The David Pakman Show - 12/28/22: George Santos Crushed by Tulsi, How to Help Incels

Episode Date: December 28, 2022

-- On the Show: -- Liar Republican Congressman-elect George Santos is interviewed by Skye Ostricher, and despite being a complete softball friendly interview, it still goes horribly wrong for Santos -- Former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard fills in for Tucker Carlson on Fox News and does a good job of calling out Republican Congressman-election George Santos for his lies -- It would be good for society to find a way to help incels, and it would be good for the incels as well -- Fox News contributor Doctor Janette Nesheiwat is calling for the existing protocol to be required for trans children, apparently clueless that it's already in place -- Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin says that Donald Trump will end his life "behind bars" -- Donald Trump looks as scared as we've seen him in a deranged new video responding to the January 6 Trump riot committee -- Failed former President Donald Trump's former Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows is accused of burning official documents in his office by Cassidy Hutchinson -- Donald Trump's tax returns will be released on Friday -- Voicemail caller is not happy about the suggestion by David that Jewish Christmas can include Indian food in addition to or instead of Chinese food -- On the Bonus Show: SCOTUS says Trump-era border restriction will remain in effect, bill forcing feds to fix prison cameras signed into law, Trump didn’t know White House schedule was public, much more... 🔊 Try Blinkist for FREE and get 25% off at http://www.blinkist.com/pakman 👍 Get 10% off the Füm Journey Pack with code PAKMAN at https://tryfum.com -- 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 today we're going to start with two different interviews. It's a tale of two interviews with liar Congressman elect George Santos, a Republican. In the first interview, we are going to see George Santos interviewed by a woman named Sky Ostrich from the political personalities with Sky program. This seems to be almost like a friend of his. In fact, it seems maybe they do know each other from watching the interview. Friendliest interview in the world. And yet it still is a disaster based on

the continued lies that Santos tells. Later, we will look at now Fox News correspondent or contributor Tulsi Gabbard interviewing George Santos. And you know what? To Tulsi's credit, she does a good job of calling out his lies. So let's jump right into it. As a reminder for context, this is George Santos, who won a seat at the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican. He basically made up his entire life's history. He lied about his work history. He lied about his educational history. He lied about being Jewish. He said he's gay. And it does appear that that's actually that part is actually true. But he's in some cases calling these merely embellishments, in other cases saying, well, I never really committed a crime. And in other cases, sort of doubling down, in fact, on some of the lies. So this that you

are going to see, this is an insult to journalism. This is one of the most absurd parodies of journalism that I've ever seen. Sky off striker. First question. What made you feel like you needed to lie about your resume? Gets interesting quick. What caused you to even feel the need to exaggerate who you are? We'll start it this way. Look, I didn't outright lie about my work experience. Actually, I'm fairly well-rounded in the financial markets and capital markets. I've been doing- Now, whether you're well-rounded or not, you literally said you worked at places you didn't work. For a very long time. But I'll take you back to the beginning. So I've worked as a customer

service agent for six, seven months of my life or so, eight, maybe if in some at some point in 2011, 2012. OK. And, you know, I'm not ashamed of it, Sky. But the moment I put that on a resume and I put it out there, elitist like the New York Times like to call blue collar jobs like that. Odd jobs. Speaker 1 Guys, you see what's going on here? It's because of the elitist woke New York Times that wouldn't have taken his customer service experience seriously, that he essentially had no choice but to claim to work for Goldman Sachs or wherever it was. It's because of the woke New York Times that he had to do it. He didn't really have a choice. They forced him into it because, you know, it just doesn't fit their bourgeoisie style lifestyle.

So that bougie left media made me have to lie about my experience. It's those expectations and those negative connotations from elitist organizations such as The New York Times that lead people like me, who I'm very comfortable in saying I come from poverty. I come from a family of absolute nothing. And I've worked really hard to get where I am today. And the reality is, yes, I omitted past employment history that was irrelevant to the role. Although one can argue customer service is pretty important for. But he also made up employment history that didn't exist of Congress.

But I guess they just don't see it that way. And and, you know, for for poor use of words, maybe. And yeah, poor use of this guy made it up whole cloth. OK. And he's essentially saying they made me do it there. They just have these expectations. It's everybody else's fault that I that I had to make it up, which I kind of didn't. Then he explains why he was married to a woman. Now, this I actually don't find this to really be a super interesting part of the story because

because of social pressures and stigma and a lot of different reasons, it's not that rare that gay men at some point have relationships with women or might even be married to women. It is interesting to hear him explain it, though. Now, the one thing I will say is I'm sorry for having had a life for having had a complicated life. Oh, maybe I married. Yeah, I did marry young and I married a young woman at the time and we pretty much were in love. And then we weren't because that's why I decided after a long time, like many who don't to come out and say, I'm gay and I'm not going to lead you along. And this is toxic and this relationship isn't going to work. And I set myself free and I set her free. I think this is completely fine. I don't think this is a big deal whatsoever. Then they go into what about your constituents? What are your constituents

thinking about all of this dishonesty? So, George, how do you think your constituents are feeling right now? I can't answer that because I don't know. I have people who have reached out to me and given me the utmost support. I have people who have reached out to me frustrated with the reports and wanting to know more. And I have been giving the same explanation to people one off for the last couple of days. I was silent to the media because I don't dance to the tune of The New York Times. Right. Whichever MSNBC or whoever.

I dance to the tunes of my constituents. So I've been very heavily intensively on the phone talking to them, calling them, making sure people. He's been have. By the way, this to them, calling them, making sure people he's been have that. By the way, this guy just makes up words heavily, incentively. Yesterday he made up the word in grand gate and the phrase the knit and gritty as opposed to the nitty gritty. He's constantly making up words. It's sort of like an interesting aside who volunteered. And it's been an overwhelming response of George. We elected you to get a job done. We didn't care what your resume looked like, quite frankly. Speaker 1 If they didn't care, then why did he lie? Of course, is the question. Well,

because The New York Times made him one question has been, will he resign? Increasing pressure on him to resign. This interview was from two days ago. At this point, he makes it very clear he's not going to resign. However, maybe he will because things have changed since stuff done. I will be an effective member of Congress. I will be a diligent member of Congress and I will be able to deliver results for Congress for the people of New York's third district because I'm not going to allow this to deter me from doing that. Right. So making it clear he's not going to resign. However, the pressure continues mounting and maybe he will end up resigning. Now, here was an interesting question, and you'll find out why it's interesting very quickly. He has made claims about property ownership in this interview. He's asked by Sky Ostriker, playing the role of a of an interviewer

in this video about the property stuff. Take a listen to what he says. OK, I mean, that's a good attitude to have. I have a few other questions that maybe we can address really quick about property that you own, George. Do you own property? Do you not? So George Santos, me personally, I've never claimed to own property myself. I have never claimed to own property myself. OK, that's pretty clear. No, I do not own property. I've I've never purchased property under my name. But your family property, I think it has property and I'm able to use of their property and I help them out with, you know, keeping the books and stuff like that. But that's a family affair. OK, so no property doesn't have property,

never claim to own property. Here he is saying he sold the property. OK, let's see if I've got this lined up right. Let's take a listen. Two years ago, I sold a property I had on 28th Avenue. I sold a property I had not. I helped my family sell a property of theirs. I sold a property I had. Speaker 3 You know what's funny? Two years ago, I sold a property I had on 28th Avenue all the way down by the water. Why just go straight, right?

Because the shelter went up on 20th Avenue and it was very controversial and I sold the property there. But what I can tell you is that that area should have never been built on. That is a swamp that used to be the Flushing Airport and the swamp took over it. And then they insisted in building up an academy there. You know, it's a beautiful building. I think it's a gorgeous project. Yeah, I've never claimed to own a property. Oh, I sold a property I had because I didn't like the fact that a shelter went up. Doesn't really sound like you're saying it's a family property, does it? So just it's a lie on top of lie on top of lie. Then we get to the issue of his false claims that he's Jewish. OK, let's listen to

that. OK. And the controversy about your ancestors in the Holocaust, how did that how did that become such a story in these different Jewish publications, whether they were in the Holocaust or they weren't in the Holocaust? And do I wish you a happy Hanukkah or a Merry Christmas? So as I've said many times, and I think you've heard me say this, I always joke, I'm Catholic, but I'm also Jew-ish, as in, yeah. Guys, can't you tell? He's Jew-ish. And I've made that joke because growing up, I grew up fully aware that my grandparents were Jewish, came from a Jewish

family, and they were refugees to Brazil. And that was always a story I grew up with. And I've always known it very well. And I've told it the way it was told to me. Now, if it just strikes me so odd that people are rushing to disinherit me from being Jewish or for even allowing to. There's no evidence that those stories are true. Care for Israel and Judaism in a time and an era. Guys, he likes Israel. Why can't we just call him Jewish? I mean, if after after all, why can't we just allow him to do it?

Now, of course, George Rolling Stone report, George Santos, who said he never claimed to be Jewish, once called himself a, quote, proud American Jew, proud American Jew. I never claimed to be Jewish. No, I never claimed that. OK. And then one more video here. What does George say to people who now worry they won't be able to trust him? But are there people I'm sure there are. What do you say to them that are going to hold this against you and say that they can't trust you because of these exaggerations that you've made exaggerations? They were able to trust. Worse people, they were able to trust Andrew Cuomo, who sexually harassed women. His argument is they've trusted worse people than me. His entire career. They were able to trust his James who harbored a sexual predator as her chief of staff. Right. They were able to trust a litany of politicians in this country who have literally sold this country out. Look at the president of the United States. So guess what? I will make

them trust me by delivering results. I'm not here for self-empowerment, self-aggrandizement. I'm just here to get stuff done because I want to leave a country better off to the night. Yeah. So I guess you should trust him because worse people have held office. A humiliating attempt at an interview by Sky Striker and just lies upon lies. The dishonesty is just seeping through this guy's every pore and orifice of his body.

Horrifying, a horrible liar. And fortunately, Tulsi Gabbard actually took him to task. All right, listen, I have absolutely no problem criticizing someone I normally praise or praising someone I normally criticize. Broken clocks can sometimes be right. Functioning clocks sometimes run out of battery and give you the wrong time of day. So the point is, we evaluate each thing individually. And last night, Tulsi Gabbard, former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, no longer a Democrat who now supported like Herschel Walker and the worst of the worst,

Carrie Lake, et cetera, in 2022. She filled in for Fox News propaganda's Tucker Carlson last night, and she interviewed habitual liar Republican elect George Santos. And I have to tell you, she really did a pretty damn good job. And I my earpiece is flying out and I want to be able to hear this. So let me tuck it back in neatly there. She actually does a good job of calling it what it is. Take a listen to Tulsi and George Santos. The results that people are looking for are called into question when you tell blatant. And he increasingly gets flustered, which is great. George Santos, the results that people are looking for are called into question when you tell blatant. And he increasingly gets flustered, which is great embellishments.

And this is this is, I think, one of the biggest concerns, Congressman elect, is that you don't really seem to be taking this seriously. You've apologized. You said you've made mistakes, but you've outright lie. A lie is not an embellishment on a resume. You said you worked at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, but they've said we've got no record of this guy working for us. You've said you've gone to and graduated from these universities,

but they've said, well, we've got no record of that. These are blatant lies, and it calls into question how your constituents and the American people can believe anything that you may say when you are standing on the floor of the House of Representatives. Now, this is a question. Supposedly fighting for them. That's the real issue here. Well, look, I agree with what you're saying. And as I stated and I continue, we can debate my my resume and how I work.

You really it's not really for debate, though, with firms such as is it debatable or is it just false? But it's no, it's debatable. It's debatable. No, no, it firms such as is it debatable or is it just false? No, it's debatable. No, no, it's not false at all. It's debatable. It's totally false. And explain to you what you can do in private equity, in capital intro via servicing limited partners and general partners.

And we can have this discussion that's going to go way above the American people's head. Yeah, it would be too complicated for the American people for me to explain why it's not really a lie for me to say I worked for Goldman when I didn't because I worked for a company that had Goldman as a client and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, why'd you put Goldman on your resume then? That's not what I campaigned on. I campaigned on delivering results for the American people by lowering inflation. I can sit down and if you want to have that discussion, I'd be glad to Tulsi to explain that to you and make sure that we settled the score.

This is not about settling scores. And I think you just you just kind of highlighted, I think, my concern, the concern that people at home have. You're saying that this discussion will go way above the heads of the American people basically insulting their intelligence. So not only are you now backtracking on these lies that you've told. That's exactly what he's saying. But you're saying that you can't explain it in a way that your constituents would actually be able to understand. I can explain it in a way that these lies are debatable. If you give me the time, I can easily give the, if you give me the time, I can easily explain it

for you as, as in when investors are looking for capital and I'm sitting there doing due diligence on the decision on the appetite and what they're looking at. This is all to explain why he claimed to work at Goldman Sachs when he did not. When Tulsi is not buying your lies, you know, you're digging pretty deep here. Here's another clip from this interview. And again, to Tulsi's credit, she confronted him and he got increasingly flustered because he should, because he's lying to them. And now I want to put this past me so I can deliver for the American people. The thing is, Congressman elect integrity means, yes, carrying yourself with honor, but it means it means telling the truth, being a person of integrity.

And if I were one of those in New York's third district right now, now that the election is over and I'm finding out all of these lies that you've told, not just one little lie or one little embellishment. These are blatant lies. My question is, do you have no shame? Do you have no shame in the people who are now you're asking to trust you to go and be their voice for them, their families and their kids in Washington? Tulsi, I can say the same thing about the Democrats and the party. Look at Joe Biden. But don't the Democrats have shame? But we're not talking about them. We're talking about you claiming that you were Jewish when you weren't lying to the American people for 40

years. He is the president of the United States Democrats. But Biden once lied. Who resoundingly support him. Do they have no shame? Look, this is me. This very clear. This is not this is not about the Democratic Party, though. This is about your relationship, frankly, with the people who've entrusted you to go

and and fight for them. And I think one of the questions that that really probably, by the way, asking whether he has shame as she sits in Tucker Carlson's chair is pretty rich, but this is not about Tulsi. It's home to a lot of people is is are you Jewish? We've got a letter that your campaign sent out earlier this year, which reads as follows. As a proud American Jew, I've been to Israel numerous times for educational business and leisurely trips. You said there in that letter that you are, quote, a proud American Jew. How do you how do you explain that? My heritage is Jewish. I've always identified as Jewish. I was raised a practice. He just said in the other interview I played for you

that he has always identified as Catholic. But here he says, I've always identified as Jewish and Catholic. I think I've gone through this even I've not not being raised a practicing Jew. I've always joked with friends in circles, even with in the campaign. I'd say, guys, I'm Jewish. Remember, I was raised Catholic. So look, I understand everybody. Man, Tulsi is just not buying it. So good job by Tulsi. I have no problem praising her, even though I think most of her

contributions to American politics are quite negative. And Santos is just so dishonest. In the earlier interview, he says, no, no, no, no. Listen, I've always said I'm Catholic here. He says, no, no, no, no, no. I've always identified as Jewish, but I'm also kind of Catholic and this and that. And I'm Jewish. And there's a hyphen, guys. There's a hyphen. The hyphen makes all the difference in the world. This guy should resign. I hope that Republicans say you can't stay, dude. You got to go. We will follow it and let you know. Make sure you were subscribed to the YouTube channel. Over three million different people watched clips in November and didn't subscribe. If we can just get a fraction of those folks to hit the subscribe button on YouTube,

we'll be at two million subscribers before you know it. Quick break and we'll be right back. Speaker 1 You love nonfiction books, you love learning as much as you can about politics and economics and history and science, but you just don't have the time to read every book that you want to read. That's why I'm such a big fan of Blinkist. It's the app that takes thousands of nonfiction books, boils them down into an explainer that you can read or listen to in 15 minutes and get the most important insights from the book. You take a topic you've been wanting to explore and you can consume 10 books about it in an afternoon. It gives you a meaningful overview and insight into

what other books you might want to read in full. I just read Welcome to the Universe. It's Neil deGrasse Tyson's latest book. That's exactly the type of book that I would love to have the time to read. But my stack of books is already so big. My girlfriend and I also use the Blinkist connect feature to share and discuss books with one another with one account. And it makes a great last minute holiday gift. You can try Blinkist free for seven days and get 25 percent off a The David Pakman Show is an audience supported podcast, YouTube channel, radio show and television program. is in the podcast notes. extra show for our members called The Bonus Show. We also offer commercial free audio and video streams of the show and membership includes invitations to the members only town halls, the next of which will be scheduled very, very soon. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code 24 starts now. That's two four starts now for a sizable discount off of the cost of a membership.

We should really find a way to help in cells, those who are involuntarily celibate. And we should do it in a way that does not include forcing women to have sex with them, which has actually been suggested by some. David, what on earth are you talking about? So let's back it up. Incel is short for involuntarily celibate, and it's more than just being involuntarily celibate, meaning you'd like to be sexually active, but you're unable to find a partner. It also has a sort of entire subculture. And unfortunately, there have been elements of incel that have been interwoven

with mass shooters in some cases which have not gone unnoticed. And more broadly, there is a concern, and I believe it is a warranted concern, that in general, it's not just mass shootings. There is broader antisocial rather than pro-social behavior that emanates from this group that is, in many cases, disaffected, in many cases, depressed, using that as a colloquial term, not necessarily clinical depression, but just dissatisfied and sad about the status of their lives, et cetera. And I believe we need to find a way to help these folks, including to find healthier role models than the people that they often end up worshiping folks like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate. So we have to consider the circumstances

first. You've got a group that, among other grievances with society, they're upset they can't find a romantic partner. There's loneliness. There's isolation, the suffering of rejection in many cases. And the reason that it would be important to find a very specific way to help this group of people is not just that if we can improve someone's life, it's a great thing to do. But there's this self-fulfilling prophecy that happens often within the incel community where it's bad for society not to help them. The very isolation and rejection, et cetera, that they suffer leads them to the path where they find negative role models like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate. And then they end up blaming everyone else for

their misery instead of maybe looking more at themselves and changing themselves. And they end up adopting some of the worst traits of the people that they follow. It's not just Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate. There's all sorts of like charisma coaches and pickup artists and all this different stuff. And it makes them even less desirable to the very people they are trying to appeal to. So we've got to figure out how to do something. In cells are often portrayed in a negative light in society as well. And we know of individuals within the cell community that have embraced hateful ideologies. Sometimes the anger at the world and for heterosexual in cells, the anger at the women that won't give them the time

of day grows into a hateful ideology that includes other groups of people as well. And then sometimes it even leads to violent real world actions. So number one, it's important to understand that for the vast majority of incels, that's not actually the path. They're not they're not going to become violent. That's not what we're talking about. They're just folks struggling with isolation.

Sometimes it's self-esteem, difficulty forming romantic and sexual relationships. We should give them compassion and support rather than judging and condemning them, as so many people do on the Internet. So the question is, how can society help in cells? What can actually be done? It's all pretty I don't want to say milquetoast stuff. But what I mean is nothing's going to be particularly titillating. I think we all really kind of know what needs to be done. The resources and support need to be there for people who are struggling with either

body image or self-esteem issues that become this feedback loop because of their difficulty finding a partner. We we have to establish systems of support for them that aren't belittling or condescending. We should encourage people to seek out therapy or counseling to try to work through the issues that are underlying what often is a pretty severe social anxiety, either primary or as a result of their lack of success forming these relationships, lack of self-confidence. Sometimes there's past traumas or a particularly acute event where they were rejected by someone which now has a subsequent feedback loop and becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy. All of that stuff may need to sort of be worked through. And so you've got to offer education. You have to think about what resources can be established to really think about how do you navigate dating? How do you navigate relationships? How can you relate to whoever it is that you consider to be in your dating pool based on your sexual orientation, communication skills, understanding boundaries in some cases, helping people connect with not only others like them struggling with the same thing, but also with those that they would like to be building relationships with. And it could be online. It could be in person. We're not really doing this. And it sort of does fall under the

umbrella of we need to fund mental health. The right loves to say this problem is mental health. That problem is mental health. Anything gun or violence related is definitely mental health. And then given the opportunity, they often opt not to properly fund dealing with the mental health components. So we need to do that here. And again, it's I know that it's very popular to kind of just like make fun of incels or whatever, you know, just kind of like ridicule it or see it is not really a serious problem. It's it's a real serious problem in society because it is a perpetuating mechanism, a feedback loop for antisocial behavior that sometimes sometimes grows into actual violent acts. Send me your thoughts about as specifically as possible what can and should be done to support these folks,

to hopefully allow them to improve their lives. Fox News and their medical team is demanding that before minors are allowed to avail themselves of any gender affirming care, there should be steps that have to be taken. Therapy, for example, blood tests, physical exams. And of course, all these things are already happening. I'm going to show you these clips. This is this is pretty wild stuff. So Fox News had this panel with Dr. Mark Siegel and some other people, and they were talking about trans kids. And this is a very hot button issue right now. It really agitates the right. It's one of the top issues they like talking about. Here is one doctor saying what should be required. Take a listen at your take. I completely agree with Dr. Siegel.

I mean, she is not the god of science, science, medicine. They call it a practice because this is Dr. Jeanette Neshawat, Fox News contributor, constantly evolving. We need to change our guidelines and our protocols as we progress, as we learn more information. But gender just just for you. This is a very serious and sensitive issue, a very serious topic because it has a very high suicide rate, very high suicidal ideation rate. Up to 42 percent of those who struggle with their identity think about suicide because of the stress that it has on them and even their families. So I don't think it's right for Rachel Levine to

impose, it seems, her personal views on all of us. Instead, you know, we know that some people will benefit from, you know, transitioning and gender affirming care, but we want to do it the right way. And that starts off with taking a history and a physical, maybe doing blood work, getting counseling and therapy, not rushing to hormones and irreversible surgeries that might have long term consequences are irreversible. So she has some ideas of things that should happen before surgeries take place. Let's watch one more clip and then we'll talk about this. Approximately two thirds. You know, it's just it's a doctor. So you mentioned it. When should

these things be approached with the people, with the individuals who are experiencing gender dysphoria? There's got to be an age that is too young right well for sure puberty is too young to be talking about transition and that's where all the debating is going on and the mental health issues are really important because 70 or more of those that have gender dysphoria have major mental health issues going on simultaneously we can't sweep that under the rug. We have to. What's the downside of counseling? What's the downside of seeing a therapist and working through what you're feeling? OK, so listen, they have ideas about what should take place before minors are allowed to do certain things or even maybe they're talking about adults here. It's not totally clear, but they definitely seem concerned about minors. That's going on. The requirements vary to some degree state by state. But generally speaking, to even get going

down this path, there is a protocol and it does start with the physical exam and the initial conversation. Oftentimes there is some blood testing that's done. And at a certain point, a diagnosis is established of gender dysphoria. Now, some of these folks don't believe that gender dysphoria is a real thing, but others say, well, you should actually have to be diagnosed after going through an initial. OK, well, so for those people in that latter group, you get the diagnosis after an evaluation. Often it includes a mental health professional like a psychologist or a psychiatrist making that diagnosis to even be able to enter this entire path. That's a requirement in just about every state or requirement. Part of the

protocol. They're talking about protocol for the most part. Evidence of informed consent is required when you're talking about minors. Minors may be required to show that they really understand the risks, benefits, implications and possible complications of whatever it is that they're agreeing with the doctor that they want to do. And in some cases, this also requires the informed consent of the parent or guardian depends on the state. There's controversial aspects to that, but that's part of the protocol already. Again, they're saying they want this stuff. This is already part of the protocol. Three, in order to move to the surgery component, you often need evidence of long term hormone therapy as well as therapy, talk their psychotherapy to talk about and explore how that is going and whether the surgery is

actually the not logical next step. There are states that require minors to have been taking hormones for a certain amount of time before they're even eligible for surgery. And this is to make sure the family, the individuals, everybody knows how does this work to some degree? It's really the right thing for me, et cetera. And then at the tail end of all of this, almost always a letter from a mental health professional who has been involved in this often from the get go saying, here are all the things we've done. I believe that surgery is appropriate and that this individual is well suited and predisposed to surgery. Sometimes

that psychotherapy period goes on for a period of time as well. Again, depending on the state. That's what they say. We listen. We just can't go around doing this stuff willy nilly. I mean, what's wrong with therapy and a physical exam and getting the diagnosis? That's that's the protocol. That's the protocol I have still not found. And I am more than willing to review evidence if anybody has it for me. I have not found any place you can just kind of show up and say, I think I'd like surgery. Oh, have you been diagnosed with gender dysphoria? Have you done hormone therapy? Have you met with it? No, I just want. Oh, sure. Yeah. Next week, come in and we'll do the therapy. I've just not heard of that anywhere in the United States.

If it exists, I want to know more about it. Let me know. But I was able to find no evidence of it. So I guess the good news is the protocol that Fox doctors want to see already is in place. The next step is getting them to mention that rather than saying five year olds are getting their breasts cut off. Five year olds have breasts. Well, no, but they're still doing. Come on, guys. Come on. We'll have these clips on our Instagram, which you can find at David Pakman show on Instagram. diffusive device that uses plants and behavioral science to trade out your negative habit for a positive one. Fume is not a vape. It's a non-electronic device designed to transform your negative habits instead of pods filled with potentially harmful chemicals like a vape.

Fume uses cores infused with plants like peppermint and cinnamon for delicious natural flavors. Fumes new version two model is snappy and tactile with an adjustable airflow dial and a magnetic end cap. That's fun to fidget with. It's fumes goal to make switching easy or even enjoyable. They have thousands of five-star reviews from people just like you who have successfully switched when other solutions didn't work. Head to try fume dot com and use the code Pacman to get 10 percent off today when you get the journey pack, which comes with three unique flavors and the new version to fume. That's T.R.Y. F.U.M. dot com code Pacman saves you 10 percent on the journey pack. The info is in the podcast notes. Our friend, Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's been a guest on this program, says that Donald

Trump will likely end his life behind bars. This I have to see because I have a very, very difficult time believing that Newsweek reports Trump likely to be indicted will end life, quote, behind bars, Congressman says. Former President Donald Trump will likely be indicted and spend the rest of his life behind bars, Representative Jamie Raskin said on Saturday. Raskin is a Maryland Democrat and served on the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riots. The panel spent months probing Trump's role in the insurrection. OK, Raskin reflected about the significance of the report issued by the committee during

an appearance on Yahoo News is Skullduggery podcast Saturday. The Democratic lawmakers said he, quote, would be really would be surprised if Attorney General Merrick Garland did not indict Trump for his alleged role in the riot, adding that it's so clear that the president intended to interfere with the election certification. Raskin went on to say, I do think it's very, very important that we establish that it's not just foot soldiers, but kingpins who are prosecuted and that it's just wrong to send hundreds of foot soldiers to jail and leave the very clear kingpin unprosecuted. He added that Trump could spend the rest of his life in prison if he's convicted on January 6th charges. There's just deep culpability from the very beginning in everything that Donald Trump did.

I'm very serious about him facing the consequences and paying for the cost of his action. He could spend the remaining days of his misanthropic life behind bars, presumably with Secret Service agents. I would love for Jamie Raskin to be correct here. I really would. The blatant criminality and flouting of the law by Donald Trump is absolutely stunning and appalling. And we hope that the safeguards we have in place are actually robust and strong enough that they can hold someone like Donald Trump accountable. I would love for Jamie Raskin to be right that that accountability is going to be prison time. I don't think that it is. And again, it goes through. Let's think through the steps.

First step is Donald Trump has to be indicted. Hasn't happened yet, but maybe it will. Great. Trump gets indicted. Next step is, does it even go to trial or is Trump as a former president who will have the best of the best legal advice going to strike a deal and make a deal either where he doesn't have to admit to any guilt, but he pays fines or he has to plead guilty to something minor and the consequence of jail time, prison time is not even on the table. If you get beyond that and you say, OK, he's going to have to go to trial and it's going to include the possibility of a prison sentence. How do you get a jury to fairly evaluate a former president's actions? I don't know who you can find that wouldn't bring a strong preconceived notion and preconceived opinion about Trump's guilt or innocence. And by the way, as I've said before, if you can find people who really have no opinion, I would

wonder whether where they've been for the last six years and whether these are even really the people competent enough to serve on a jury, although it's a jury of your peers. I understand everybody gets to serve. So how do you even put a jury together if you then get a guilty verdict that sticks that doesn't get appealed? There may not necessarily be prison time. And if there is a guilty verdict and if there is prison time and Trump gets sentenced, older, wealthy folks close to 80 years old with prison sentences use every possibility available to them, every health issue that they have and argue for house arrest instead

of actual prison. So I believe that if everything went perfectly, indictment, serious charges, conviction, sentencing that even includes prison time. I think you get a suspended sentence or at the very, very worst for Trump. You get home confinement. So I know he's Mr. Perfect Health, 6'3", 239, healthiest president ever. I assure you that will be a very different story painted about his health if all of a sudden prison is on the table. And I would bet anything that Trump doesn't see a day in a jail or prison cell. If you disagree with me, I want to hear from you.

I just don't see it. Donald Trump looks scared as hell in a deranged new video attacking the recent report from the January 6 Trump riot committee. We're going to look at the clip. This guy seems nervous. This guy seems scared, even though I don't believe he will see even a single day inside of a prison cell. No matter what happens, he doesn't want to be the indicted president.

He doesn't want to have the next four years of his life. Who knows how many years he has left tied up dealing with a criminal trial. Look at Trump. Check this out. We wanted security. We wanted safety. There was no insurrection and there wasn't going to be an insurrection. It was made up by these sick people.

I've never seen Trump look like this, behave like this, talk like this. Nancy Pelosi and the D.C. mayor refused. If they'd listened to me, my recommendation, none of this would have happened. Now, remember, we've learned since first Trump kept saying I wanted 10 to 20,000 troops to protect the Capitol and Nancy Pelosi turned him down. And what we realized was Nancy Pelosi didn't turn anything down. Trump didn't request 10 to 20,000 troops to protect the Capitol. It's actually even sicker. We've now learned Trump wanted 10,000 troops to protect him on January 6th, him not to protect the Capitol, to protect him. It's insane that that's actually the truth of the matter. And you wouldn't have heard about January 6th as we know it. They covered up multiple tweets

and they covered up a video which were censored by Twitter and the FBI, in which I called for law and order and for no violence. This this should be an exhibit at whatever trial is forthcoming. And then they pushed an absurd and discredited story where I supposedly lunged for the steering wheel in an attempt to commandeer a presidential limousine. Think of it. I lunged for a steering wheel and they believe that story. Nobody believes that story. The committee jump cuts doing a lot of work here. I can only imagine what the experience of watching Trump film this was like. Early even discussed the catastrophic security failures at the Capitol. And they didn't discuss the other thing. The reason that everybody went there, the election, which was a corrupt

disaster. They did not discuss why the doors were flung wide open for people to walk right in, and they didn't discuss the role of federal informants. Most importantly, the unselect committee did not produce a single shred of evidence that I in any way intended or wanted violence at our Capitol. The evidence does not exist because the claim is baseless and a monstrous lie. They know it. It's just like the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. This is absolutely no different. It's misinformation.

The only thing they're good at cheating in elections, misinformation. Remember, there was no cheating in the election by Democrats. The events of January six were not an insurrection. They were a protest that tragically got out of control and which the left has been weaponizing ever since to censor, spy on and persecute American citizens. The entire phony hoax is about taking away your speech, taking away your vote and taking away your freedom. These are sick people. These are Marxists and they're very dangerous and very. Now, as you know, there would really be no connection between Marxism and any of the

things that Donald Trump is talking about. That is unhinged. And understand that with the jump cuts where it's like Trump's in a different part of the screen every time they cut it. And we know why this happens, because we've seen the uncensored video of Trump trying to record these things. He can barely speak. And it's really just a triggering experience for him. I can only imagine that given that this was the best video they could put together, that this guy was just exploding behind the scenes about this thing. He seems scared. He seems terrified. He doesn't want to be the indicted president, which he may be. I don't know what the big 2023 story is going to be, but if I were a betting man at this point, I might be saying

it's the Trump indictment. We will see. We will take a break and be back right after this. Well, this is just unbelievable, except, of course, it's not. Mark Meadows, who served as Donald Trump's chief of staff up until the end of Donald Trump's presidential term, has now been accused of burning official documents in his office. Yes, a fire in his office. It is stunning what we continue to learn about what took place. Politico reports Meadows burned papers after meeting with Scott Perry. January 6th panel was told then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows burned papers in his office after meeting with a House Republican who was working to challenge the 2020 election, according to testimony that the January six committee heard

from Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked under Meadows when he was Trump's chief of staff. The Meadows Perry meeting came in the weeks after Election Day as Trump and his allies searched for ways to reverse the election results. It's unclear whether Hutchinson told the committee which specific papers were burnt and if federal records laws required the materials preservation. Meadows destruction of papers is a key focus for the select committee. And the person familiar with the testimony said investigators pressed Hutchinson for details about the issue for more than 90 minutes, for more than 90 minutes. Another report from The Hill, former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson indicated Mark

Meadows burned documents in his fireplace roughly a dozen times in the final weeks of the administration. Hutchinson became a star witness in the panel's public hearings, told the committee on May 17th. She saw Meadows burn documents once they turned his office fireplace once they turned, I guess it's supposed to say turned his fireplace on in December of 2020. The Presidential Record Act only asks that you keep the original copy of a document. So, yes, Hutchinson asked said when asked if she saw Meadows use the fireplace to burn documents. However, I don't know if they were the first or original copies of anything. It's entirely possible he had put things in his fireplace.

He would have put into a burn bag that were duplicates or that were there was an electronic copy of. I want to say once or twice a week. I can't recall. I can recall specific times he did it. Maybe a dozen, maybe just over a dozen. But this was over a period December through mid January, which is when we started lighting the fireplace. Think of what was going on at this White House. Trump's flushing documents down the toilet. Meadows is burning documents in a fireplace. Totally normal presidential office stuff. As a general rule, functioning democracies don't burn official documents in a fireplace. Functioning democracies don't flush official documents down a toilet and functioning democracies don't elect mob boss

types to run countries. Now, we have seen mob boss types run a number of different countries, and we know it doesn't typically go particularly well. So the critical question here, of course, is were these originals that were supposed to be maintained as part of the Presidential Records Act? Were these duplicates of some kind? Are there electronic records? We just don't know at this time. What we do know is if they're originals under federal law, it is a crime to destroy, alter, mutilate, conceal, cover up, falsify or make a false entry in any record, document or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence a federal investigation or any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States. That's a very long rule or a very long law. What it means is any alteration or destruction of a document

with the intent of getting in the way or preventing a future investigation, making a future investigation difficult is a crime. The offense is punishable by a fine and imprisonment and or imprisonment up to 20 years. In addition to that, the federal records laws and regulations require that federal agencies properly create, manage and preserve records, including those related to the White House. NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration, an often mentioned organization in the context of the Trump administration, oversees all of that and can take disciplinary action against federal employees. Do I expect Meadows to go down for this? I really don't. This is more about the habitual ease with which these people regularly violated sometimes the law, sometimes convention

and often protocol. And we're really going to get a test of whether our legal system and rules and regulations and checks and balances are actually strong enough to create or generate or result in consequences for the so many different people that participated in the wrongdoing. We'll find out. Donald Trump's tax returns are going public on Friday. It's finally happening. We already know much of what is in those tax returns, thanks to the report issued by the January 6th committee. But we're getting them. The tax returns are going to be released Friday and it's going to be wild. NBC News reporting Trump tax returns to be released to the public on Friday. The Ways and Means Committee voted last week to make six years

of Trump's tax returns public. This was a party line vote. Initially, the plan was to release the documents as early as last Wednesday. The disclosure was delayed due to having to redact personal information like Social Security numbers. The assortment of six years of Trump's personal tax returns and some of his business returns are expected to be placed into the congressional record Friday. The clock is ticking for the committee, which will turn over control to Republicans when the new Congress is sworn in next week. Another report from Reuters, former Republican President Donald Trump's redacted tax returns

will be made public on Friday. The documents to be released Friday are expected to include Trump's tax returns between 2015 and 2021, the years he ran for and served as president. A spokesperson for Trump declined to comment. Trump was the first presidential candidate in decades not to release his tax returns during either of his campaigns for president. So beyond the Trump aspects of this, what are we going to learn from the Trump aspects? OK, we've gone over it so many times. He's not as rich as he claims to be. He has sketchy debts that raise questions about being compromised in national security. He uses this, some would call it fraudulent technique of inflating the value of assets

when he wants to use the asset as collateral for a loan, but diminishing the value of an asset when it's for the purposes of figuring out how much tax he's going to owe on that as there's the Trump aspect to it. We already learned most of those things are true from the summary the House released, and we will get, I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt confirmation from the tax returns themselves. Beyond that, there are banks that will maybe end up under pressure after these tax returns are released to know from people wanting to know from those banks. Why did you keep loaning this guy money when his finances were clearly bad? How did you accept this valuation for a building that was serving as collateral when it so clearly was not the value of the building?

So I believe there's going to be attention on banks and whether the banks were sort of like look the other way or whether the banks were complicit in what some would call a fraud. We are also going to see potentially the argument made that, you know, something is partisan and biased here because there has never been this much attention about any president's tax returns. The right is going to say, you know, this is all a politically trumped up witch hunt way to go after Donald Trump because you've never seen so many people waiting for the tax returns of another president. Well, no other president.

Refused to release their tax returns and then worked for six years to prevent their release. That's why there is a spotlight on this. And they will claim the problem is that people are eager to see the tax returns. Now, the reason we're even in this situation is because Trump did something nobody else has done, which is to say, I'm just not going to release them now. He did say, I will release them once they're no longer being audited, but they weren't being audited. And you all know the lies. But the point here is what's unique isn't that the tax returns are coming out. It's that they had to come out via this means because Trump refused to otherwise provide

them. So don't fall for that when we certainly hear from Republicans. You know, this is political partisanship because Democrats are excited about the tax returns. Now, it's Trump who did the thing nobody else has done. We have a voicemail number, that number is two one nine two. David P. I mentioned Jewish Christmas, which is, of course, you get Chinese or Indian food or really any place that's open. Right.

It just tends to be Asian restaurants. And there's a caller who is not thrilled with the Indian food component of it. Take a listen to this. David, it's Alan from Jersey. Yes. I'm watching the show today and you're saying that the Jewish Christmas is Chinese or Indian food? Correct. I'm like, do you not understand the meaning of the season, the Christmas spirit? How could you?

It's just like Jesus died for our sins david and this is the day we celebrate his birth not by indian food i mean that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard everyone knows it's chinese food and a movie getting the chinese food and a movie never indian food i don't know you can do indian food the rest of the year but this day, Jesus died so we could have the day off for our movie and Chinese food. OK. And specifically, it has to be like maybe Avatar 2. OK. And we're now getting a little bit too detailed. So this is a joke. I don't think that guy's really mad that I had Indian food on Christmas. But yes, there is a long tradition. There's in fact, a lot of interesting sort of like articles and research into this. How did it end up that Jewish folks get Asian food on Christmas? And of course, the answer is relatively simple. Christmas is

really boring. If you're Jewish, I remember from when I was a kid. Now it's less boring because no matter what day it is, I'm just chasing around a baby. But that's a different story. But historically, it's a very boring day. And you order from the restaurants that are open. And typically those are Asian restaurants of different kinds. I believe Indian food is just as acceptable as Chinese food on Christmas. If you disagree with me, you can let me know. We have a fantastic bonus show for you today. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Well, we'll see if any money is made today on today's bonus show.

We are going to talk about the Supreme Court saying the Trump era border restrictions under Title 42 will remain in effect while legal challenges play out. Very controversial, very hypocritical. Much of what's gone on with Title 42. We will talk about it. A bill forcing the feds to fix prison cameras has been signed into law. Prison cameras are actually a big topic. And I recently actually read a book about prisons. And're going to talk about the prison cameras. There's actually quite a connection to police body cameras as well there, which we will discuss.

And then lastly, it has been revealed that Donald Trump didn't realize that the White House schedule was a public document until there were only weeks left of his presidency. He then realized, wait a second, what I'm doing daily gets published. And at that point he asked for a much more generic version to be published. And that's when you might remember in the last few weeks of Trump's presidency, his schedule started to say things like the president will have many meetings with various people and work for the American people. And we wondered, that's really weird. Why are they doing that? It's clearly that Trump isn't working. He only learned then that the president's official

schedule is a public document, which is just mind blowing. All of those stories and more today on the bonus show, when producer Pat joins me, remember, get the free white paper on how to argue politics with people without burning the bridge of the relationship with them. There's a free guide. It's free. It's really free. I'm not selling you anything. You can find that at David Pakman dot com slash guide David Pakman dot com slash guide. It's free. We'll see you on the bonus show and back here tomorrow.