The David Pakman Show - 12/12/22: Sinema Abandons Dems, Musk Says Prosecute Fauci

Episode Date: December 12, 2022

-- On the Show: -- Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema leaves the Democratic Party, becoming the third independent in the Senate, raising questions about the new balance of power -- Senator Bernie Sanders slams Senator Kyrsten Sinema as a corporate Democrat who has gotten in the way of major legislation -- The new "gay marriage bill" that was recently passed does not actually guarantee gay marriage -- Elon Musk's "Twitter Files" are nothing more than right wing bait meant to enrage the MAGA crowd over things they don't even seem to understand -- New Twitter owner Elon Musk says Dr. Anthony Fauci should be prosecuted, and threatens to sue Twitter leakers -- Radical Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says that if she had been in charge of the January 6 Trump riot insurrection, she would have been armed, and they would have "won" -- Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is under a House ethics investigation -- Failed former President Donald Trump has reportedly not left his home at Mar-a-Lago since announcing his 2024 Presidential run -- Donald Trump explodes in dangerous, unhinged and confused all-capital-letters Truth Social rant about election interference, January 6th, and more -- Voicemail caller may have fallen for another scam, this one related to Playstation 5's 🪒 Henson Shaving: Use code Pakman for FREE blades at https://hensonshaving.com/pakman 🧪 MEL Science: Use code PAKMAN for 50% OFF at https://melscience.com/sBLN/ 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 82% OFF + 3 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David -- On the Bonus Show: Pat reviews MyPillows, recount flips Massachusetts House election by 1 vote, Amazon accused of stealing tips from delivery drivers, baby whose parents refused vaccinated blood undergoes lifesaving heart surgery, much more... -- 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

Well, we start today with a shift in the balance of power potentially in the Senate days after Herschel Walker, thankfully, was defeated by the incumbent Democratic senator from Georgia, Raphael Warnock. And we said, what great news. It won't be 50-50 in the Senate, but it will be 51-49 in favor of Democrats. Democratic, but shaky Democrat. Let's call her what she is. Shaky Democrat Kyrsten Sinema announces she is leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent. Now I know, I know, I know. Let's resist the urge to call this what it may be at face value, a desperate attempt for attention from someone who, by virtue of the Democrats getting 51 rather than 50 seats, immediately has a diminished amount of power in the Senate in the sense that she alone

cannot prevent Democrats from getting a simple majority. Let's actually sort of talk it through and see what she had to say. NPR reporting. Here's what Sinema's switch from Democrat to independent could mean for the Senate. And the article explains Sinema's move is unlikely to change the power balance in the Senate as it comes days after Senator Raphael Warnock won the Georgia runoff election to give Democrats a 51 to 49 majority. That includes two independents who caucused with Democrats. Those are, of course, Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Sinema said she doesn't want to fit in a box. And the article goes on to talk about the direction that the Senate could go in and also talks about Arizona's 2024 outlook as Kyrsten Sinema is up in 2024.

And the fact that she is no longer a Democrat could, of course, mean that now Democrats could hold a primary and have a candidate who runs against Sinema. You could end up with a Democrat, a Republican and independent Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona. That would change the dynamics of that race. But we're going to table that for the time being. Here's my my primary thought about this. And we're going to hear from Bernie Sanders in a moment about this. My primary thought is that this does seem motivated by a desire for attention, particularly with the win by Raphael Warnock. It seems as though the question now as well, is it 51 49 or is it 50 50? And the question really has to do with caucusing. Angus King and Bernie Sanders are not Democrats, but they caucus with Democrats. And that's where we got for the last two years. It's 50 50 rather than 48 50 and two.

Let's listen to what Kyrsten Sinema had to say. She was interviewed by Jake Tapper about this powerful decision that she made. You're here to make a significant announcement. I've registered as an Arizona independent. I know some people might be a little bit surprised by this, but actually, I think it makes a lot of sense. We're not that surprised, Kirsten. You know, a growing number of Arizonans and people like me just don't feel like we fit neatly into one party's box or the other. And so, like many across the state and the nation, I've decided to leave that partisan process and really just focus on the work that I think matters to Arizona and to our country, which is solving problems and getting things done. Now, understand that being in the being in the Senate and being a Democrat and then saying I'm leaving the Democratic Party because I no longer fit into that box. Now I'm outside of partisanship.

This is one of the silliest things. I mean, we've talked about this before. It's sort of like people who say, I don't vote because I think all of these, excuse me, Republican politicians and Democratic politicians, none of them have our best interests in mind. So I'm above and outside of the partisan fray by never voting for any of these losers. That's a very political decision. It's still political. And I would argue it is still partisan because you are basically saying,

I don't see an appreciable difference between Democrats and Republicans, even though there are so many differences that I'm saying they're equally bad and I'm voting for that's a very partisan and political statement. So this is starting to get into the kind of enlightened centrism that we've been critical of. Let's listen to the rest of her statement here. So your voting record is pretty capital D Democratic. I mean, your views are generally that of a moderate centrist Democrat. How does leaving the party change how you do your job? Well, I don't think anything will change about how I do my job. Arizona sent me to the United States Senate to be an independent voice for our state. And I'll continue doing that. That's a classic, by the way. Oh, I was sent here to be an independent voice to think for myself. All right. But now it is interesting.

I will mention that there is footage of Kyrsten Sinema chastising Joe Lieberman for doing the exact same thing, going from the Democratic Party to independent. She did. Now she's doing it. And now it's great. Now it's a sign of virtue. But in the past, she was critical of Joe Lieberman for doing exactly that. I've been negotiated with the Senate. So what does that mean? Well, in the Senate, we no longer have 60 votes. Some would argue that we never had 60 because one of those was Joseph Lieberman. Right. But that's whatever. Yeah. And Nelson, too. But really, Lieberman. So so now there's I think think as a president so eloquently said on Wednesday, there's none of this pressure, this false pressure to get to 60. So what that means

is that the Democrats can stop kowtowing to Joe Lieberman and instead seek other avenues. Isn't that interesting? The way that they've had to kowtow or will have to kowtow to kirsten cinema and joe mansion so the hypocrisy adds to my feeling that this is a plea for attention and she's getting the attention and here i am covering it as well because it is relevant we will have to see if and how this changes Sinema's voting. Let's now talk about the reaction from Bernie Sanders. I don't want to spend a ton of time on Bernie's reaction to Kyrsten Sinema leaving the Democratic Party, but I do think it's important and interesting because Bernie also is an independent who has made very, very clear.

I caucus with the Democrats and there are specific reasons why Bernie is an independent. Vermont is also a unique state in terms of its political orientation and alignment. Vermont Republicans are different than national Republicans and gun ownership is a different thing in Vermont. We've talked about sort of the interesting different dynamics of Vermont. Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN to talk about, I mean, he I don't know that he appeared to talk about Kyrsten Sinema, but Dana Bash certainly talked to him about it. And he was pretty clear he's not super impressed with Kyrsten Sinema, calls her a corporate Democrat and says quite a few accurate but critical things about her. Let's take a listen to what Bernie had to say. You are an independent. She is now the third official

independent of the U.S. Senate, joining you in Angus King of Maine. What do you think of her decision and also what you just heard in her interview with Jake? I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on Senator Sinema. She has her reasons. Donna, I happen to suspect that it's probably a lot to do with politics back in Arizona. I think the Democrats there are not all that enthusiastic about somebody who helps sabotage some of the most important legislation that protects the interests of working families. And so that's that's a pretty clear shot across the bow voting rights and so forth. So I think it really has to do with her political aspirations for the future in Arizona. But for us, I think nothing much has changed

in terms of the functioning of the U.S. Senate. The good news is that we now have 51 votes. We'll have a majority on committees. It means that we can go forward and start protecting the interests of working families and deal with the reality that we are increasingly living in an oligarchy where the billionaire class and large corporations control almost every aspect of our country. So I would hope very much that with this new majority, Democrats will sit down and start fighting for the needs of ordinary Americans. So I want to talk about some of those issues in a second. But first, you were a very important figure on the campaign trail for progressives ahead of the midterms, as you normally are. I'm sure you're going to be campaigning for candidates in 2024. The outgoing Arizona Democratic Party official, one of them says that he expects

Democrats will run their own candidate against her. Is that a good idea? Would you support a Democratic opponent against Senator Sinema? Good question. I support progressive candidates all over this country, people who have the guts to take on powerful special interests. I don't know what's going to be happening in Arizona. We'll see who they nominate, but certainly that's something I will take a hard look at. Does she have the guts to take on powerful special interests? No, she doesn't. She is a corporate Democrat who has, in fact, along with Senator Manchin, sabotaged enormously important legislation. So two sides to this, of course. Number one, to the extent that Kyrsten Sinema will caucus with Democrats and mostly continue voting with Democrats,

even if she is a centrist corporate Democrat, as Bernie says, her vote is still useful. And if 60 votes are needed, at least plausibly, that's one fewer Republican vote that would be necessary. Fine. But at the same time, Bernie is clear about Kyrsten Sinema's political views. And as we've seen over the last two years, there's been a lot of playing coy with her supposed independence, which is really center rightism at the end of the day. Bernie's being very clear while being sort of diplomatic. We really can't say much more about how the next two years are going to go without seeing how they go. It's just guesswork and predicting as the bills start being voted on.

We're very quickly going to learn much more about it, but good to see that Bernie isn't confused about what's going on here. Many of you wrote to me and you said, David, sir, I'm a big, strong guy, but I have tears in my eyes as those stories often go, because as I looked through this gay marriage bill that just passed, it's not really clear that it actually guarantees gay marriage. And those people are absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. And so I want to talk about that. The reporting widespread from over the weekend and late last week, bill to protect same sex marriage rights clears Congress. The idea here was let's codify gay marriage before maybe Republicans come for it.

And the Supreme Court makes a decision on gay marriage like they did with Roe v. Wade. We have seen many on the right say the gay marriage decision was just as wrongly decided by a prior Supreme Court as was Roe v. Wade, making it clear they are setting their sights and targeting gay marriage as well as a whole, but access to contraception and other things as well. So the idea was, let's codify it. Let's guarantee gay marriage. And indeed, the House on Thursday, as the New York Times writes, gave final approval to legislation to mandate federal recognition for same-sex marriages. Hmm, that's interesting. What does that mean? The vote was 258 to 169 with one member voting present.

This now goes to Joe Biden, who will, of course, sign it. I don't want to sort of like sugarcoat this or dance around it. The legislation doesn't require states to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples. That is not what the legislation does. States currently have to do that because of the 2015 decision from the Supreme Court. If that decision were overturned, even despite this legislation, states would no longer have to issue same sex marriages. What the law says is that states that, uh, uh, that all states must recognize same sex marriages that were entered into someplace else. So let me give you the exact scenario. Imagine now that gay marriage has been codified, even though it hasn't really. Now that this law has passed, imagine that in a year or in two years or whenever,

there is a case that gets to the Supreme Court, much like the case that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade gets to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court does decide, hey, it was wrongly decided. It was wrongly decided. So we're doing away with the 2015 decision that made gay marriage, that banned bands on same-sex marriage. Does this new law mean that if Kentucky doesn't want to anymore, they have to issue same-sex marriage licenses?

No, it doesn't. All this law says is that if the 2015 gay marriage decision is overturned, Kentucky would have to recognize same sex marriages from wherever. So you wouldn't be able to deny a gay couple married elsewhere, all of the same rights that married people have in Kentucky. but it does not mean that Kentucky would have to issue same-sex marriage licenses if the 2015 decision is overturned. So it's better than nothing. But at the same time, if people don't have money to travel in order to get married somewhere else, it's going to create problems. It's going to create problems for people. It doesn't guarantee gay marriage to anyone. It guarantees if you find

a place to get married, it will have to be a recognized marriage in all 50 states. And again, this is all preemptive. It's if the 2015 decision were to be overturned, that is what it does. And that is what it does not do. Is it better than nothing? Of course it is. Is it not really that great? If the issue is let's make sure that no matter what happens, gay and lesbian couples will continue being able to get married in any state. Yeah, it doesn't do that. It absolutely doesn't do that. It is what it is important to understand it. Now we know what it is and we press forward. We'll take a quick break and be right back. cutting myself or getting those nicks on my skin, which are so common with the cheap disposable razors. You have to meet our sponsor, Henson Shaving. Henson actually manufactures parts for

the International Space Station and the Mars rover, and they are bringing that exact same precision engineering to the shaving experience. It hurts when you shave because blades extend too far and thus they wobble slightly. But with their aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson is able to make metal razors that extend just zero point zero zero one three inches. That's less than the thickness of a human hair, which means a secure, stable blade with the vibration free shave. It also has built in channels to evacuate the hair and the cream. No more clogs, no more rubbing your thumb

on the razor to get the hair out. I use Henson at home. Shaving is a great experience. Now, Henson wants to be the best razor, not the best razor business, which means you only need to buy it once. And it's awesome. Go to Henson shaving dot com slash Pacman at a razor and a hundred pack of blades to your cart. Then enter the code Pacman to get the hundred blades for free. That is a three year supply.

That's HEN SON shaving dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Remember that the David Pakman show is an independent media program. It's not like the sort of stuff you get when you turn on your TV and watch cable. For example, we actually depend on the support of our audience to do what we do. The best way, the most direct way, the way where we keep the most pennies out of every dollar is when you sign up at join pacman.com. We do an extra show every day for our

members. We provide a commercial free audio and video stream for our members. And we also do members only town hall events, the next of which is coming very, very soon. Sign up at joinpacman.com. You can use the coupon code 24STARTS now to get yourself a tidy little discount. Listen, I want to keep talking about the Twitter files. I know that many of you are following the Twitter files, and I also want to make very clear what it is. It's right wing bait. That's what it is.

It's meant to get people who don't really know what's going on or who don't actually read the Twitter files threads or who simply are looking for something to be outraged about, to be outraged and to say, we all the stuff we said was happening was happening and people need to go to jail or something bad needs to happen. So let's take a step back. We have now seen at least three releases of the Twitter files. The Twitter files are supposedly exclusive stories given to Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss to tweet about exposing everything that happened at Twitter. And it turns out that really not that much happened. For example, we learned that there was an effort being made in 2020 by the Biden campaign

to have explicit images of Hunter Biden removed from the platform. Now, they were nude, explicit images of Hunter published without his consent. That's not allowed on Twitter per their own terms of service. And it's also against the law in most states to publish such images. And it was framed by some on the right as the Biden administration is censoring content on Twitter. Well, there was no Biden administration at the time. So cross that piece off. And they're not really censoring anything. They're asking that content in violation of Twitter's own policies be removed. It wasn't really a bombshell. As the Twitter files have continued coming out, more and more clear thinking individuals have realized what many of us realized pretty quickly.

Charlie Wurzel writes about this in The Atlantic in an article I encourage you to read called Elon Musk's Twitter files are bait. He doesn't actually want transparency on the social media platform. And this is, of course, absolutely correct. The Twitter files expose no crimes that that are clearly related to the actions Twitter took. I'm going to get to perjury in a second and I have no interest in hiding anything from you. The emails I get, David, you're hiding this and that. I'm just a guy in a room with a microphone. I'm not hiding anything. We'll get to perjury. But the Twitter files expose no crimes with regard to Twitter's actions,

and they don't even expose violations of Twitter's own terms of service. Twitter's own terms of service, if you want to read them, include a process for communicating content that content is violating Twitter's terms of service. It includes these very general catchalls that these social media platforms can, at the end of the day, decide to moderate content however the hell they want, as long as they're not doing something like saying we don't allow Christians to post, that would be against the law. But beyond that, all of these platforms can do this and it's in their terms of service. Now you can say you disagree with it. Okay. But it's in their terms of service. So the point here is the Twitter files expose no crimes and no violations of Twitter's own

terms of service. They are intended to play to the right wing persecution complex. We're being censored. We're being silenced. We're not allowed to give the alternative perspectives on COVID or on drinking urine or on whatever it is that they want to do. When private businesses tell you, here's what we're doing in our terms of service and you accept, and then they do it. There isn't very much to talk about. At worst, what we're learning is something we knew, which is Twitter does what Fox News does, right? If you want to accept the most

heavy argument that could be made, which I don't believe is actually defensible based on the data, but it would be Twitter is crafting a partisan message in through their moderation and decisions. Well, that's what Fox News does. The difference being Twitter is a platform on which everybody gets to post, at least in principle. Fox News is broadcasting out one way. No connection between the Biden campaign and the suspension of Donald Trump on Twitter, which was a big thing that they had their hopes very high for. The most interesting part out of all of this to me is the part of the files that say the Trump administration, not campaign, apparently had the exact type of access to Twitter moderation, meaning they had email addresses they could email. So part of the controversy is that the Biden campaign, rather than reporting tweets the way you and I have to, had email addresses of people

at Twitter that they could email and say, hey, take a look at this. Take a look at that. You could argue that that's wrong. You could argue the Biden campaign should have had to use the same system we all have to use to report tweets. Fine. But the Twitter files also say that the Trump administration had the very same email access. Conservatives are silent about that part. OK. Let's now talk about maybe maybe the one part that maybe is something. And I'm getting emails from people saying, David, you won't talk about this. Listen up, folks. Buckle in because I'm talking about it. The one thing I can maybe find that that would be under the realm, the umbrella of what we would call criminal is that there are now allegations that Jack Dorsey perjured himself, former CEO of Twitter, one of the instrumental early people. Jack Dorsey said to Congress under oath, Twitter isn't shadow banning people. According to the Twitter files,

Twitter was shadow banning people and that thus that is perjury because Jack lied under oath. Let's take a look at the clip from that hearing years ago. I want to read a few quotes about Twitter's practices, and I just want you to tell me if they're true or not. Please. Social media is being rigged to censor conservatives. Is that true of Twitter? No. I don't know what Twitter is up to. It sure looks like to me that they're censoring people and they ought to stop it. Are you censoring people? No. Twitter shadow banning prominent Republicans. Bad.

Is that true? No. Okay. So Jack Dorsey said we are not shadow banning people. And it appears based on some of the stuff that's been removed, released that that Twitter was. So listen very carefully here. If Jack Dorsey perjured himself and you can prove it, throw the book at him, prosecute him, do it. I don't care if you can prove that the shadow ban screenshots released in the Twitter files are real and that Jack Dorsey knew that there was shadow

banning going on when he testified. Right. Because that's part of it. Perjury. Did you know that you were telling a lie? If you can prove those two points, then go ahead and prosecute him. I do want to remind you, however, Republicans spent three years during the Mueller probe saying lying to Congress and lying to the

FBI. That's all you can get. What about the underlying crimes? What about the collusion with Russia? What about this, that or the other thing? Financial crimes. All you've got is lying under oath. That's the only thing that's politically targeted. Those when all you have is lying. Those are politically targeted prosecutions of Trump people. We shouldn't even be worried about that. Well, if you were saying that during the Mueller probe, then maybe you should be saying the same thing here. Notice I'm not saying that I'm saying if he perjured himself, go after him. It doesn't relate to the type of criminality that they've been alleging Twitter engaged in. This is just a guy who may be lied. Go after him

for it by all means. But remember that you all were the ones saying during the Mueller probe, when all you've got is lying, you know, you've really got nothing. All right. One more Elon Musk story. And the Elon Musk stuff is just getting worse and worse and worse. Elon Musk tweeted over the weekend. Oh, God. He tweeted, quote, My pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci. This is basically two different things. One, it's ridiculing and making fun of gender pronouns, which is very, very big right now on the right. One of the areas that most excites and titillates the right at this point in time is being anti-trans. Anti-trans is just really big on the right at this point in time. So Elon Musk is sort of stoking that. And also Elon Musk is stoking more violence against Dr. Fauci and his and his family. Dr. Fauci needing security. He's a doctor. He needs security

because of the amount of ire and targeting that has been done of Dr. Fauci. So stoking unrest. Additionally, by the way, that tweet from Elon Musk got a million likes on Twitter. So for all of the arguments that Twitter is a left wing cesspool, the right wing stuff coming from people like Elon Musk and others getting a lot of likes, a lot, a lot of likes. Another aspect to the crazy weekend from Elon Musk is the following is reported by the street. Elon Musk threatens Twitter 2.0 employees. The billionaire social media revamp efforts are widely covered in the press. Elon Musk likes to control the narrative. He has fired a whole bunch of different people. And now he is threatening leakers, people who leak information with lawsuits. That is what this article is about.

And I encourage you to check it out. Elon Musk saying Twitter will immediately seek damages. Twitter will immediately seek damages. Elon Musk is threatening to sue Twitter employees who leak confidential information to the press. He's asking staffers to sign a pledge indicating they've understood the letter. By the way, how wild is it that the letter threatening people about leaking has leaked? As evidenced by the many detailed leaks of confidential Twitter information, a few people at our company continue to act in a manner contrary to the company's interests and in violation of their NDA. This will be said only

once. If you clearly and deliberately violate the NDA that you signed when you joined, you accept liability to the full extent of the law and Twitter will immediately seek damages. So it is more and more and more of this exact same stuff that we started seeing before Elon Musk even purchased Twitter. Of course, those on the right, including like on Fox News, they find it all hilarious. Here's Dagan McDowell commenting on the humor of prosecute Fauci. But John Brennan was at it again over the weekend. You know, Elon Musk was going after Fauci in his regular hilarious way. Yes. Prosecute Fauci is just really, really funny. A doctor with decades of service who is trying to deal with or has had been trying to deal with

a pandemic, a global pandemic. He needs to be targeted in Elon Musk's humorous way. These folks are very dangerous. And at this point, it's really clear that what Elon Musk wants to do is to promulgate and perpetuate right wing disinformation and the shilling for that type of that type of content on Twitter. What his underlying motivation is, I don't really know. And it's speculative. Is it that he genuinely has political views that he believes are best served by fomenting right wing disinformation on Twitter? Maybe, maybe that's what it is. Is there some personal financial angle that he believes would be served by turning Twitter into some kind of right wing disinformation chamber? Maybe that's the case. Could it be

that he is working in concert with I don't even know who and that altogether they've decided let's destroy Twitter from the end? I don't believe we know yet. I believe it's premature to explain exactly what it is that is motivating all of this, but it is getting very, very bad and I don't believe it's going to turn around anytime soon. We'll have all of these clips on our Instagram, which you can find at David Pakman show on Instagram. Parents in the audience, if you're like me, you're looking for fun, new things to do with your kids, meaningful, enriching, but fun enough to keep them engaged. Every month,

our sponsor, Mel Science, sends you a box with science experiments that combine hands on physical components with virtual and augmented reality. Learning science doesn't need to be The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. to choose from chemistry, physics, STEM, math or medicine. Mel Science sent me the chemistry of monsters box where you grow a black monster from sugar and make a huge foam eruption in a flask. But you're actually learning about carbon dioxide and unstable carbonic acid. We had a ton of fun with it. The VR components are awesome, too. I'm going to play for you today one of the most outrageous and dangerous comments I've ever heard from any elected official ever, and certainly that I have covered on this program.

Radical Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said that if she had organized the insurrection coup Trump riots on January 6th, 2021, she would have been armed and they would have won. Now, what on earth does it mean that they would have won? Well, I think we have some pretty good ideas of exactly what they mean. We're going to get to that. Newsweek reporting Marjorie Taylor Greene says MAGA would have won on January 6th if she organized it. What the hell is she talking about? Green was among the high profile guests to attend and speak at an event hosted by the New York Young Republican Club. That's a group that's got upper management written all over it, huh?

That was in New York City on Sunday evening. Don Jr. was there. Rudy Giuliani was there. Conspiracy theorist Jack Pazabiek was there. And the topic of the Capitol riot came up. And here is Marjorie Taylor Greene with, again, let's see if we can understand exactly what she means, saying if she had run the riots, they would have won the riots. Interesting. Winning and losing is the framing. I come to Washington. I swear in on January 3rd, I get accused of giving insurrection tours,

which I thought was hilarious because I couldn't even find the bathroom in the Capitol. True story. Then January 6th happens. And next thing you know, I organized the whole thing along with Steve Bannon here. And I want to tell you something, if Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention it would have been a successful, more heavily armed insurrection if Marge had been running the thing. See, that's the whole joke, isn't it? They say that whole thing was planned and I'm like, are you kidding me? A bunch of conservative Second Amendment supporters went in the Capitol without guns and they think that we organize that?

I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't guns and they think that we organize that. I don't think so.

Yeah. I mean, remember, many of them flew to D.C. So how exactly are they going to bring their guns? Oh, well, you know, you could check it or that. It's the fact that there weren't more guns because remember, there were guns doesn't really tell us anything about it at all. And there's no both sides to it. I mean, this this is this is fascism wannabe. Important to mention, we have to stop treating the Republican Party like it's a normal political party. I'm not going to do the retro retrospective rehabilitation of the Republican Party.

I'm not going to do that. But I will recognize that there was a time when the disagreements and the differences with the Republican Party were more sane in nature, I guess is what I would say when it was really about how involved should government be in helping people? To what degree should the rich be taxed? What should the top tax rates be? There was a time where that was most of it. There was still the crazy stuff there was. I'm not going to pretend that there was there was there was some of the crazy stuff. It's all crazy stuff now. It's all want to be authoritarian, fascist dictatorships at this point in time. Do whatever we need to do. Suppress speech, control the media, use use prison or the threat of prison to try to achieve political goals. There's no both sides at

this point in time. Democrats are trying to figure out how can we get everybody health care? Republicans are trying to figure out how can we use guns to get into office after losing an election? Think about that contrast. Now, I wish she would elaborate on what winning meant. She says we would have won the insurrection if I had been in charge. Is she saying we would have successfully overthrown the government, ending democracy as we know it in the country by installing a dictatorial leader who lost his election? Is that the win that she's talking about?

I think it has to be. I don't know what else it could be. We have to deal with this political party, not as a normal political party, but rather as a group of people who want to destroy the American system of government, who don't care about the Constitution. Trump just said last week, you can terminate the parts of the Constitution that you want when you believe you have been wronged as he believes he was wronged in 2020. We have to treat them for what they are. Now, there's one other, I guess, alternative for what it would mean to have won, which is maybe they would have gotten a few senators and members of the House killed.

Right. It wouldn't have just been a demand to hang Pence. Maybe they would have done it. And then he could have declared martial law and then he could have suspended the election process and somehow convince people he should be president for an additional four years. I don't know. Maybe maybe that's what a win would have looked like. But that's Marjorie Taylor Greene. She should obviously not be a member of the House. Lauren Boebert won, but barely. Madison Cawthorn lost in her very red district. Marjorie Taylor Greene easily won.

The real test now is going to be what happens to these MAGAs in 2024. We'll be following it. I got emails over the weekend, David, you wouldn't dare cover the investigation into Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It doesn't fit your narrative to talk about the fact that she's under ethics investigation. Come on, guys. Come on. You all know I do not care about political party or these elected officials as people. And what I mean by that is it's not like I'm saying I don't I don't care if they get hit by a car. No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is the cult of personality that forms around so many elected officials. I just don't

care about it. These are just people. They are all they're all they do good. They do bad. They have good ideas. They have ideas I don't care for. AOC is just another person. That's all. And so I would have no reason to hide from you that AOC is the subject of a House ethics investigation. That's absolutely the case that that is going on. And it has been under a Democratic House. That's happening. The Guardian reports AOC is subject of House ethics investigation. Spokesperson is confident undisclosed matter, quote, will be dismissed. The Democratic acting chair, Susan Wild and acting ranking member, Michael Guest, released a statement on Wednesday. They say the matter regarding AOC was transmitted to the committee by the Office of Congressional Ethics on 23 June.

The subject was not revealed. The committee said the mere fact of a referral or an extension and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name and subject of the subject of the matter does not itself indicate a violation has occurred. What they're saying is. You're innocent until proven guilty. There is an investigation, but that doesn't mean that any violation has taken place. The House Ethics Committee said it would announce its course of action after the new Congress convenes in January. That's what's going on. Now, in September of 2021, the American Accountability Foundation filed an ethics complaint against her for, quote, accepting an impermissible gift to attend the Met Gala. The event was a thirty five thousand dollar a ticket event.

That's where she wore the tax the rich dress. A spokesperson said she was invited as a guest of the Met and didn't get to keep the dress. The question is whether that may have violated the ethics rules, because even though she was a guest, someone paid for the ticket and the thirty five thousand dollar ticket is worth more than the maximum donation so that there may be something there now. When something like this happens, what should the left do? For the most part, the left does what it should do. If you think back to Anthony Weiner, you know, the right loves to say, oh, the left is they have these double standards. They want to go after everyone on the right, but then they want to protect Hunter Biden

or they were defending Anthony Weiner, or they think that an investigation into AOC is by definition wrong because she's the darling of the left. I don't see anyone doing that stuff. Think back to the Anthony Weiner circumstances. My view on Anthony Weiner was skilled politician, great speaker, doesn't deserve any particular protection for the things he is accused of. And he did things wrong and he has to suffer the consequences with Al Franken. Remember the bad joke and the picture with Al Franken that subsequently left to him, led to him resigning from the Senate. Democrats, if they could be criticized for

anything on that, were too quick to demand a resignation, too quick, when in the end, it seemed like it was more of a bad joke and misunderstanding than anything approximating the things that the right has done and has been accused of. Hunter Biden. Listen, I don't know anyone saying Hunter Biden must be protected. There is obviously a political bias going on when it comes to the targeting of Hunter Biden. There is an attempt to conflate Hunter Biden with Joe Biden when Hunter has nothing to do with the Biden administration. There is no proof that the big guy that is referenced in the infamous emails is Joe Biden.

There's just it's obviously grasping at straws because they have nothing. But I and everybody I'm seeing on the left says Hunter Biden did something wrong. Then investigate him and indict him if it's a crime and convict him if the evidence is there. Who cares? Nobody's defending him. And similarly, if AOC did something wrong, there should be an investigation. And if it turns out that indeed she did do something wrong, there should be whatever punishment is appropriate.

We just can't have it be partisan witch hunts. That's the concern. And that's why with Hunter Biden, when he clearly has nothing to do with the Biden administration, the desire to turn the next Congress into the Congress that will impeach Biden for things we don't even really know and investigate Hunter Biden for the full two years. That's when it gets disgusting and concerning. So that's where we are. Let's figure out what AOC did, if anything. If she should be fined, then let's find her. That's it. But let's make sure that we're doing it equally and that we're not turning this into a partisan

witch hunt. We're going to take a quick break and be right back after this. 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 setup. 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. Let's do a couple of quick Trump updates here at the end of the show. Much to the pleasure of many and dismay of others. Trump increasingly having a smaller and smaller role on this show and in American politics. And I think that that's a great thing to the extent that he's horrible and dangerous for American democracy. Let's start report from best 11 of the Vanity Fair. Trump has been

hibernating at home for almost a month. Yes, Trump has barely left his house since announcing that he's running for president in 2024. After a less than rapturous response to his 2024 campaign announcement, the ex-president has barely left the grounds of Mar-a-Lago. Something is going on here. Something is going on. Bess Levin writes about Trump's preparation to announce the bid for office and the assumption that this would start a two year period in which he would be

feted the world over everywhere he went. People would spontaneously break into song and dance, thanking their favorite president for stepping up to rescue the country. It has not really happened that way. Trump has not really been interviewed on any prominent media since announcing, hey, I'm a former president and I'm running again. That's normally would be pretty big news. And as best love and rights, in reality, things didn't entirely pan out that way. Almost no one in the Republican Party has come out to support Trump despite threats to punish Republicans who don't endorse him. Rupert Murdoch's media empire has spent considerable time and effort telling people he's a loser. And a new Yahoo News YouGov poll released Thursday has Florida Governor Ron DeSantis beating Trump by five points. DeSantis hasn't even announced that he's running. Remember, instead

of 24 seven parades, he was hit with a guilty conviction for his family business, which a jury said committed 17 different crimes. And Ivanka made clear she wants nothing to do with Trump's future endeavors. So the point here is Trump's really not leaving his house. He's essentially not leaving. The Washington Post writes Trump's seclusion within the ornate walls. I call them gaudy. You can call them ornate. I would call them gaudy Washington Post writes Trump seclusion within the ornate walls. I call them gaudy. You can call them ornate. I would call them gaudy walls. Trump seclusion within the ornate walls of his club at a series of controversies from dinner with anti-Semites, yay, and Nick Fuentes to a social media post suggesting the termination

of constitution have left him isolated within his own party as he tries to mount a political comeback. Herschel Walker's loss on Tuesday is the latest blow, prompting more Republicans to join the chorus, faulting him for dragging down the party's performance in this year's midterms. The former president presents our biggest risk of losing for 2024 and conservatives are tired of losing, said Bob Vander Plaats, head of the family leader, a social conservative group. So bottom line, Trump's barely leaving his house. And it seems as though things are not going particularly well.

There's one really funny thing about this. Now, let's let's talk about the political implications first. We're two years away, just under two years away. I guess we're 23 months away if we want to make a more accurate countdown from the 2024 election, it's too early to say there's no momentum and this is going to fail. We don't, we just don't know that at this point in time, we need to wait and see if Trump mounts some momentum. This is far earlier than typically people announce that they are running, but we've already seen at least one very good article making the case that Trump may not even make it to the first Republican primaries, which I believe I believe it's Iowa. I believe it's

Iowa on both sides and that if he doesn't get momentum going at some point in time, he may just drop out rather than lose. Now, someone like Michael Cohen all along argued Trump wouldn't run. Trump's running. But is he really running in the sense that if you announce and then you never leave your house and then you just slowly and quietly go away? Did you really run? Maybe not. That's maybe more of a semantic discussion. The really funny thing is that in the run up to the 2020 election, Trump and MAGA and the Q wing of the party spent the entire time slamming President Joe Biden, then candidate Joe Biden for hiding in his basement and not campaigning. Now there was a pandemic at the time, you may recall, and he still won.

And as I've said before, the really humiliating thing isn't that Biden was in his basement. It's that if Biden was in his basement, Trump lost by a lot to a guy who was in his basement. But now, as the tables seem to turn, it's Trump who is just hanging out at home and wishing people getting married at Mar-a-Lago well and this sort of thing. I don't really know how Trump turns this thing around. And what I mean by that is he can hold rallies, but there's no rallies for other candidates right now because there's no other elections. The midterm is over. So would a random Trump rally in January of 2023 when you're running for something in 2024, is that going to get attention

or is it going to seem just kind of pathetic? I don't know. That's one option. Number two, who is going to go and kiss the ring at Mar-a-Lago when it's not clear that Trump actually maintains the political cachet that people would in the Republican Party would feel the need to do that? Yes, Carrie Lake is sucking up to Trump because she wants to be his VP. Yeah, Marjorie Taylor Greene is sucking up to Trump because she wants to be his VP. But the people and then you've got people like Mitt Romney who have said not voting for him no matter what. But it's very clear that the vast majority of Republicans at this point are taking a kind of wait and see approach, which is we're not going to get behind him until we see how much power he commands. And at this point, it's not very clear because he's

losing in the polls to people who haven't even announced, namely Ron DeSantis. So we're going to follow it. But this is increasingly a guy who looks like he's out of options. And for now, he's staying at home. The one thing he is doing is he's posting to Truth Social. Truth Central. And I want to talk about that next. Donald Trump in a dangerous, confused, all capital letters rant once again. And the question continues to be, is this guy actually running for president? Or is he just posting to Truth Social, Truth Central and hoping that people show up and beg him to save the country, even though Republicans don't seem particularly interested.

Take a look at this delusional, angry, furious, all capital letters rant that he posted to Truth Social, at least for now, resisting getting back on Twitter quote. And remember, it's all caps, folks. It's caps all the way down. Quote, how can the January 6th unselect committee make criminal referrals when they haven't spoken about or studied those that rigged the 2020 election, the troops not being brought in by Pelosi or now the election fraud determinatively revealed by Twitter. These are the real criminals. I think there's four lies there. First of all, the committee can make criminal referrals because house committees can make criminal referrals.

That's number one. Number two, the 2020 election was not rigged. Number three, the troops were not not brought in by Pelosi. There is no evidence Nancy Pelosi blocked nor even had the power to control the troops. And there is no evidence that Donald Trump requested tens of thousands of troops as he has claimed to. And number three, the Twitter files did not determinatively reveal any election fraud. They revealed that both the Trump administration and the Biden campaign had the email addresses of people they could email to request content be removed. And if the content violated Twitter's terms of service, Twitter sometimes removed it.

Trump continuing in all capital letters, quote, This was election interference. The disinformation was coming from the FBI and Facebook. It was coming from Adam Schiff and Democrat operatives. This was a very damaging story to Biden before the election, and they were going to kill it. Bottom line, the election was rigged and stolen. Miranda Devine, as interviewed by Mark Levin. Amazing. So what's the end game here? Is Trump's final foray into

public life going to be announcing that he's running in 2024, staying home as he has for the last month and posting all capital letters, messages to truth central to argue about how unfairly he was treated, telling lie after lie after lie until he eventually, either for health reasons or for some other undetermined reason, says, I'm actually not going to run. I have other things I want to do because this is not shaping up to be a very successful political run. That's for damn sure. And at some point, if he believed Joe Biden had to leave his house in order to win, which, by the way, apparently he didn't, at some point, if he believed Joe Biden had to leave his house in order to win, which, by the way, apparently he didn't, at some point, Trump's going to have to do something other than just posting all capital letters, messages on Truth Central. Now, I get it. It's early. We're 23

months away from the 2024 election. But is this going to be it? Is this going to be the last gasp and whimper of Trump's failed political career? I don't know. We will wait and see together. We have a voicemail number. That number is 2192 David P. I want to continue reminding you there are people pretending to be me trying to scam you on YouTube. Here's a new scam involving PS fives, PlayStation fives. I think these are, I think the five is the newest one. Is it? I don't know. I've never owned a PlayStation. Listen to this. Yes. My name is Brenda and, um, I listened to you show a lot and somebody contacted me saying through you right that i won um playstation 5 blah blah blah blah no and my id has been ripped off a lot so i did not give him my address good and i just want

to know if it's real no it is not Okay. So I've told you many times before, I don't want you to text me. Okay. If you, if you comment on, on YouTube and then it looks like I'm saying, Hey, cool, please text me. It's not me. All right. I don't want to chat with you on WhatsApp. If you're getting responses on YouTube saying David, uh, saying, uh, sir, or ma'am, I'm David, please chat with me on WhatsApp. It's not me. And I am not giving away any PlayStation fives. I'm not giving away game boys, Commodore 64s, X-Boxes, X-Box three sixties, super Nintendo, Nintendo Genesis. I'm not giving away Jaguar Jaguar. However, okay. I'm not, I have no Atari's or video game consoles to give away. These are scams. One thing that is upsetting me, the people that are being targeted,

we we've been investigating this, the people being targeted in my YouTube comments, oftentimes they will say in their comments, their age, and it's usually above 65. So there are now five people who were targeted by these scammers on YouTube who in their comments said, David, I'm 68 and I watch you every day. Boom. Thank you so much for your comment. I'd like you to text me. Next thing you know, they're getting scammed.

So few things here. Maybe don't post your age in the comments. I don't need to know your age when you leave a comment. I'm not texting. Just don't respond, folks. Report them. We're reporting them as quickly as we can. But these are scams. I'm not looking to give away anything. All right. Please, please, please. On today's bonus show. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Producer Pat was sent my pillow pillows and he is going to review them. There's a whole backstory to how he ended up with the pillows instead of me. OK, we're going to get to that. Number two, one vote made a difference in a Massachusetts House election after a recount, one vote had been miscounted

and it changed the winner. Amazon is being accused of stealing tips from delivery drivers and the baby whose parents didn't want the baby to get, quote, vaccinated blood if necessary during a life saving heart surgery has had the life saving heart surgery. We will tell you what happened, what went down. It's an incredible story. But the good news is the baby had the procedure. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. It's really easy to get access to the bonus show. Just sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code. Please no more Trump. And you have to say it with that tone when you type it in.

Please no more Trump. That's the code you save. You become a member. It's an amazing thing. And I will see you on the bonus show in mere moments. Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow with another new episode.