. Our sponsor, Established Titles, is a project that lets you ceremonially purchase as little as one square foot of dedicated land in Edelston, Scotland, so that you can call yourself a lord or a lady like the historic Scottish tradition. Some people even change their plane tickets or credit cards to include lord or lady. Your title pack comes with an official certificate. You can see exactly where your plot of land is located.

It makes a perfect last minute gift. But most importantly, established titles plants one free tree for every plot of land sold. Established titles does really good work all over the world with reforestation organizations like one tree planted and trees for the future. So you'll have a great laugh whether you're Scottish or not. I'm not. Thank you, David. We talk about it all the time. One of the biggest contributors to climate change is deforestation. Did you know that 15 percent of deforestation is due to toilet paper production alone? According to the NRDC. That's why I love our sponsor.

Real paper, real paper makes a sustainable toilet paper, no trees. It uses 100 percent bamboo. A bamboo stock can keep being harvested indefinitely. No deforestation. Real paper is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council for responsible harvesting of the bamboo grass used for their paper. Another contributor to climate change, the plastic that the toilet paper comes wrapped in. That's why real paper involves no plastic packaging. And best of all, real paper looks and feels just like normal, traditional toilet paper. The cost is similar. It is fantastic.

On their website, you can do a one time purchase or set up an easy recurring subscription the way that I did. My audience gets 30 percent off your first order, plus free shipping. Go to real paper dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman at checkout. That's R.E.L. Paper dot com slash Pacman coupon code Pacman for 30 percent off and free shipping. The info is in the podcast notes. It's great to have back on the program today, Andrew Seidel, who's a civil rights and constitutional attorney with Americans United for Separation of Church

and State. His new book is American Crusade, How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom. Andrew, really great to have you back on today. Oh, it's a pleasure to be back. Thank you so much for having me. So you know, we knew we predicted it was sort of written on the wall that after the 2015 Supreme Court decision that said you can no longer ban gay marriage at the state level. It wasn't that the idea of weaponizing homophobia in the law was going to go away.

It was simply going to move to sort of other venues. One of them was going to be attempts at employer discrimination on the basis of religious freedom and sort of using religious freedom. The Baker case, as many have talked about, the cake baker, et cetera. Can you talk a little bit about how the Supreme Court, which is now one of the most conservative Supreme Courts we've had in a while, has assisted in doing exactly this? Oh, absolutely. I mean, religious freedom has long been a shield, right? It's defended the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

It's defended us all against government overreach. And never in our history has it been a license to violate the rights of other people or to infringe their rights in any way. But this packed Supreme Court collaborating with a network of well-funded, powerful Christian nationalist organizations is changing that. And these crusaders, I mean, they are weaponizing religious freedom. And we've seen it for the last decade in case after case. They are literally reshaping the legal meaning of the First Amendment. And they're turning that protection into a weapon that conservative Christians can use to injure other people, to violate their rights, and to impose their religion on us all. And so American Crusade, the new book, tells the true stories behind those blockbuster cases that are actually rewriting our constitution.

And it does so without the legalese and jargon that we lawyers like to hide behind, because I really wanted everybody to be able to understand the threat and see just how radical and dangerous these crusaders and this the Supreme Court opinions truly are. And explaining these without legalese is often so important just for getting the average person to understand what's kind of fundamentally at issue. So let's talk about the so-called gay wedding cake case, which is Masterpiece Cake Shop of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Ultimately, in in layperson's terms, why did the court rule in favor of the baker who did not want to bake the cake? Essentially, the court manufactured hostility against the bakery's religion. What what the court said was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission,

which is in charge of enforcing the state civil rights law, basically was mean and said mean things about the baker's religion. And that tainted the whole process. And effectively, what it did was it gave the baker a get out of jail free card. Now, it didn't decide the central issue, does religious freedom equal a license to discriminate? And a big part of that is because Charlie and David, the couple involved in this case, really did a great job of speaking out about it, putting a face on this discrimination. And it made it difficult, I think, for the court to make that decision. I will say that the court is considering a case right now, 303 Creative versus Alanis, out of Colorado, that is going to decide that issue, at least on the First Amendment free speech grounds, probably this term.

And there is no couple that's been discriminated against. I think the court's going to finally do what it was that have to do with crosses and, you know, Ten Commandments plaques and sorts of things on public lands and or at government buildings? Like, is is there ever a time when that is acceptable, even though it appears to be an establishment of one particular religion over others and over non-religion by the government? And what is the Supreme Court said about that? I mean, historically, the Supreme Court's actually been pretty good about, for the most part, striking down these overt religious expressions, except that we've seen that change in the last few years, especially with the Bladensburg Cross case that we saw. Now, I mean,

one of the things that was really striking to me in writing this is, first of all, I've been in the trenches fighting these cases for a decade. I mean, this is my career. I've litigated these cases. I've briefed them. I've been in front of courts arguing these cases. And the thing that I think a lot of people don't understand, it's partly because this is part of the crusade, is that these questions are actually really simple to answer for the most part. Like when religion and the law collide, the answers to the questions raised are not that difficult for us to figure out. And I draw three simple lines in the book, you know, synthesizing basically 200 plus years of precedent. And the third line is the separation of church and state. And it's pretty simple. Our government has no religion to exercise. So putting up a cross

on government property is inappropriate. And I think a lot of times we talk about the separation of church and state in vague terms and not in terms that actually impact people in their everyday lives. And it really is at its most basic level, an abuse of power. When that line is violated, you have a public official abusing state power to impose their personal religion on other people. And that's a big problem. And that's what, for instance, what we saw in the case of the praying football coach this past term at the court. This is a state actor abusing his power to impose his personal religion on other people's kids. And you have the Supreme Court rubber stamping it and saying, yeah, we're cool with that. Yeah, we've been covering that since the beginning. So if I recall, the most recent

news on that is that the prayer was OK at the at the center, at the 50 yard line. It was not sort of coercive, despite the fact that this was the coach in a position of power and authority and that it's totally obvious that football players, high school kids might reasonably feel that if they don't participate, maybe playing time is jeopardized, that they are they are in a position of subservience, for lack of a better term there. And apparently the decision is that it was actually OK and the coach is going to be reinstated, if I recall correctly. You do. And there are a couple of things to hit on. So first of all, this is one of the cases that I cover in the book. And I actually have an update on my website going over all of the newest material that's been coming out. And in that case, we know for a fact that students felt

pressured, right? There's no question. Students felt pressured by their coach. They felt that they had to pray to play. And you actually had the crusader involved in this case, First Liberty Institute, which is the Christian nationalist organization that brought the case all the way to the Supreme Court. You have them spinning what one of the lower judges called a, quote, deceitful narrative. Right. And they're making up this this idea of, oh, he's just saying a private personal prayer on the 50 yard line, surrounded by students, surrounded by staff. I mean, it's ridiculous to the point where in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is including photographs to show that this is a deceitful narrative. In the lower courts,

one of the judges actually puts the claims that First Liberty Institute makes in this chart beside what actually happened in reality. But the crazy thing about it, and which to me highlights the fact that our court is packed and gone and is complicit in this crusade is that first liberty institute instead of running and hiding and burying their head in the sand after a judge said they were spinning a deceitful narrative they appealed to the supreme court and the supreme court adopted the ultra conservative block on the supreme court rather adopted that deceitful narrative wholesale. They just lied to us all. When you look at the current Supreme Court, I know that it can be hard to say this

overall, but maybe specifically as it applies to the areas that you're talking about here. Is this the most right wing Supreme Court that there has been in? I mean, how long? I mean, certainly our generation, for sure. I mean, this is one of the things though, that I think we really need to do. And this is what I tried to do in American crusade is we have to unshackle our minds from the belief that the Supreme court is an impartial arbiter of truth and justice. The crusade depends upon people believing this myth, but look, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump and Leonard Leo, they cheated and stole and packed the courts to put their collaborators in place, not because those collaborators would administer justice even handedly, but because they wouldn't. Specifically because they wouldn't. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, if they if they just wanted justice administered even handedly, Merrick Garland would have gotten a hearing. Instead, they spent five540 million packing the court with people they knew would decide cases in their way. But to answer your question, I think what we're actually seeing is a very conservative, regressive institution returning to its mean. I mean, this is one of the things that came across when I was researching the book. The Supreme Court historically is a very conservative body. We think of it as the Warren Court. We think of it as the court that gave us Brown versus Board of Education and Miranda versus Arizona and Gideon versus Wainwright, which says that you have a right to counsel when you are accused of a crime. But that's kind of

the outlier in our court's history. This is the court of Plessy versus Ferguson and separate is equal, of Dred Scott and fugitive slave laws, of trying to suffocate the New Deal in the cradle after it was won with the blood of so many Americans during the Civil War, of Japanese internment camps, of Muslim bands, of billionaires and corporations and political gerrymandering and vote suppression, and now of abolishing abortion and reproductive freedom in the name of their narrow religious beliefs. So this is the most conservative court in our lifetimes, but certainly not in the lifetime of this country. Last thing I wanted to ask you about. There were so many cases, particularly early during the covid pandemic, related to restrictions on public gatherings and also in some cases related to masks and other things.

And individuals would start to assert religious arguments, for example, that the gathering was really a religious gathering due to opposition based on religion to some of the guidelines that were put in place or religious claims related to masks or vaccines or whatever the case may be. Can you talk a little bit about that in the context of these other things that we're talking about. And is it similar? Is it bogus? How does a court how does the current court think about such claims in that context? So this is actually one of one of the chapters that I spent a lot of time on because it really

does crystallize and highlight exactly the problem with this crusade and how fallacious it is at its most basic level. So I go through all the COVID cases, the big COVID cases that hit the Supreme Court, both before and after Amy Coney Barrett, which is kind of the tipping point. And one of the things that became really clear is that it's all kind of nonsense. If you look at the other First Amendment claims that are made, free speech claims, free assembly claims, all of those cases failed. All of those cases failed. The only cases that won were religious freedom claims. And they only won before Trump judges and Republican appointed judges.

Like 80% of the time they won before Trump judges, 50% of the time before Republican judges and never before a Democrat appointed judge, which is the right call, by the way, and is what our precedent says. I mean, there's very clear precedent going back 100 years saying that your religious freedom does not include a right to risk the health and safety of every other citizen in this country, especially during a pandemic. I mean, this is a very clear line, right? This is what I'm talking about with the weaponizing of religious freedom. They are turning that protection into a weapon to harm and impose on others and violate their rights. And nothing could be more clear than that, than saying during a pandemic, you can risk everybody else's lives. The book is excellent. It's called American Crusade, How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom.

There are signed copies available using the link that we'll put in the video description on YouTube. We have been speaking with the book's author, Andrew Seidel, who is a civil rights and constitutional attorney. Andrew, always great having you on. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Always a pleasure, my friend.

Plastic is everywhere we look and not enough is being done about it. One hundred billion plastic bags are used and thrown away every year, but you can help make a change. Our sponsor, Hold On, makes trash and kitchen bags that are heavy duty, plant based, non-toxic and 100 percent home compostable, which means they break down in weeks rather than decades. They don't fill up our landfills. They don't pollute our oceans. They're zip seal kitchen bags come in sandwich or gallon bag sizes to fit your needs. And the best part about hold on bags is they work. I use them at home. They're just as good as all of the name brand bags. You fill them up, they stretch and The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. your part. Go shop plant based bags to replace single use plastics all over your home. You'll save 20 percent when you go to hold on bags dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. You already know that you need a VPN to protect your privacy

from your Internet provider, from tech platforms, from hackers, and you've seen a ton of ads for different VPNs. They seem similar. Which one do you choose? There's really one thing I look at. Can it be independently verified that the VPN isn't logging your activity? That's why when we were looking for a VPN sponsor, we reached out to private Internet access because private Internet access is the only VPN with a no log policy that has been proven in court not once but multiple times. Their VPN is 100 percent open source. The code is public.

Their server networks and management systems are independently audited by Deloitte to verify there is no logging with their new next gen server set up. It's also one of the only VPNs fast enough for streaming and other activities. My audience gets private Internet access for 82 percent off. That's just two dollars and 11 cents a month, plus three months free. Go to PIA VPN dot com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. Donald Trump held his final unhinged extreme lunatic rally in front of a crowd of sycophants last night in Vandalia, Ohio. And there were rumors that he was going to announce his 2024

candidacy. Trump did make an announcement of a further announcement and a lot of people highly titillated by this. Take a look at Trump's big announcement. Speaker 5 I'm going to be making a very big announcement on Tuesday, November 15 at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Florida. OK, so. By all reasonable assessments, next Tuesday, Trump will be announcing that he is running for the Republican presidential nomination in twenty twenty four. This was a particularly disgusting rally.

The energy was extra dangerous. One of the targets of Trump in the last few days has been Nancy Pelosi. And it is quite horrifying. We will get to that momentarily. Donald Trump insisting, you know, maybe he should be given back the nuclear codes in his socks. Nothing happened to him except a great verdict. He's got a great verdict. We go by that verdict, the socks verdict. But no, he had it in his socks. You know that. And others took many, many documents. They take them out of the White House.

They took documents. I'm the only one that can't take anything. But maybe our country would be better off if I actually had the nuclear codes, J.D., because our enemies would be afraid, unlike the way they are now. If I had to think about what he's saying, he's saying I am so unstable that I actually might just on a whim nuke people that me having the codes would be a good deterrent. Speaker 4 Nuclear codes. Bill Clinton, don't forget he lost the nuclear codes twice. How do you explain that to the military? I've lost the military codes. What do you he lost the military codes twice. I didn't. They're coming after me because I'm fighting for you. Speaker 1 Yeah, completely unhinged. I mean, this this is

a man at this point so disconnected from reality and sanity that it is hard to believe. Trump then going after Nancy Pelosi, of course, Nancy Pelosi's husband recently attacked by a right wing nut in their home. He had to have skull surgery. And here's Trump talking about her. Pelosi said, please don't call them animals. They're human beings. I said, no, they're animals. Of course, I think she's an animal, too. You want to know? What? They'll say, oh, what a horrible thing he said about Nancy. She impeached me twice for nothing. Nothing. They'll say, oh, these people, the fakers back there. They'll say, what a horrible thing. He called Nancy Pelosi an animal.

Let me tell you, what she does to this country and what she did to the, and the turmoil. And it was all, I used the word yesterday, I shouldn't, my great first lady got very upset. I said, I will never use the word bullshit again. But what she did to us in this country, and yet we got more done as an administration and a president than just about any president in the history of our country in four years.

So continued attacks on Nancy Pelosi, extremely poor taste, classless, as I've said before, money cannot buy you class. Now, interestingly, former Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter tweeted last night, quote, I haven't seen a Trump speech in a while, but the way he spoke last night so favorably of executing drug dealers after a short two hour or less trial and then sending the bullet they were shot with to their families was jarring. Well, what Amanda Carpenter doesn't know is that this has actually been part of Trump's routine at every rally for the last several months. And Kevin McCarthy was even asked about this on CNN.

He's like, no, no, no. We kind of should be changing the law to execute drug dealers. This is a sick and disgusting group of people. Here's the clip that Amanda Carpenter is referring to. And again, if you haven't been paying attention to these rallies, you probably would be horrified by this. But Trump does this at every rally. And the crowd cheers. The world is horrified, but the crowd cheers. I am calling for the death penalty for drug dealers and human traffickers, which will, upon its passage, reduce drug distribution and reduce crime in our country by a minimum of 75 percent on the first day that this policy is instituted. And maybe I could ask J.D. to lead it. You will never lose an election again if you did. And I don't like to bring this up. It's a tough

subject. Nobody, I don't know if the country is ready for it. I can tell you with President Xi in China, I see him say, President, you have 1.5 billion people. Do you have a drug problem? No, no. No drug problem. I say, how do you do that? I really sort of knew, but I didn't

want to. How do you do that? And he probably thought I was somewhat naive. He goes, we have quick trial. I said, what's a quick trial? I think I knew what that was, too. That means they catch a drug dealer. They give them a quick trial, not a trial that takes 12 years and 12 years of appeals. Twenty five years later and everyone's dead by the time they get to the end of that. Now, this is a trial that takes approximately two hours. This is extraordinarily authoritarian. This this is, you know, Russia has a 99 percent conviction rate, red flag, authoritarian nightmare. And if they're guilty, they are executed and the and the bullet and, you know, the bullet.

I don't know if anybody wants to know this. It gets a little bit too graphic, but the bullet is sent to their families. You know that, right? You know that it's actually sent to their families. It's pretty tough stuff. There's no games. So they have no drug problem whatsoever. He actually thought it was a foolish question.

I said, do you have a drug problem? Absolutely not. What are you talking about? Of course. Now, let's insert a little bit of sanity into what is a completely insane situation. During this rant, Trump always claims every drug dealer kills 500 Americans. Each drug dealer is responsible directly for killing 500 Americans. That's just made up. I mean, just just Google it. Look for the information. Check out anything you want to check. There is no evidence. He's grappled onto that fact. That is not a fact that claim. And it is based in nothing. That's number one. Now, number two, even for Trump's all of tough, all of Trump's tough talk about execute drug dealers, do a two hour trial, send the bullet to their families, even despite all of that.

Trump pardoned many drug dealers when he was in office. So even his own supposed disdain and desperation for harsher treatment of drug dealers, Trump pardoned many drug dealers when he was in office. So just another instance of hypocrisy for sure. Last thing here, and we're not doing a ton of these clips today. We've got a lot of things. Trump has started to refer to Trump rallies as religious experiences and, in fact, referred to the moment when it started pouring at his Miami rally on Sunday as such a religious experience.

But, you know, the people it was actually people who said today it was like a religious experience. The people, the music comes on and then boom, we just got it was like unbelievable. I've never seen anything like it. Right. You know, the teleprompters, one of them just crashed and broke. Now remember, for years he criticized Barack Obama for using a teleprompter. And now Trump is talking about forget about the fact that he uses a teleprompter at every speech. He's talking about the fact that without it, it was really difficult to continue giving a speech.

The other one was useless because you have a ride in your car where you get a really heavy rainstorm and try and see through without the windshield wipers, which, by the way, they planned. It's called planned obsolescence. They can make a windshield wiper that would last 100 years, but they make them only so they last exactly one year. Then you have to buy a new one, which means they're smart. OK, Trump probably doesn't realize you just take a paper towel to the windshield wiper and then, you know, you get another year out of it every time you do it. But anyway, this is that's too pedestrian for Trump. Let's let him keep it. But you ever do that where you're driving and you can't see. Well, that's what I had with my one little remaining

teleprompter. So we had to go and we had a great evening. One of the greatest rallies we've ever had and was caused by God sending us the heaviest rain I've ever seen. You know what's funny about that? And then we'll move on. Some of you might remember when Trump was inaugurated in January of twenty seventeen, he claimed that the rain stopped and the sun came out and it was a sign from God about how happy God was about Trump being president. Now, it was a lie.

It was just rainy that day. But most importantly, the point was God expresses his pleasure by making it sunny. And now Trump is saying God expressed his pleasure by sending rain to make it like a religious experience that is emblematic of right wing thinking. When a happens, it's because things are really good. But when the opposite of a happens, it's because things are really good. The meaning of a and the opposite of a is the same, depending on what's convenient at the time. This guy is almost certainly announcing next Tuesday that he's running for president. It is going to be an insane

two years. It will be worse if these people clean house tonight. Let's hope we've all voted. Let's hope we prevent them from doing it. I have a really interesting clip from the Joe Rogan program. Matt Walsh has become an expert to the right wing about gender and trans issues. He did a documentary about trans issues. He confronts people about gender affirming care and all these different things. And it turns out that he's just a liar. He's just a liar. And there was a very

interesting moment wherein yesterday on Joe Rogan's podcast, Matt Walsh was saying millions of trans people are on puberty blockers. Hundreds of thousands are getting hundreds of thousands of minors. Pre pubescent girls are getting gender reassignment surgery and blah, blah, blah. It's all untrue. Let's start with the clip. It's fact checked by Joe Rogan's producer, Jamie, during the interview and everything. This is a clinic. This is a clinic in critical thinking. Let's listen. How many people have had this done? Depends on what. I don't think we have exact numbers, but it's if we do have exact we do have numbers. We have very good numbers on what's happening in the United States. There are there are you can there is data for how many procedures of just about every kind are being done. We're talking about the drugs. It's I mean,

millions. OK, so millions on puberty blockers. All right. Let's continue. You're talking about hormone blockers. Yeah. Millions of kids have been on hormone blockers. Really? I'm sure someone's going to fact check me on it. But my my my guess is that we're in we're into the millions now at this point. Yeah, that would be my guess. I can say for double mastectomy is the most. OK, so. Millions on hormone blockers, my millions of minors on hormone blockers. The best data I was able to find is that there's one hundred and twenty thousand. Children. Struggling with what is often called gender dysphoria, some small fraction

of those at some point might take some of these medications. OK, he says millions a year. The total number with gender dysphoria, 120,000, only a fraction of those are taking these medications. So first lie. Do the numbers really even matter to these people? I don't think so. But there's the first lie. I read a report recently that there were over a thousand.

Let me back up because now they're on to something else. I can say for double mastectomies, the most I've read a report recently that there were over a thousand done between 2016 and 2019. And when you compare that to how many were done between, you know, 2008 and 2015, it's just it's a massive. OK, but that's 300 a year. Huh. That doesn't sound so high, does it? But that's not even really right. Let's continue. Increase and over a thousand girls at double gender affirming double mastectomies in that in that time frame. And when you say girls, you're talking about prepubescent minors.

Oh, now, did you see what just happened there? You're talking about prepubescent double mastectomies for prepubescent girls. We'll get back to that. That doesn't make sense either. And he goes, that's right. Minors. OK, prepubescent and minor are two different things. I'm sure you know that. But did you see how slickly he slipped that in? I'll play it once more. And over a thousand girls at double gender affirming double mastectomies in that in that time frame. And when you say girls, you're talking about prepubescent minors. Right. Minors. So two different things. Now, of course, you might say, do prepubescent girls have breasts? Can you even do a double mastectomy on a prepubescent girl? What exactly are you removing? And of course, if you research this,

you start to find medical information about it. It is very rare that prepubescent girls actually have breasts. And you can read about what happens to the nipple. And OK, right. I mean, we don't need to go into detail about everything. but at at face value, this doesn't make sense. Prepubescent girls who almost never have breasts are having their breasts removed. That's really weird. But then he slips in. Right. These are minors. So you could actually be talking about a 17 and a half year old girl, not prepubescent, legally a minor, completely different situation, doesn't make anything right or wrong. But it's a completely different situation than what he claims.

And that's just up until 2019. And then we know that there's been this exponential increase with all this stuff year over year. So it's it's a lot. It's too many. You know, one having this happen to one kid says who it's a lot more than one more than one yeah look if you're an adult and you want to do that and you understand who you are and what you are and this is how you feel you should progress you're an adult this is a free country you should be able to do whatever you want but when you're talking about doing that to children the fact that so many people are on board and so many people are angry if you have like people are going to be angry at us that we're having these conversations no how could you be angry that we're having these conversations. No. How could you be angry that they're having the conversation? The problem is that Walsh just lies. Yeah, they will be. And I also. I actually think that that this shouldn't this shouldn't be happening, too. So now they've pulled up an article. It's a very small number,

if that's right. It says over the last five years, there were at least four thousand seven hundred and eighty adolescents who started puberty blockers. OK. He said there are millions of adolescents on puberty blockers. They just found a study that says it's under five thousand over five years. That's under a thousand a year. He said millions. Study says it's under a thousand. Think about that. And at a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis. Under a thousand a year. He said millions.

It's kind of undercounted, but that's. That would be a big undercounting. Less than a thousand people a year. Yeah. Hmm. Yeah. I mean, I would guess, you know, hundreds of thousands. Let me correct my wrong guess of millions, because you found that the real number is nine hundred and say it's probably hundreds of thousands. I can't now get away with saying it's millions

because the data says it's nine hundred. So let's just go with hundreds of thousands. But I could be wrong. You are wrong. Million sounds great. Yeah, I could be right. It sounds it's much better for the story. So listen, guys, there are about nine thousand everything I found from medical journals reporting on this. There are about nine thousand trans surgeries performed annually across the United States total. And that's all ages, what's called the male to female and female to male. That's any type. OK. That's mostly adults. OK. And what fraction of those are the situation that Matt Walsh is talking about? I mean, almost none. Now, then they always the

problem with these people is then you'll they'll they'll revert back to even one is too many. That's different. The first case they make is this is an epidemic. This is a fad. Everybody's doing it. You just show up and they cut off your breasts. Even if you don't have any, if you're an 11 year old girl, you've got no breasts, they'll cut them off. What are they cutting off, man? I don't know. They're doing it. Millions of people on, you know, all this stuff. Then you give them the real numbers. They go, well, one is too many. Oh, but that's a different argument. Your first argument was it's too widely available. It's absolutely horrifying and good for Jamie for at least interjecting and injecting some data into this. OK, we have a voicemail number. That

number is two one nine two. David P. Here's a really good question about our colleague Luke Beasley, who has been going to Trump rallies recently. Hey, David, I actually have a question for you and a friend of the show, Luke Beasley. Does he ever feel unsafe at these rallies? Because, you know, you played that clip where that guy was just cursing a lot at, you know, Democrats. And he said, what have these people ever done for Americans? And then Luke named a couple things, tried to get a few words in there. And, you know, when people are that unhinged, I don't try to talk sense into them.

And it's not that I don't want Luke to. I love it. I love his videos. I love, you know, what want Luke to. I love it. I love his videos. I love, you know, what he said. And he was great. I just wonder, you know, does he ever feel unsafe? Yeah, this is a fair question. And, you know, Luke is becoming more recognizable because he's been going to these rallies for a while. So I think I plan to have a conversation with Luke to ask about that because we want the number one priority is for Luke to be safe. And we were certainly conscious of that. No doubt about it. We have a great bonus show for you today. We will talk

about Nancy Pelosi saying her retirement will be affected by the attack on her husband. We will talk about Facebook's plan to lay off thousands as it is trouble in paradise. And we will talk about Nike suspending its relationship with Kyrie Irving over his anti-Semitic post. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Yeah, everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. See it for yourself.

Don't take Alex Jones word for it. Sign up at joint.