The David Pakman Show - 3/18/24: Don Lemon tells David about Elon Musk, Trump says Biden beat Obama

Episode Date: March 18, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Don Lemon joins David to discuss his recent interview with Elon Musk, after which Musk terminated Lemon's contract to host a show on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter -- Republican Congressman James Comer struggles with the difference between evidence and proof in yet another Fox News interview about Joe Biden's supposed "crimes" -- The list of prominent and well-known Republican figures who are not voting for Donald Trump in 2024 is getting quite long -- Failed former President Donald Trump suffers a scary brain glitch at his latest rally in Dayton, Ohio, wrongly claiming that Joe Biden ran against and defeated Barack Obama -- Donald Trump threatens a "bloodbath" at his rally in Dayton, Ohio, and botches a number of other words -- At Donald Trump's latest rally in Dayton, Ohio, they stand and sing an alternative treasonous National Anthem in honor of the January 6 rioters, whom they call "hostages" -- A former Trump voter, Mike from Pennsylvania, explains why he will not be voting for Trump in 2024 -- In a Fox News interview, failed former President Donald Trump defends his call to terminate parts of the Constitution, and then repeats a number of known and long-debunked lies -- On the Bonus Show: Vladimir Putin wins in Russian election landslide, Ron DeSantis signs bills expanding prison sentences for undocumented migrants, Biden campaign raises $53 million in February, much more... 👍 Use code PAKMAN for 10% off the Füm Journey Pack at https://tryfum.com/PAKMAN 🖼️ Aura Frames: Use code PAKMAN for $20 off at https://auraframes.com 🧦 Strideline: Use code DAVID for 15% off at https://strideline.com 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

. Do Republicans understand the difference between evidence and proof and do they care? That's the question that we should have in mind as we talk about the forthcoming discussion that happened forthcoming on the program that happened yesterday on the Fox News channel. You know, if you sort of put your finger to the wind, the general feeling, the general environment when it comes to the Hunter Biden and especially the Joe Biden alleged criminality story, impeachment, prosecution, lock them up, all of that stuff. It seems like a deflated balloon. It seems like a wop wop sort of situation because after years of this supposed inquiry informally and more recently, more formally,

they still have no evidence of criminality by Joe Biden. Now, I know a lot of people say, David, that doesn't matter. They don't care about evidence of criminality. They're putting on a show at the tail of end of which, you know, the pot at the end of the proverbial rainbow is we are now ready to impeach President Joe Biden. But it really has been deflated when it comes to the facts. And one of the primary nodes of disinformation and humiliation, to be honest, has been Republican Congressman James Comer. How many times have we seen Jamie, as so many of his fellow Republicans call him, appear on some such program, often on Fox News, many times with Trump brown noser Maria Bartiromo and be asked a simple question like, do you have any evidence?

Do you have any evidence Biden committed a crime? If so, what crime? Do you have any evidence of specific policies that Biden changed in order to help whoever was paying him? And the answer is always some version of no. That's different in this particular clip. In this clip, you will hear James Comer say to Maria Bartiromo that he absolutely has evidence that Biden benefited from influence peddling, but then he won't actually cite any of it. Let's listen to it. Let's watch it. Then we will talk a little bit about the difference between evidence and proof and facts and these sorts of concepts which have proven quite elusive for the modern right winger together. So tell us right here, right now, do you feel you have evidence? By the way, do you feel is funny? Do you feel is there?

Do you feel a tingle down your leg that you have what you need? What about the facts, sir? Tell us to share with us that Joe Biden, President Biden actually benefited from this influence peddling scheme that you're referring to. Absolutely. Joe Biden got two payments. We've already disclosed that, that came from Jim Biden as a result of the influence peddling schemes. Now, the White House and the media try to claim those were loans. Okay, let's say they were loans. They weren't, but let's say they were for the sake of argument. Jim Biden never could have paid that quarter of a million dollars back to Joe, were it not for the influence peddling schemes. The one with AmeriCorps Health that netted $200,000 to Joe Biden and the one from China

that netted $40,000 to Joe Biden. So Joe Biden benefited to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. We've proved together that it's you know, you have to hand it to them. They're completely morally bankrupt. They're substantively vapid. They offer nothing. But you have to hand it to them that when James Comer sort of wraps all of that together, it kind of sounds like a coherent narrative. Yet it's nothing more than conjecture and hyperbole.

The evidence he cites of Biden benefiting from from influence peddling is that Jim Biden gave money to Joe Biden. Now Comer goes on to say if that was just a loan repayment, fine, but that's still a problem because it was money that James Jim Biden repaid with money he made thanks to Biden's influence peddling. There's no evidence of any of that. So when he says we have evidence, all they have is a photograph of a check of Jim Biden giving Joe Biden money. That doesn't implicate China. It doesn't implicate bribery.

It doesn't implicate influence peddling. It doesn't implicate Hunter Biden. It doesn't do any of those things. And then Comer comes in and says, well, and we know that those were monies that Jim Biden got through the help of Biden's influence. They don't have any evidence of that. And you really have to understand that actions, evidence and proof are all very different things. You might consider that like evidence are pieces of a puzzle. First, you've got just like actions. Oh, I got a loan.

I withdrew twenty five hundred bucks from the bank. I sent a check. I had a meeting. OK, those are actions. Some of those actions we might call evidence if they were relevant to a particular matter. Now, evidence, by the way, evidence can either prove or disprove or do neither with regard to a particular claim. So in this case, we say the claim is the claim is Biden made money personally by changing policy in order to be useful either to the companies that were paying him or paying Hunter or paying Jim Biden. That's like generically speaking what they're alleging. That's that's what they want to prove when they say the evidence is Jim Biden gave Joe Biden money. That's not evidence one way or

the other with regard to their claim that there's criminality, that there's bribery, that there's influence peddling or whatever the case may be. Just the fact that a thing happened isn't proof or disproof of the main allegation that you're making and actions can be completely irrelevant. Like, hey, we looked at his credit card statement. He buys ice cream all the time. OK, that's a fact. I don't it's certainly not proof. And I wouldn't even call it evidence related to the claims that are being made. So here's one more clip. And James Comer is totally shot out of a cannon. He says as far as the

impeachment investigation, that they're getting close to criminal referrals. It's like, dude, what on earth are you talking about? But we're going to give Hunter Biden an opportunity. I'm not sure he won't show up, Maria. There have been two times where he showed up when he said he wasn't going to show up to have a publicity stunt with the mainstream media to attack me and say that we didn't want to have a transparent public hearing. Well, that's going to be this week and I fully expect Hunter Biden to show up. If he does not show up, then it's not gonna end well for the Bidens because we have three witnesses that have already testified under oath to significantly different- They've testified under an oath. That's interesting.

Stories as to what exactly the Biden-influenced peddling schemes were. This is very serious because we're at the point now of criminal referrals. Yeah. Criminal referrals, meaning you are going to refer these people for criminal action. How many criminal referrals are you expecting to make? Well, they're going to be multiple criminal referrals. We've spent a year. These people are so pathetic. I mean, it's like just keep talking, dude. OK, at some point, show us evidence that proves your claims. Then we'll take it seriously. And Maria Bartiromo continues to entertain this.

Fox News continues to entertain it. All of the if you want to talk about evidence, all the evidence points to there is nothing there. There's a growing list of prominent Republicans who are publicly saying I am not supporting Donald Trump in November. This is being sort of waved off by many on the right and the left is not important. But I'm here to tell you today, this is actually extraordinarily important. We're going to look at a montage here put together by the Biden Harris HQ Twitter account. You will see Mitt Romney, the Republican senator who we know has said he's not supporting Trump.

You are going to see new video from this weekend of the failed former President Mike Pence, the one that Trump supporters wanted to kill. He says he is not endorsing Trump in twenty twenty four. This is not getting the attention it deserves and it does deserve attention. And I'll tell you the multiple reasons why in a moment. First, let's take a look at this. I will not be voting for former President Trump. And it should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year.

I have known him well for 22 years. More than anybody else in this race has known him. And I can promise you this. If you put him back behind the desk in the Oval Office and a choice comes and a decision is needed to be made as to whether he puts himself first or he puts you first, how much more evidence do you need that he will pick himself? I don't intend to support him for the Republican nomination. Who do you want to support?

I haven't decided yet. It won't be him. And what's the reason for you not supporting him? Where do I begin? Thank you. I can tell you that in the state of Michigan, he is now being hurt and trails Biden because of the fact that the evangelical community is saying, we don't think this is our guy. I don't know whether he can shore that up again. I don't know if this has been said on the air before. But the information that I have from a very well-respected pollster is evangelical voters are saying some of them are saying enough is enough.

It'll be interesting to see where this develops, because without them, he's got a real problem. All right. So a couple of different things here. I know a lot of people just kind of roll their eyes at this. Republicans roll their eyes and they say, why do we care if rhinos Republicans in name only? Why do we care if the rhino group of Republicans won't support Trump? They're just upset that Trump didn't give him cushy positions or they have

personal grievances or whatever. And then there's people on the left who will say, well, this doesn't really make a difference one way or the other. Great Republicans who will never vote for Democrats anyway aren't going to support Donald Trump. Well, I take issue with that second assertion. I think some of these Republicans absolutely would consider voting Biden. And we've heard that there are moderate Republicans. We're going to hear from another one later today who say it's not that I agree with Biden on policy. I'm to his right. But I agree with Biden's decency and the fact that he is not the most important figure. It is the country and it is the voters, etc. So a couple different things. Number one, you don't usually forget about a former vice president not endorsing

the guy they served under. That's absolutely a blockbuster in terms of Pence saying, yeah, I served under him for four years. I'm not endorsing him. I don't think he should be the president. That is noteworthy. And it goes to the discontent that there is in the Republican Party against Trump. Now, you might say, well, David, there's obviously not enough discontent to defeat him. And that's exactly my point. Trump securing between 60 and 65 percent of the primary vote. Nikki Haley, the lion's share of the remaining 35 to 40 percent. That is obviously not a majority. What the non-Trump vote secured. But it is huge, particularly when it is a former president from that party.

So when you look at the Republican Party, Trump still has the lion's share of support. But those who don't support him from the party really don't support him. And this includes his own former vice president. This includes Republican senators, members of Congress and others. In terms of the strategy for the left, we want the biggest tent possible. Do I care if a bunch of these Republicans look at Trump and they say, this guy doesn't care about democracy. He doesn't care about the middle class person. He doesn't care about maintaining alliances and sticking to our word.

Fine. I agree with him on abortion. But overall, I need someone who defends democracy. So I'm leaning towards Biden. Do we say, well, you're wrong about abortion, so we don't want your support? No. We say, hey, this broader goal of maintaining democracy is important and you're welcome to join us in voting for Joe Biden and preventing Trump from becoming the president. And then,

OK, so then on abortion, we're not going to agree once we get another four years of Biden and then we can have the fight on abortion, on abortion as as an ethical matter. Also, we've talked about the deprogramming of cult members. And one of the critical elements of it is you want to provide a welcoming enough environment so they feel comfortable saying, hey, you know what? I was duped. I was wrong. I'm changing my mind. And one of the most important preconditions to deprogramming cult members is making them feel as though there are people they can go to and say, I might have been wrong and they're not going to be judged or attacked. And instead, they're going to be told it's an amazing thing that you've

actually realized that. Tell me more. What made you realize that that Trump was no good. How did this happen? And the third part is, to some degree, prominent defections can actually sway votes. There are constituencies where, you know, Utah, there's still people, there's still Republicans in Massachusetts. Massachusetts will go to Biden, but there are Republicans in Massachusetts and surrounding states who saw Romney as a sensible guy. And so there are probably some Republicans in New Hampshire who will see Biden. I'm sorry, Romney say, I'm not voting Trump and they'll go, you know what? I always trusted Mitt Romney.

Think I'm not voting Trump either. Or there will be some evangelicals in Indiana and maybe some in Ohio or maybe some in Michigan, nearby states who will see Pence say, I'm not I'm not endorsing this guy. And some of them will say, you know, I always trusted Pence. I'm not going to write him off as a rhino. I'm actually going to listen to him and say maybe I shouldn't vote for Trump either. So defections can sway public opinion. So my view is welcome all of them. Come on in. Let's see if we can defeat this guy Trump in November. Breaking a deeply ingrained habit is one of the toughest things to do. Our sponsor fume can make

it easier. Not everything in a bad habit is wrong. So instead of a drastic, uncomfortable change, remove the bad from the habit. And that's quite frankly what fume helps you do. Fume is an innovative, award winning device that delivers flavored air. That's it. There's no vapor. There's no nicotine, no electronics. It's just delicious flavored air delivered by the cylindrical fume device that fits in the palm of your hand. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. So if you're fidgeting or want to, it's great for that. And it's just a useful thing to break bad habits. And it provides that perfectly satisfying hand to mouth mechanic that many people love. Don't judge fume until you've tried it. They have helped countless people make positive changes and you could be next. Head over to try fume dot com and use code Pacman to save 10 percent when you get the journey

pack, which comes with the device and several flavors to try. That's try FUM dot com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman for 10 percent off the journey pack. The info is in the podcast notes. We all know that person who loves taking photos, but they have hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands in the case of some folks I know of pictures just wasting away on their phone. You can put them to good use with a unique, stylish digital picture frame from Aura Frames. I got these Aura Frames for my parents and preloaded them with pictures of the baby. And my parents love it. And I can add more pictures from wherever I am. And they pop up on their frames. It's so easy to see why aura has been named the number one digital picture frame by

Wired and by The New York Times. My favorite part is you can use a QR code on the outside of the box to load it with pictures so you can still hand off the gift brand new in the box, but it's already preloaded with the pictures. Then you and the recipient can add pictures via the app. No cables or USB. It's all over Wi-Fi. Super convenient. And it comes with unlimited storage.

Load as many pictures as you want for a limited time. My audience gets twenty dollars off their best selling frame. Go to or a frames dot com and use code Pacman. That's a you are a frames dot com promo code Pacman to get twenty dollars off or as best selling frame. The info is in the podcast notes. Terms and conditions apply. We're supposed to believe that every time Donald Trump glitches and short circuits,

it's on purpose. It's satire. It's comedy. But the latest one is really tough to watch and really tough to believe. This one's actually scary. We're going to look extensively at a rally. Trump didn't date in Ohio over the weekend. But I really want to isolate this one moment. Donald Trump said that Joe Biden defeated Barack Obama. Donald Trump said that Joe Biden ran against

and beat one against Barack Obama. This never happened. This is the type of true problem in the brain that Dr. John Gartner told us about the other day and the crowd starts to get confused. What the hell is Trump talking about? State against Biden, the largest in the largest margins ever. You know, it was interesting. Joe Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama. Has anyone ever heard of him? Barack Hussein Obama or what? What? What is he talking about? Biden won against Obama. This is not a guy who is well and this is very clear here. This isn't a stutter. This isn't Trump reading the wrong facts that someone put on

the teleprompter for him. This is Trump visibly confused and disoriented about simple historical facts and realities. When we talk about the phonemic paraphrase that Dr. John Gartner told us about when we talked about those mismatches and the glitches. My hair goes crazy when I do it. But when Trump gets the wrong word and his shoulder goes up and he almost seems to clench up in a very strange way, this is not, you know, Biden stuttered. This is a different thing and it needs to be taken seriously. Now, as I've said before, if Trump was 40. Not obese. Cognitively fine. I still would not vote for the guy

because of his authoritarian wannabe dictator mentality. Because he's dishonest, because he cares only about himself. He's an egomaniacal narcissist because he puts people around him who are dangerous. But in addition to all of this, for those focused only on the ages of the candidates, something's very wrong with this guy. Very, very wrong. And we are starting to see, by the way, as Dr. John Gartner predicted, it's accelerating. It's not just, you know, a single word here or there. Nikki Haley, in terms of Nancy Pelosi, was scary enough. He really didn't know who he was talking about or what was going on. But I want you to really go back and look at the clip. Is there anything there that seems like Trump is telling a joke? Because that's

what he has told us when he does this stuff. He says he's telling a joke. Listen to it again. Ever. You know, it was interesting. Joe Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama. Has anyone ever heard of him? What's the joke?

What's the satire? What's the parody? What what is he talking about? Why is that a joke? What would be funny about that? So the I'm doing it on purpose thing doesn't make any any sense. In this campaign, Trump numerous times has said that he's running against Barack Obama. And now he's saying it's Biden who defeated Barack Obama. Obama. Exactly. You be the judge.

If you think this is nothing, I want to hear from you. What's going on? All right. Let's get to the bloodbath scenario. Failed former President Donald Trump at this very same rally in Dayton, Ohio, threatening a bloodbath if he loses. Now Trump was a little careful. He sort of framed it as it'll be a bloodbath for the auto industry. And that's the plausible deniability that his strongest and most sycophantic defenders

are using to say this is no big deal. But of course, we know Trump's history. We know Trump's inciting of a riot. We know Trump trying to steal the election. We know Trump's inciting of a riot. We know Trump trying to steal the election. We know Trump's other threats. So the context in which Trump says this is a context in which he is known for inciting violence and his followers know we should be paying attention because he might deputize us to violence once again. Here's Trump. And you're not going to be able to sell those guys if I get

elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole.'re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. They're building massive factories. Right. I mean, it's going to be a bloodbath if I don't get elected. For General Motors, they're going to have trouble selling cars now for everybody defending this and saying, oh, it's out of context. Why is everybody assuming Trump is talking about violence? My guess is if you interviewed the MAGA cultists exiting the rally and said, what do you think Trump meant when he said there will be a bloodbath if I lose. What percentage do you think would know

that that was only referring to the auto industry and the difficulty in selling inventory that they will be accumulating? Trump knows what he's doing. He knows how he is heard. And that's why these excuses of no, no, no, there is nothing at all violent there. He's just referring only to the auto industry. You'd have to be extraordinarily naive or completely disconnected from the last four years to understand or to believe or to fall for that. Now, there were no shortage of other problems for Donald Trump during this bizarre event. Trump botching the word bite again, just really struggling to get through these speeches. I saved you, cried the woman. I saved you. I saved you and you've bit me. But why?

You know, your boy is poisonous. Your boy is poisonous. And then lastly, no Trump rally is complete without virulent xenophobia reminiscent of past regimes that have dehumanized whoever. Here is Trump talking about, you know, some of these immigrants, they really are animals, right? Young people that are in jail for years. If you call them people, I don't know if you call them people. In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say.

They say you have to vote against him because did you hear what he said about humanity? I've seen the humanity and these humanity. These are bad. These are animals. Okay. And we have to stop it. We can't have another lake. And we have so many people.

We have so many people being hurt so badly and being killed. They're sending their prisoners to see us. They're sending and they're bringing them right to the border and they're dropping them off and we're allowing them to come in. And these are tougher than anybody we've got in the country. These are hard. All right. This, you know, we've talked about it before. This is the absolute worst bottom of the barrel, dehumanizing language, not people, but animals. And of course, if you see someone as an animal, then you are going to be more willing to accept them being

treated like animals, for example, being caged. And that is what this is fundamentally about. Trump has told us he will militarize deportations. He will put migrants in camps. He has said all of what he would do. And at a certain point, we just have to say, yeah, that's what he's going to try to do. We can't leave it to whoever in the military to prevent it. We have to prevent it ourselves by how we vote in November. The Trump rally cult went off the rails at the Dayton, Ohio rally, playing the treason national anthem and actually rising in honor of what they call the January six hostages. We call them alleged criminals.

We call them criminal defendants. This is the new big hot thing in Mago world, which is they now treat the hundreds or nearly a thousand at this point, individuals who were arrested and charged for their role in the January six riots more than three years ago. They are now calling them hostages. They are saying they have been so unfairly treated, normally tough on crime, normally tough on crime. Republicans are saying we need to free the hostages. And now they have a I'm calling it a treason national anthem. This was at the start of Trump's rally in Dayton, Ohio. Look at this.

And if you're eating, by the way, I might pause or put down the food because this is pretty vomitous. Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January six hostages. By the way, I don't know who Trump is saluting. I mean, I, I don't I don't pretend to be an expert in matters of military elements. But if there is saluting, shouldn't either the person doing the saluting or the person being saluted have military service in their background?

And we know Trump got out of the military because of his ankles. He got a very strong letter on the heels or whatever. And I don't think most of the January 6th alleged criminals were members of the United States of America. It is it's the treason national anthem, utterly unhinged, utterly unhinged. And then Trump at the start of the rally also using this term hostages, where I'm starting to wonder if they don't know what the term hostages really means. Well, thank you very much. And you see the spirit from the hostages and that's what they are as hostages. They've been treated terribly and very unfairly.

And you know that. And everybody knows that. Right. And we're going to be working on that soon. The first day we get into office, we're going to save our country. We're going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots. And they were unbelievable patriots and our line order. They must have gotten arrested for a reason.

They wouldn't have been charged. Right. Unless they did something wrong. These were the stories we would hear. We have to defer to law enforcement because we back the blue and blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Oh, hold on a second. The police are bad now.

If it's Capitol Police, the police are bad now. If it's federal law enforcement, defund the FBI, defund all these agencies. And we're giving the benefit of the doubt to every alleged criminal here. Oh, we care about pretrial detention conditions. All of a sudden, we've got to make sure that the alleged rioters get their vegan food in jail. And remember that whole thing with Marjorie Trader Green? No, these are not serious people. And this is borderline treasonous, certainly not law and order. When they say law and order, show them the treason national anthem

and Trump saying we got to help out all these people who are being treated so unfairly. It's law and order when convenient and very much the opposite when it's not. in 2009 by childhood friends in Seattle, Strideline has dedicated years to researching the most comfortable socks. And they really are. They present you with socks that are not only incredibly comfortable but highly functional for an unparalleled experience for the sports enthusiasts in the audience. Strideline will keep your feet warm on game day as an official partner of the NFL, MLB, NCAA and Major League Soccer. They bring you a range of socks tailored for every sports fan. But Stride Line's diverse collection also includes non-sports socks like basic crew and ankle socks, as well as premium options like combed cotton and merino wool embracing sustainability. Their eco socks are made from recycled plastic bottles that are taken out of the ocean. You can make your feet

and the earth more comfortable. I grabbed a pair of fantastic New England Patriot socks, even though it's not going so well for the Pats right now, they are still my go to when I'm watching the games. Go explore their extensive sock collection. Enhance your comfort with an exclusive 15 percent discount using the code David at Stride Line dot com. That's S.T.R.I.D.E. Line dot com. Use code David at checkout for 15 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome to the program today, host of The Don Lemon Show, Don Lemon, who we were recently talking about because there's a lot going on. Don, this is so timely and I'm so glad to have the opportunity to talk to you about it. I'm so glad to be on your program. Thank you for doing this, David.

So to start with the context here, the last seventy two ninety six hours, you're launching a new show, launching the show with this extremely interesting interview with Elon Musk. And in just the hours after the filming of the interview, not even the release, it is revealed that the contract you had with X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, was being canceled by Elon Musk. Now, I may not be using the right terminology and you'll tell us that. So let's start there. What was the plan in terms of what you were going to be doing with X and the circumstances

of how you even sat down with Elon? Your terminology is correct. Contract canceled. That's a quote from Elon Musk, a text that he sent to my representatives. So the terms of the contract were I was going to be doing a show on my own anyway, which was which is produced by my production company, LMN, which is London Media Network. But we call it LMN. So we were going to post on every streaming platform, including iHeartRadio, Spotify, YouTube, and what have you. X wanted a distribution deal on top of that, on top of the three episodes that we ran every week. I think they wanted 10 videos per month, which were exclusive to them, which had to be maybe 10 to 12 minutes, exclusive to them for 24 hours. And then after that,

it would run everywhere on all streaming platforms. So that was it. The show was not produced by X. They had nothing to do with it. They did not get to see it. All we were doing was giving them some extra exclusive content for 24 hours. And that was it. That was our relationship. Speaker 1 of course, you're free to post whatever you produce on X anyway. But the point is that that exclusive 24 hour embargoed content, that's the part that's been canceled because of the way the interview went. That's the only reason as far as you understand. Well, the not just that part, but in the contract, there were incentives for growth on the platform.

There were incentives of amplification of, you know, if I brought advertisers back to the platform, that there were incentives there. Because, as you know, they were struggling. A lot of advertisers left the platform because it was becoming so toxic and so right-wing conspiracy theorists. And so there were multiple incentives for different things. And yes, there was, you know, there was money on top of it. Right. There was a financial incentive in their financial incentives. So one would assume that all of that is canceled right now. There was a rumor that it included a Cybertruck. Is that true? That's all. Listen, that's all nonsense. I'm not going to let the distraction,

clearly a distraction from X, try to they're trying to distract from the interview. The interview is what's important. That's all nonsense. And I don't even want to, you know, feed into that because I think they're they're intentionally trying to distract from Elon Musk's performance or just the interviews to get people talking about something else. Not exactly the most practical car in Manhattan anyway, I would say. But but OK, so so I understand that now so that that part is all canceled. Now, did anyone try to stop the publication of the interview itself in this interim few days?

I'm not sure what was happening behind the scenes. They did ask us. They were very concerned about the interview. And let me just preface and I'll answer your question. We told them this was not a gotcha interview. We don't understand why he's so upset. Was it uncomfortable at times? Absolutely. But many interviews are uncomfortable at times. That's what journalists do, right? We hold people accountable and being held accountable is not always comfortable. So we went back and forth. And once we spoke to some of the, well, at least one person at X, they asked us to see the interview before it aired,

which as you know, is a big no-no. We do not do that. So I'm not sure behind the scenes that they were trying to stop the interview from running. I do know that we had some issues with the platform this morning that we had never had before when trying to post the interview, but it ended up posting. And listen, there are also questions about suppression on the platform that I think people should be, journalists should be digging into. Yeah. Speaker 1 Were you asked before about what you were or weren't going to talk about or given restrictions, asked for questions in advance or any of the stuff that publicists sometimes do? Speaker 2 No, I know that publicists do that. And that is, that may be okay in the entertainment world. I don't work in the entertainment world. So I will give people an idea of the questions, right? The topics

that we're going to cover, that we would like to cover in the interview, but never questions and no restrictions. And I say that in the beginning of the show, if you watch it, I say, as with all of my interviews, there were no restrictions. Nothing was off limits. And that's how I conduct interviews. So, you know, I let them know that. David, I let them know that before I joined the platform. I told them that I had questions about joining the platform, that I was reticent, that I really didn't want to do it. I turned them down several times.

They kept pursuing me. And they kept sweetening the deal, offering incentives. And I said, okay, if I join this platform, number one, I want to do it because you have a huge audience. There are, I think, some 550 million users a week on Twitter or X or whatever you want to call it. So that's a huge audience. I also said, I don't think that that platform should be ceded to extremists and conspiracy theorists. So if I can get in there and I can fight it out and I can be authentic and I can get my point across, and I might even have to call out the person who owns the platform. And I said, if I can do that, then I'm okay.

And they said, yes, you can do it. And I think he would actually welcome that. And I said, okay, great. Well, let's move ahead and try to work this out. And we did. And when I did exactly what do better than people who are centrists or left-leaning. others like him are in such a silo that they don't hear different points of view and they don't like to be questioned about it. And when someone does question them and when they are presented with facts, it's very uncomfortable and they decide to take their toys and go home because they really can't deal with it. No one has ever told them the truth. They just keep keep hearing their own points of view, their own conspiracy theories from people who love them all the time. And that's one aspect to it. I wonder if the other aspect is, though, that maybe Elon assumed that because you stand to benefit financially from the platform, you just wouldn't ask him real questions like maybe that was because he comes off

as unprepared to even, as I said, when I analyzed the interview, he could have had some very simple talking points to rebut your questions. We would all be we would all react by saying he's not really answering it, but at least it would have passed the sniff test of this guy's coming off terribly unprepared, et cetera. I wonder if he just assumed no one would ever bite the hand that might feed them, for lack of a better term. Well, to write two things. Elon Musk. Is running the company, make no mistake about it. My deal, every aspect, every point of my deal went through Elon Musk. So there was no question in my mind, unless someone didn't inform him, about what I was going to do and how I was going to be on the platform.

So if Elon Musk thought that he bought me or that I was going to pull punches because I had a deal with him and a distribution agreement, then he was quite wrong. The entire reason they wanted me to do this is for my point of view and to be who I am. So I don't know. But I think here's the interesting part. I think he came off better in the interview than he thinks. I think he actually had some good answers to questions, especially about his ketamine use. Yeah.

About depression. I understood some of what he was saying about the platform and hate speech and what have you. And there's a lot of stuff on the platform and in mainstream media there, you don't have so many people using it every day and you have 20, 30 stories in that way, you can sort of monitor, you can monitor them a little bit and monitor them more. I understood that. But if he thought that I was, you know, he bought and paid for me, he was quite wrong. And I think anyone who thinks that if they hire me or use my services in some way would be quite wrong. At the end of the day, David, I am a journalist and that's what I do. There were moments during the interview where he would mention that he's very short on time and that there's a room full of people waiting to hear from him and that this is sort of

like a favor because you are going to be on X and it's all like not something he would normally do. What are the like? What was this room? How much time were you told you had versus him insisting he's short on time? It felt manipulative as I looked at it. You mean on his part that he was trying to manipulate me? Yes. Yes. So the the only thing that they wanted, they said there were no restrictions. They wanted at least an hour. And we said, well, that's great because we don't want soundbite. So that is one thing that they wanted. Right. I could have gone 10 minutes uh but they said they would like to have at least an hour they didn't say an hour and it's up they said at least an hour we were like great we'll go as long as we want because we want to have a great interview

we don't want just soundbites so yes i think um towards the end which wasn't i thought i thought we were just right in the middle right but it But it was the end for him. I started to get increasingly more uncomfortable because I kept presenting it with facts and he couldn't really, you know, answer for them about DEI, you know, as it relates to airs and then see what the the comments will be on Twitter or on X. And I and I said to him, comments aren't facts. They're not evidence. And so that he didn't like that. He did not like being presented with facts. Do you worry at all now that the interviews out your channel is live, which we're linking

to? You're doing a bunch of interviews about this. Do you have any concerns at all that they may try some kind of legal action with regards to the interview? And I ask that with with the same perspective as you, that he comes off kind of like a prick, but not as terribly as maybe like as you're pointing out, some of his answers are fine. It's just his opinion about a number of issues. Like it's not really that damaging based on what's known about the guy.

No tour. And I said to him, what not to him, but to, you know, his his management team, for someone who says he doesn't care what people say and think about him, he certainly does care what people think and say about him. And I don't think he comes off that bad. I don't think he comes off terribly, or unlike what we think Elon Musk is like in the interview. I just think sitting there, David, and answering questions from someone like me, who has a different perspective and a different worldview, was just too much discomfort for him to deal with. And he did not, he's not used to answering questions at all. He's not used to being held accountable. And I just think that was it for him. And, you know, I think more of it was

this, I think more of it was this, just the sitting in the interview and answering questions rather than the finished product. And we kept saying, why don't you wait till it airs? If you want to wait till it airs and you want to cancel the contract, that's fine. But you don't even know what it's going to look like. You don't even know what the final product is. And I would just, I defy anyone, including Elon Musk, to take a look at that entire interview and tell me why that isn't exactly what they need on that platform and why isn't it what he said he wanted from me on the platform. I was not disrespectful. I did not raise my voice.

I thought the questions were fair. I dug in as a journalist does, and it's uncomfortable for people. I followed up. And that's it. Have a great day. I'll see you next time. I think my biggest takeaway from all of this and I said this last week when we talked about it is that and I didn't say this as a criticism of you.

A lot of the questions weren't really that hard, but by the standards that in many in the United States have become accustomed to, it's considered controversial or adversarial. Whereas like in my birth country of Argentina, if you watch interviews with with lawmakers there or in Europe or other places, not doing what you did would be considered a disservice. Like what you did would be assumed that is what you're going to do. And when it goes too far, you could argue is if you get into personal stuff, that's not germane to the subject of the interview, or if you lie about the premise of the interview and then sandbag with something else. OK, maybe that's going too far. But in much of

the world that has journalism, it would be expected that you ask the sorts of questions that you ask and the standards that many have become accustomed to, I think, is the problem. Yeah, well, when you said that not being critical of me, I welcome it. You can criticize me. That's the whole point of it. Again, I'm a journalist. I pick skin. We can we're supposed to talk about these things. If I watch something that you did, David, and I disagree with it, I would tell you I would be respectful about it. David, on this point, I didn't this. I didn't agree with you. You know, did you ever think about it this way? And we would just have a dialogue, right?

That's how it's supposed to be. Sure. Right? So if you criticize me, that doesn't matter. I agree with you. That was intentional that the questions weren't that complicated because we wanted everyone to understand what we were doing. We wanted him to do the talking so that people could get to understand him. And it was actually supposed to be an interview, but more of a conversation

that we were. So it was just simple questions. Why do you say DEI is, are you saying that white male pilots are inherently more intelligent than women or pilots of color. It's like, wait, what? And then he couldn't understand why he said, no, I would, I just think it's that we are, it would be a shame if we lowered the medical standards. And I said, well, but there's no evidence that that's happening. And by, you know, tweeting what you were tweeting and saying what you're saying, this is what you're, this is what you're insinuating, that people of color

and women are less professional, less skilled, and less intelligent, that he could not understand that at all. So the questions were simple, intentionally, letting him talk more than I did, that was intentional. And also keeping a moderated tone was intentional because I didn't want to come off as if I was badgering him. Right. I'm just asking you questions. And the first interview, David, as you know, the first interview, especially with someone you're working with or someone, you know, the first interview can't be like, Hey, let's sit around and talk. Like we're having beers. Like we got to get some things off of our chest. Yep. Right. Why are you doing this?

You're responsible. You're the owner of one of the biggest social media platforms, the biggest information platforms in the world. You have satellites flying all flying in, in, in space. You have, you're responsible for a huge portion of the auto industry for innovation,

for science, all kinds of things. Why are you putting this information out into the universe if it is not true? Don't you think that there should be a standard when it comes to what you put out there at the standards at X, that there should be some moderation of hate speech, of lying, of misinformation, of conspiracy theories? You don't think you have a responsibility for that. That's we had to get that off of our chest before we can say, OK, now let's have a beer and chat like bros. Right. Which I'm guessing didn't end up happening, by the way. No, but I would have. Here's the point. I've had some I've interviewed, as you know, from presidents to convicts.

Yep. From, you know, I would I would have a huge argument on the set with Corey Lewandowski, who ran Trump's campaign. And then at after the show on CNN, we go and have a beer. I still didn't disagree. I still didn't agree with him. Right. I thought what he was doing was terrible, but I wanted to have a relationship with him so that I could kind of figure out who he was. I didn't, I wasn't friends with him. I didn't necessarily like him. I'm just using him as an example, but I would have gone with Elon Musk and had a beer and talked it out, but I had to do my job in the moment. And that, you know, that other thing that that's something else the next next time we talk, it may be more of a conversation and maybe I would actually get more out of him. But that first interview

or conversation could not be that. We've been speaking with Don Lemon. We'll be linking to the Don Lemon Show YouTube channel, as well as the full interview with Elon Musk, which premiered this morning. Don, really appreciate your time and your insights. And I encourage people to check out the whole interview. David, thank you. I watch your show religiously and I have to say you the the perspective that you have, the intelligence with which you bring forth the information. I think it is much needed and I wish you great success And I hope to come back on if I can be half as

successful as you in this streaming part of it. I would I'll be happy. So thank you. Thank you. Staying healthy is often about what is a sustainable habit, one that works for you, something you'll stick to. I have a scoop of AG one in the morning before my infamous cappuccino. Each serving of AG one just gets me super simply the vitamins, minerals, pre and probiotics that I'm looking for. It's just like a foundation for the entire day. And it's super easy. I fill up the shaker with super cold water. I put a scoop of AG one in shake and I'm ready to go. If I'm running short on time, I'll just grab a travel pack, which has an individual serving of AG one that you can easily mix on the go. So even if I'm away from home, I'm just getting that

nutritional foundation. I don't have as much time as I would like to perfectly fine tune every single meal. I do the best I can, but I don't want to be dealing with 10 different vitamin supplement bottles. And AG1 just solves all of that. Try AG1 and get a free one year supply of vitamin D3 and K2 plus five free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase at drink AG1 dot com slash Pacman. That's drink AG the number one dot com slash Pacman for free vitamin D and K2 and five free travel packs of AG1. The link is in the podcast notes. We continue to hear from Republicans who are former supporters of President Trump but aren't voting for him in twenty twenty four. I want to feature another one of these for you. This is Mike from Pennsylvania.

And what's interesting to me about these, number one, we are, of course, considering these in the context of prominent Republicans like Mitt Romney, Mike Pence and others who are not endorsing Donald Trump in twenty twenty four. We talked about that earlier in the show. And so the trickle down effect of that, the waterfall effect of that is relevant and it's important. But beyond that, it's interesting to hear what it is that for any one former Trump voter made them say no more.

Let's listen to the story from Mike from Pennsylvania and see what he had to say. Donald Trump is mentally unfit for the office. My name is Mike. I live in southeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Philadelphia. And I am a former Trump voter. Donald Trump scares the hell out of. He does. He really scares me to death.

There's a lot of reasons that I don't support Donald Trump. But what really turned to me was in 2017, I remember him saying to this room full of billionaires, I just saved you guys a ton of money. I was thinking, I thought to myself, he doesn't care about me. I hoped that Trump would have been more concerned about working people. He's not. So that is what turned Mike from Pennsylvania. And what's reinforced to me in hearing this is that for every voter, there is something that can pull them in and there is something that can push them out.

Now, for Trump voters, what can push them out may be unlikely to ever happen. And what I'll give you an example, Trump always likes to say, I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and I wouldn't lose any support. There are probably some Trump voters where it would take Trump murdering someone for them to say, OK, now it's too much for Mike from Pennsylvania. It was the unabashed confirmation that Trump doesn't really care about the middle class. Trump cares about saving his rich friends money. And that's what he bragged about doing.

And of course, we can look at Mike and say, what a moron Mike is. We all knew that. We knew that from the beginning. Well, OK, but listen, Mike figured it out and he's changed his mind and he's no longer going to vote for Donald Trump. So really, this is just another reminder. And I know we've talked about it. It's another reminder that one of the most important environmental sort of elements to getting people to change their views, to leave a cult, to vote for somebody different is creating an environment where we welcome them when they figure out reality. And so while many people I know will say, well, Mike's a moron and he's probably against abortion, too. My reaction would be, hey, you know what, Mike? It's a fantastic thing that you figured that out.

You're right. Trump doesn't care about the average middle class person. He doesn't care about you beyond what you might donate or if you might vote for him. He doesn't care about most of the people you know. It's a great thing that you're opting to vote for a candidate who actually does seem to care about those folks, you and the people that you're talking about. We should welcome it. We shouldn't shame them.

Donald Trump gave an interview to Fox News and makes a threat so insane even many mad cats don't believe it. We know it because they've told us before they don't believe it. When Trump makes the threat Trump defended in an interview with Howard Kurtz on Fox News, Trump defended his call that you might have to terminate parts of the Constitution. This is what people when Luke Beasley showed them the truth from Trump saying, hey, we might have to terminate parts of the Constitution. One guy said, oh, that must have been must be doctored. Here's Trump saying. He doesn't hide it. Speaker 4 I don't want to relitigate your accusations about the 2020 election, but a while back

you wrote on Truth Social, a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution. That was pretty chilling for people who kind of sort of like the Constitution. Well, no, all I'm saying is an election has to be constitutional. I'm not saying void the constitution or anything like that. But they're the ones that are violating the constitution. I'm not violating. I'm saying when they cheat on an election, you may not be able to say this because you're

at Fox, but some people do say it and many people agree with it. Mostly Republicans. It's become a very partisan thing. Democrats believe it too, but they don't want to say it. I mean, they believe it too. You just have to look at the numbers. But without getting at that, look, we have to free elections. They have to be fair. And people have to know that they're free. They have to know that they're fair. And you have to have borders. You have to have borders. You have to have great elections, free elections, fair elections, no cheating, no ballot drops, no anything. It has to be basic voter ideas. So listen. In his own way, it's a

it's a mishmash, right? What's Trump saying? What Trump is saying is I'm not talking about just going out and violating the Constitution for no reason. I'm saying when they stole the election from me, they violated the Constitution. And in those cases, tit for tat, eeny, meeny, miny, moe, when they violate the Constitution and steal the election from me, I get to violate the Constitution, I guess, to take it back. Not exactly inspiring confidence in Trump's commitment to the Constitution. And there it is exactly what we suspected. Trump asked about the 16 week national abortion ban, which he previously said is it's completely fabricated that I want that.

He seems to be saying he does want it. And then he repeats tired lies about abortion. New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and others says that you have discussed with your advisers. Yeah. Having a ban, the possibility of a ban on abortion after 16 weeks, plus the three exceptions that I know are important to rape, incest, life of the mother. Now, I don't know if it's possible to make both sides happy in this debate because people

have such strong moral feelings. But does you were quoted as saying to one of your aides, well, I like 16 weeks because it's a nice round number four months. Do you think that could be politically acceptable? So we're going to find out. And pretty soon I'm going to be making a decision. And I would like to see if we could do that or how I would like to see if we could make both sides happy look a lot of things were done with roe by by killing it number one we brought it back to the court of justice to the supreme court that made that possible they did yeah uh and and you know they did something that from a lot of standpoints is extremely good number one the democrats are the radicals on this issue because it's okay to have an abortion in seven eight nine months and even after birth according

to that well i know that and i will say. I know that if you speak about the subject, right. All right. So Trump telling the lie that there are post-birth abortions, of course, there are not. And by definition, it's not an abortion. And I can't even get into that. I'm so sick and tired of it. But Trump seems to be confirming the reporting from Axios. Remember, Axios reported Trump and advisers are talking about a 16 week national abortion ban with three exceptions. The Trump campaign put out a statement saying it's fake news. But Trump is saying here, yeah, actually, it is something that we're looking at and I'm going to make an announcement about it soon. Now, he may not do it, but he's certainly not saying that's not even under consideration. He's saying

it is under consideration. So the report that Trump called fake news was accurate. Just a reminder for us that when there is a report and Trump gets up on stage and says it's fake news, he will sometimes later confirm that the report is correct. He might have forgotten about the report. He might have forgotten about the denial, but he then confirms that it is correct. Lastly, I'm going to play for you a confused rant from Trump about whether or not TikTok should be banned. Reports are someone with a stake in TikTok got to Trump and convinced Trump to say we don't want to ban it anymore. Going to do it to TikTok, do it to Facebook. And what you can do is let them sell TikTok, let them sell it in the market, maybe get a good price, maybe not get a good price. I don't know. But take it away from China

control. But I think China controls Facebook also because they have tremendous power in that company. They do it to Tick Tock. Do it. So I guess what Trump is saying is whatever Tick Tock is doing, it's also happening on Facebook. So just deal with everybody the same, which, by the way, is more or less what AOC said in a much more coherent way, which is we should have guidelines. If you want to operate a social media company in the US, everybody should abide by them. Tick Tock's not exempt. Apply everything equally, which, by the way, is also my position.

The issue, of course, is that Trump has trouble explaining this position. And also, it's a brand new position which is believed to be connected to Trump getting a call from someone who really doesn't want to talk banned in the United States. So there will be forthcoming discussion about it. Overall, Trump again saying now you could be justified in suspending the constitution. You could be justified in not banning tick tock and you could be justified. He could in a national 16 week abortion ban. This is shaping up to be a very scary second term, which is why we need to prevent it from

happening. No voicemail today because I'm out of time, but we've got a great bonus show for you and I'll be back tomorrow.