The David Pakman Show - 3/19/24: Biden suddenly leading, Trump advisor going to prison

Episode Date: March 19, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Ken Block, Owner of Simpatico Software Systems and author of the book "Disproven: My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump Campaign, the Data That Shows Why He Lost, and How We Can Improve Our Elections," joins David to discuss his work attempting to find the non-existent voter fraud in 2020. Get the book: https://amzn.to/3IJJDDB -- President Joe Biden is suddenly leading Donald Trump in multiple new polls and we discuss what is causing this -- Peter Navarro, Donald Trump's former economic advisor, is finally going to prison -- In a bizarre new segment, Fox News hosts pray on air, and the prayer segment is sponsored -- Trump supporters are interviewed at Trump's latest rally in Dayton, Ohio, and it is truly scary stuff -- Failed former President Donald Trump explodes in a wild antisemitic tirade, including threatening Jews -- Donald Trump is unable to make the bond payment in his New York civil fraud case, suggesting his properties may soon be seized -- Is Donald Trump about to go bankrupt? -- Failed former President Donald Trump admits that he doesn't have the money to secure a bond in his New York civil fraud trial -- Absolutely unhinged caller loses it, accusing David of many things, including being white, and not being Latino -- On the Bonus Show: Woman sues NYC Mayor Eric Adams for sexual assault, EPA bans asbestos, electric vehicles are now almost as inexpensive as gas powered vehicles, much more... 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get a THC Seltzer for just $5 at https://ounceofhope.com 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF a year subscription at https://startmail.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 3 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6 Speaker 7 Speaker 8 Speaker 9 Speaker 10 Speaker 11 Speaker 12 Speaker 13 Speaker 14 Speaker 15 Speaker 16 Speaker 17 Speaker 18 Speaker 21 Speaker 22 Speaker 23 Speaker 24

Speaker 24 Speaker 25 Speaker 26 Speaker 27 Speaker 28 Speaker 29 Speaker 30 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 32 Speaker 34 Speaker 35 Speaker 36 Speaker 37 Speaker 38 Speaker 39 Speaker 41 Speaker 42 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 44 Speaker 45

Speaker 45 Speaker 46 Speaker 46 Speaker 47 Speaker 47 Speaker 48 Speaker 49 Speaker 50 Speaker 51 Speaker 52 Speaker 51 Speaker 52 Speaker 53 Speaker 54 Speaker 54 Speaker 56 Speaker 57 Speaker 56 Speaker 57 Speaker 58 Speaker 58 Speaker 58 Speaker 59 Speaker 61 more 2024 presidential election polls and has now even taken the lead in The Economist's polling tracker for the first time since September of last year. That's in six months. We will look at the numbers. We'll discuss what's happening and then we will move on to so many other important things. Newsweek reporting Joe Biden beats Trump in three polls in one week. Now, early last week, about 10 days ago, we already saw Joe Biden taking the lead in some general election polls against the failed former president.

We now are seeing that in more polling. A new poll suggests Biden will beat Trump. The third poll to make the prediction in the last week, according to a new survey by the Democratic Super PAC Progress Action Fund conducted by PPP. Biden leads Trump forty six to forty five. Now, of course, all of these are statistically tied. That's the funny thing. When it's Trump plus two or Biden plus two, it's all statistically tied because most of these polls have somewhere between a two and three and a half percent margin of error. Meanwhile, two other polls show Biden may win. We have the Reuters Ipsos poll, which has it Biden thirty nine thirty eight. And then we also

have the Civics Daily Kos poll, which has it Biden 45, Trump 44. Now, I am not going to sit here and blow smoke up in or out of any orifice because it's just not what I do. It doesn't sound hygienic. No, no, because it's it's not the point of this program. All of these polls have extremely small margins for either candidate. And all of these polls, when you add up the Trump Biden, you know, if it's forty five, forty four, that adds up to eighty nine, one hundred minus eighty nine.

Carry the zero one. Wait, one hundred minus eighty nine. Let me do hold on. One hundred minus eighty nine. Eleven. That's a joke, by the way. Please don't email me that my math skills are struggling. That leaves 11 percent somewhere else. And there are three way polls which show eight, nine, 11, 12, 13 percent supporting some combination of third party candidates, often Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or others. So the totality of the picture is it's a very tight race. Now, let me mention one other thing, and then I want to talk about

something we discussed yesterday on the award winning bonus show in The Economist's polling tracker, which is in an average of polls. Joe Biden is also now leading Trump forty five to forty four. He hasn't led Trump in this average since September. So it's been six months. But again, forty five plus forty four is eighty nine. That means 11 percent is undecided or voting third party. Here's the most important takeaway about polling. Unless we start to see something like either candidate winning by 15,

all of the predictions about November are essentially worthless. And let me tell you what I mean by that. You can go out and find folks like Simon Rosenberg, the Democratic strategist who I interviewed or others who say, I'm confident Biden's going to win this thing. The economy's good. Trump only has more problems compared to where he was in 2020 and he lost. Then Biden's going to win. All right. And then you've got people who have the opposite perspective. They will confident confidently tell you Trump's going to win. These approval numbers are too low for Biden to get reelected. The discontent among even Democrats with Biden isn't helping him. Trump's going to get reelected.

And then in November after the election, those who happen to have made the right prediction will pat themselves on the back like they saw it all along and it was inevitable. And those who made the wrong prediction will be attacked or whatever presidential elections, unless something that hasn't happened in decades happens, come down to several hundred thousand votes in just a few states. And it is beyond our predictive ability because we're often talking about fractions of one percent. You could have a situation where, you know, one hundred and fifty plus million people

vote. Trump easily wins Texas and Biden easily wins California. And at the end of the day, it's Pennsylvania being decided by half a point and Georgia being decided by one point and Wisconsin and Arizona being decided by a point and a half. Right. Overall, just a few hundred thousand votes that will determine who wins. And so my point here is either one of these individuals could win. The predictions aren't particularly audacious or brave because it's going to be close and it's going to come down to factors that we probably don't even know yet. And what I mean by that is a few hundred thousand votes could shift one way or the

other because of something that happens over the summer or in September or in October. And so while I will continue to tell you that overall, the reelection case for Biden seems strong in general, presidents get reelected in general when the economy is good. Presidents almost always get reelected. But it's going to almost certainly come down to just a few hundred thousand votes in a few states. And it makes the prediction game pretty fraught. It'll be close.

Either of them could win. We all must vote. That's the takeaway. The late great rabbi. This is an unusual introduction for the show. The late great rabbi Harold Kushner is famous for, among other books, writing when bad things happen to good people. It's a book worth reading, regardless of your religious persuasion or lack

thereof. Today, I come to you with news of bad things happening to bad people. Donald Trump's former economic adviser and insurrection supporter Peter Navarro is finally going to go to prison. The Washington Post reports Supreme Court refuses to delay prison time for Trump aide Peter Navarro. Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday refused to delay prison time for Peter Navarro, former senior aide to Trump, as he appeals his conviction for refusing to testify before Congress about his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Navarro is 74 years old.

He is scheduled to report to federal prison in Miami today by 2 p.m. Eastern. This program will be published. Usually we actually publish at the stroke of two. And you can envision as you are hearing me read these words, Peter Navarro may be surrendering his belongings, trading his street clothes for some kind of prison garb or jumpsuit, and possibly even getting a very thorough check of his body to see if he is bringing anything into prison that he shouldn't have. In a one paragraph order, Roberts, who oversees emergency requests, said he saw no basis to disagree with an appeals court ruling last week that Navarro must serve time while his

appeal is underway. You will recall, as the article reminds us, that Navarro was sentenced in January to four months after a jury convicted him on two counts of contempt of Congress. So, you know, there are people who are arguing, people on the right, that they don't have any of these Trumpists on anything substantive. It's all process. I refuse to testify or I simply sat out or I ignored this or whatever the case may be. The law is the law. And I am going to remind everybody that these are individuals who insist on the importance of the rule of law and the sanctity of due process and law and order. That's all happened here. That's that's what it is. And this guy is going to now have to face the consequences. Oh, but he's 74. Well, he's been sentenced to four months. OK, he'll be 74 or maybe 75 when he gets out and then he can continue doing whatever it

is he wants to do. He made Navarro, that is a number of pretty wild and wacky statements. And he seems to be equating him going to prison for four months for contempt to soldiers who gave their lives defending the United States, which is a strange analogy to make. Here is Navarro speaking. I believe this was yesterday to Donald Trump Jr. It's like. Men and women of of America throughout our history have shed blood, lost their lives for the defense of this country, defense of what we stand for, defense of our values, defense of the Constitution. Yeah.

And for me, it's a much smaller sacrifice to be willing to go to prison, as I now have been ordered to do, to defend what is really one of the most important principles of of the Constitution, which is the constitutional separation of powers. My my hope and my mission here is that U.S. versus Peter Navarro will be, in fact, a landmark Constitution case. I believe it is as it works. This is called delusions of grandeur and main character syndrome through the appeals courts on the constitutional separation of it's like, OK, you know, somehow I don't think that Peter Navarro blatantly flouting the law and being a deliberate scofflaw and then serving four months is going to be a landmark case about the separation of powers. I know that I hesitate to make predictions on this

program, but that's a prediction I'm pretty comfortable making. And of course, Don Jr. is like, yeah, sure. I mean, I guess it's helping to keep my dad out of prison to the extent that it does. You're doing a great thing here, Peter. So all of these folks really see themselves as legends. They are legends in their own mind. They are the most important people out there. They are the main characters not only in their lives, but in everybody else's. It's only four months.

Peter Navarro is going to have to put on his big boy pants and report. And he may be there already, barring some kind of absolutely last second emergency stay of some kind, which I don't see happening. So, Peter, it was nice knowing you. We'll see you in four months. I'm sure this is not the end of what we're going to hear from Peter Navarro. Here's an idea. How about prayer live on news television? And the prayer is sponsored by an advertiser.

That's the latest from Fox News on Fox and Friends yesterday morning. And I must admit, this is really weird, weird stuff. Fox and Friends segwaying from some kind of bogus news story into praying and then mentioning that the prayer is sponsored by an advertiser. And Jesus wept. We can say, check this out. This is it's definitely a different approach to news television that I will admit. And here we go.

We have more Fox and Friends coming up. But you know what? This is a transition for transitions if you've ever had one. So sorry. So Fox and Friends. This is very Fox and Friends. So ready your heart. It's the fifth Sunday of Lent and our prayer series continues with a reading of prayer from the Hallow app. We all need it. Let's do this. This is not Saturday Night Live. This is news television. But this morning, close your eyes, if you would bow your head. And by the way, the host in the middle crossing herself and then both of these people sitting

next to Pete Hegseth bowing their heads and closing their eyes. This is wacky stuff. Sickness. It's a sickness. Jesus, today we begin the holy period. By the way, I don't mean that just prayer in general is a sickness. It may not heal disease, but I don't really mind if people pray. But the sponsored by Hallow commercialization of prayer on a news channel is whacked. It's whacked. Passion tied in these last two weeks of Lent. Help us understand the

mystery of your sacrifice and surrender. Make us keenly aware of your love for us. We ask that you make yourself known to us. Help us to feel the grace of your presence. You journey to the cross for our sake. May we see ourselves the way you see us and come to believe that we are worthy of your abounding love. In these final days of Lent, help us to follow your holy example. Inspire in us the same sacrificial, selfless love you showed on the cross.

Right. Oh, Jesus, we surrender ourselves to you. Take care of everything. Thank you again to Hallow for this partnership during Lent. Wow. Amen. Amen. Amen. Yeah.

And then I. Fox and Friends Sunday. Oh, and then an ad for Halo. The prayer app starts. You can tell that peak Pete Hegseth is deeply spiritual, of course. This is really wild stuff. I mean, other than just being really strange programing, lack of inclusivity for anybody who's not Christian commercialization of religion.

What does it do for credibility? What does it do for viewer trust? I mean, maybe with that core Fox News audience, they go, oh, they're more trustworthy because they pray on screen. But it's a really, really strange thing to do. And I guess they're all out of ideas. So now they're preying on news television. Wow.

So many people in our audience have become fans of our sponsor, Ounce of Hope. Ounce of Hope is a cannabis farm that ships CBD and psychoactive THC products to your door anywhere in the US. This is federally legal. THC, a THC, Delta eight and nine. They have edibles. And now you can check out the brand new drink from Ounce of Hope for twenty twenty four. The very high five milligram THC seltzer. It's the only 16 ounce THC seltzer on the market. It's only five bucks, a price no one can beat. At their cannabis farm in Memphis, Ounce of Hope sustainably raises fish to feed local

homeless people. I've always thought it's a really cool operation. Besides the delicious seltzer, they have gummies, chocolate, rice, crispy treats, caramels, topicals, oils, soft gels, you name it. Ounce of Hope grows, extracts and formulates all of these world class products in-house so that you can trust the safety and quality of every product that arrives at your door. So whether you're looking for a little help sleeping at night, something for aches and pains, a way to unwind on the weekend, Ounce of Hope can help you out

if you are over 21. And right now you can pick up their very high five milligram THC seltzers for five bucks each at ounce of hope dot com. No one can beat that price. And aside from their drinks, you'll get 20 percent off everything else when you use the code Pacman. That's ounce of hope dot com. Pick up one of their THC seltzers for just five bucks. Use the code Pacman to get 20 percent off When you log into your Google or Facebook account, these companies have your IP address, which is valuable to them, because when you do all of your other browsing online, almost every site on the Web is sending your IP address and browsing activity back to those big tech companies so they know what you do across the Internet. The only solution is to hide your IP address while you're online using a VPN. I use private Internet access, the only VPN that has

proven multiple times in court. They do not log your activity. Private Internet access is optimized for streaming and for large downloads. You can access content on streaming platforms like Netflix that's normally only available in other countries. Private Internet access now has ninety one country servers to pick from and new dedicated IP locations. It also comes with their built in The David Pakman Show is not part of some large media conglomerate. The upside to this is I don't have three layers of editors and bosses telling me what I can or can't talk about or what I should say. The downside is that we don't have one major funder of the program. But then the upside to that is we're primarily funded by our audience.

We have something called the membership program. You get the full David Pakman show experience, which means The Daily Show with no commercials, as well as The Daily Bonus Show, which Alex Jones just absolutely despises. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Yeah, everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Some people who make money to fund themselves may be bad. I don't know. You can sign up, get instant access to all of these great member benefits and support the work that we do. If you think it's worthy, I would love to have your support. You can sign up at

join Pacman dot com. You can also use the coupon code Save Democracy 24 for a sizable discount. Just when you didn't think Trump supporters could get any lower and more unhinged, they were interviewed in Dayton, Ohio, at Trump's latest rally. And it has gotten as bad as any of us could have imagined, reminding us once again, we're not going to change the minds of these folks. We have to defeat them with turnout. It will almost certainly be close and we have to defeat them with turnout.

Here's a guy. Who bemoans and mourns, grieves the lost morality in government that we had under Trump, but that we lost. We lost morality when Joe Biden became president. Can anybody tell me what this guy's talking about? What are your thoughts in general? Just the fact of what the country is dealing with now versus what it dealt with, you know, under Biden, under Trump, it was much better then, wasn't it? Yeah, we lost a lot of morality that I think we need to gain back.

How important is a prayer life plus also a voting life? Yeah, exactly. Get out and vote. Every vote counts. What is life without Jesus? Yeah. Right. With Trump in the Oval Office, we had Jesus. And now with Biden, who's actually Catholic and has completely unblemished Catholic credentials. Not that I care about them at all, but he has completely clear, lifelong Catholic credentials. We've lost Jesus. There was more Jesus in the White House under Donald Trump. And of course, these interviews are completely their fate. They're not real interviews in the sense that it's not journalism.

It's sycophancy and brown nosing. And I would love follow ups like give me some specific things Trump did that showed you his morality. Well, when he put the kids in the cages, it was just so great. Ask follow ups. But of course, this isn't really journalism, so we're not going to get that next guy at the Trump rally. He says if Trump was prosecuted in twenty twenty one, most people wouldn't have said anything. It would have been fine. But because of the timing, they know something fishy is going on, which is absolutely absurd in every way.

Take a listen to this. Now, all of a sudden, like all these all these allegations and all these court dates and everything like they just pop up out of nowhere. They could have done this in 2020, 2021. Probably nobody would say anything about it. But now all of a sudden, in 2023, 2024. Right. He's going up the court.

You know, he's getting written off. Yeah. Two different things on this. First of all, you know, and I know everybody knows that the people saying I wouldn't be suspicious about indictments in 2020 or 2021. I'm only suspicious about indictments now because they're trying to hurt his campaign. We know that if the indictments came in 2020 or 2021, they would not be saying, oh, sounds legit. Totally fine. But maybe more importantly, some of the things he's been indicted for didn't happen until 2021. So I don't know how you indict a guy in 2020 or 2021 when these are especially I mean, all of them, but including the federal cases,

very complicated cases, takes months and months or even years to interview everyone you need to interview, gather evidence. Listen, they gave Trump months just to turn over the documents, to pick the documents case as an example. So had they indicted him in 2020, these very same people would be saying, well, he's the current president. You can't indict him. Had they indicted him in 2021, they would be saying, wait, you're not going to give

him more time to turn over the documents. So they gave him time to turn over the documents. They asked multiple times. He didn't do it. So eventually he gets indicted. These people are not being honest. They would come up with what they might is have a different issue. If the indictment were in 2020, they would say, well, it's to ruin his reelection in 2020 rather than to ruin his election in

2024. But not a single one of us believes that they would have been fine with the indictments if they had been timed differently. Here's an interview with yet another guy, and he is asked about gun safety law and he gets very agitated. I meant the Second Amendment. You know, you've got the third. Exactly. Let's go to this guy.

I mean, let's talk a little bit about that. What are your thoughts, man? The fact that they are trying to infringe on that stuff as bulls. I don't know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no. I'm not going to roll. OK, so he the the host. This is a by the way, there's no real reason that you can't know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, I'm not going to roll. OK, so he the the host.

This is a by the way, there's no real reason that you can't swear on right side broadcasting. It's like when we bleep stuff, we bleep it because we're on one hundred and fifty radio stations governed by the FCC and we don't want to jeopardize their licenses. That's why we bleep stuff. But if we were just on YouTube and podcast, we would have no reason to bleep. Our right side broadcasting has no reason to bleep. It's it's just this like faux morality that we're fine. There's no moral problem with telling women what to do with their bodies.

But God forbid an S-bomb gets out. That'll just be the end of us. So anyway, that guy, the same guy there is very upset about supposedly his Second Amendment rights will be taken by Democrats, which, by the way, isn't happening. And then lastly, here's another gentleman asked, what do you love most about Trump? And it's pretty damn funny. What do you love most about the president? I think that I think he actually tells the truth. And for a rich man, I don't know that that's the most I don't know if you'd really expect that. But I think he's been more truthful with us than most of the professional politicians

have been in my lifetime. Speaker 1 He's an outsider and an outsider understands the people. Speaker 1 Yeah, there you go. Nobody is more in tune with the average person, like with this guy, for example, than the New York City billionaire who spent his entire life trying to be isolated from folks like the majority of his voters. And by the way, Trump is the honest guy. It's funny that he says you wouldn't necessarily expect the billionaire to tell the truth. Oh, is that a thing now?

Like billionaires just lie habitually or that's what you would expect. But Trump's different. He's a billionaire who doesn't lie. That's all weird. But remember that while Trump was president, he told over 30000 verified lies per The Washington Post, which tracked it. Thirty thousand verified lies. Hard to think of a more dishonest president than Trump.

So these are the folks we're up against. You're not going to convince them between now and November. I wouldn't even bother other than as like a curiosity or some kind of, you know, dinner trick. But it's not how we're going to win. We're going to win by getting out and voting. And I hope that we do it. And absolutely furious. Donald Trump exploded in an anti-Semitic tirade, even threatening American Jews. This happened in an interview on Sebastian Gorka's radio show. If you don't know who Sebastian Gorka is, congratulations. I'm jealous of you. I wish I didn't know who Sebastian Gorka was. The New York Times with a write up. Trump says Jews who support Democrats, quote, hate Israel and hate their religion. This echoes an anti-Semitic trope

and escalates claims that Trump made as president that were widely, widely criticized. Let's listen to it. OK, I want. Oh, boy. Let's see if we can play it here. Here is Trump being interviewed by Sebastian Gorka. It's all very dark and grim, but let's listen to it. America first. Magnificent. Why do the Democrats hate Israel so much? Or is it Bibi Netanyahu? That's next here with President Trump. Right. It's not just Ukraine, however, Mr. President. We now have a war in the Middle East. For four years, there was no war under your tenure as commander-in-chief. You have proven yourself to be the most pro-Israel, most philo-Semitic president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948.

You moved the embassy. You recognized Jerusalem. It's one of my great regrets that I was invited to the reopening of the new embassy that Ambassador Friedman created in Jerusalem. I couldn't go. Could you explain why is it seemingly that this administration, including Chuck Schumer in the Senate, so hate the man that Israel chose as their prime minister? Why do the Democrats hate Bibi Netanyahu? Remember, Netanyahu is a right winger. OK, so the reason that we on the left don't like Netanyahu is that he's a hardcore right winger who doesn't really want peace benefits from chaos and disorder. And we don't want him the same way we We don't want Trump or or bond or whatever right

wing leader. It has nothing to do with hating Israel. But let's hear what Trump says about. I actually think they hate Israel. Yes, I don't think they hate it. I think they hate Israel and the Democrat Party hates Israel and the Democrat Party. If you remember when many Israeli representatives, including Netanyahu, when they came to the country trying, begging, begging at that time, President Obama, please don't make the Iran nuclear deal, which is a disaster and was a disaster. And I ended it. But unfortunately, they didn't do anything with the ending of it. I ended it and would have had a new deal made with Iran. It would have been good for everybody and there would have been no nuclear weapons. You know, they're very close to getting

a nuclear weapon right now. And once they have that, it becomes a different form of negotiation, much more difficult negotiation. But I really believe they hate Israel. And they also see a lot of votes. Don't forget, when you see those Palestinian marches, even I am amazed at how many people are in those marches. And guys like Schumer see that, and to him it's votes. I think it's votes more than anything else, because he was always pro-Israel. He's very anti-Israel now. Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion.

They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed. You have Iran now making a nuclear weapon. None of that would have. So there's the threat. If Jews are voting for Democrats, you'd better be damn careful because Israel will end up destroyed. This is a very tidy summation of a classic anti-Semitic series of tropes.

The first element of this is that American Jews care as much or more about Israel than they do about domestic issues like health care, education, roads, etc. And of course, there are many American Jews and many American non-Jews, evangelicals, anti-Israeli people who care about Israel positively or negatively. But to assume that American Jews, most of whom have never been or never will go to Israel and have no family in Israel, are primarily concerned with Israel is part of the dual loyalty anti-Semitic trope.

Now, for many American Jews, Israel is like what's going on with the Uyghurs or the Syrian civil war or the Rohingya or what's going on in Ethiopia or it is a global conflict that involves different groups of people on which you may or may not have an opinion to assume that for American Jews, that's the priority is part of a dual loyalty anti-Semitic trope. The other part of this is the idea of real Jews who are the real Jews. And this is also something that we see from right and left. And we've seen it a lot over the last several months. From the right, you often hear ideas like this.

Real Jews would never vote for Democrats because Democrats are not supportive enough of Israel. So by definition, the real Jews are the ones that are voting for Republicans. I've also seen on the left from some anti-Israeli Jewish groups the claim that real Jews would never, quote, support genocide. Now, I've still never met a Jewish person who supports genocide. But put that aside for a moment. It's again this gatekeeping who gets to call themselves or qualify as a Jewish person based on their beliefs through your lens of what is appropriate. And this one exists on the left and on the right. So listen, I know that with Trump, it's always from some defenders of Trump. Well, come on, David.

He's got a Jewish son in law and his daughter converted to Judaism and he has Jewish people working for him. Listen, Nixon had Kissinger working for him. That didn't mean Nixon was not anti-Semitic and believed and perpetuated all sorts of anti-Semitic tropes. So this is that Jews who Jews of a certain type should be ashamed and also the threat. If you don't vote for me, Israel may end up destroyed. It's classic Trump. That's what it is. It's classic Trump and it's disgusting. Data brokers are constantly collecting huge amounts of information about what you do

online, your address, phone number, email, financial info, even your political affiliation. And they sell that information to other companies. The FBI will sometimes even buy data in bulk to get information about Americans without a warrant. Your ex-girlfriend, your boss, anyone out there can use the publicly available data on search sites to find information about you. It's super easy. And worst of all, these data broker systems get hacked all the time, which really puts your data at risk, which is why you can end up getting scam calls and emails and the whole Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 Speaker 3 We'll be right back. Incogni dot com slash Pacman and you'll get 60 percent off with the code Pacman. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman.

Use code Pacman for 60 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. The household products you buy every week impact the environment. Thirty million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the US alone. Our sponsor, Real, makes a sustainable toilet paper, contains no trees. It uses 100 percent bamboo. Real's paper is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, meaning they are responsibly harvesting bamboo grass that's used for their paper.

And bamboo toilet paper is softer and stronger than regular toilet paper. It's a win for everybody, including the planet. And while regular toilet paper is wrapped in plastic as well, real papers packaging is fully plastic free and compostable. Real Paper partners with one tree planted with every box of real that you buy. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com slash Pakman and use the code Pakman for Today, I welcome to the program Ken Block. Ken is the owner of Simpatico Software Systems and author of the book Disproven My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump campaign. The day that data that shows why he lost and how we can improve our elections.

So Ken, I'm looking forward to learning about this. Let's start at the beginning of this story and maybe we'll go back further if we need to. Who calls you from the Trump campaign? When what do they say they want you to do? Yeah. The day after the campaign, a Trump campaign attorney by the name of Alex Cannon called my cell phone out of the blue and asked me to help the campaign look for voter fraud. It wasn't a job that I had been applying for or pulling strings to try and get. It was pretty much the last thing I thought I the election outcome in any of the swing states. our contract, he was he started sending me claims of voter fraud that other people had brought to the campaign's attention, asking me to perform due diligence on those claims to see if they would

stand up in court. Now, why you both in the sense of what were the skills you had that were relevant to finding voter fraud? And number two, was there a political component to it? In other words, were you known to be someone who supported Trump and believed the case that there was fraud or why you. Well, so it's a question I can't tell you with certainty what the answer is. I have a national reputation of being an expert in working with voter fraud and voter data more specifically, a decade's worth of experience. And I have found instances of voter fraud in the past, nothing on the scale of what the campaign needed me to find in November of 2020. As I was negotiating my contract with Alex, I wanted to be very upfront with him. And I was. And I told him that in a

decade of looking at voter data, I had never encountered anything close to what I knew the campaign would need me to deliver. And I wanted to make sure that both Alex understood and that the campaign generally understood that I was not promising them a positive result, that I would look as hard as could be looked, but that I wasn't going to custom deliver a finding for them. And I would tell them exactly what was actually there versus what wasn't. And that's the way it went. It was a very straight up assessment.

What was the nature of the contract in terms of did you just say, I'll get to work and you'll pay me by the hour or it's based on delivery? I know you said it wasn't for delivering a positive result, but what was the sort of nature of how they would pay you? And did you get paid? Is the other part the fine questions? We did the the the engagement essentially as a projectoriented approach. The contract only really foresaw me looking for deceased voters in the swing states and attempting to identify duplicate voters. And by that, I mean someone

who voted in one of the swing states and also some other state. And that had a price tag attached to it. I have to use outside vendors with access to very sensitive data. And being paid was a concern because most people have heard the rumors that contractors can have a difficult time getting paid from the different Trump enterprises. I expressed that concern to Alex, who immediately said,

I totally get it, don't worry about it. You tell me how much money we have to wire to you. We will wire it to you before you start any work. I expressed that concern to Alex, who immediately said, I totally get it. Don't worry about it. You tell me how much money we have to wire to you. We will wire it to you before you start any work. And that's how those 35 days went. Every new thing that they asked me to do that required expensive analytics, I told them the price, the money immediately showed up in my bank account, and off we went. Alex Cannon did a wonderful thing. He performed his due diligence,

which nobody is really aware of, and he created an environment for me and my employees to conduct a straight-up assessment of the data without any external political pressure being brought to bear on us, pressuring us to give a finding that wasn't there. It was the best of all worlds in terms of no impediments to doing a good job. Now, ideal. This is very politically touchy in the sense that you and your employees, I don't know if you do vote, but certainly you're allowed to vote. And if you don't vote, that's also a political choice.

What was the political implication here? Did your politics play into this in terms of any aspect of this or your employees or because I could imagine someone who has a perspective and it's obviously there was no fraud that would have been meaningfully relevant to the results. But I'm also getting paid to look for it. It's so hard to imagine that having no impact on the work. Well, it didn't have any impact on the execution of the work for sure. The way I explained to my family, to my employees, was that this is we're being I'm being asked

to perform an honest set of due diligence, both looking for evidence of fraud and evaluating the claims of fraud by others. And there are very, very few people that I'm aware of that were capable of being able to do that kind of analysis, one that didn't take politics into account. That's what Alex Cannon wanted. That's the only kind of work I was interested in delivering. So interestingly, the answer to your question is politics did not play a role in the execution of this work. And I don't believe it probably played a role in the campaign's decision to hire me. So as we all know, ultimately, neither you nor anyone else has found detectable, quantifiable and verifiable voter fraud criteria that you write

are important to this. Talk to me a little bit about what did you find? How quickly did it become clear that substantive and election altering fraud did not take place? Yeah. We found in most of the swing states a handful of deceased votes, fraudulently delivered deceased votes. And I hate to interrupt already, but let me ask a question about that. You can submit an absentee ballot and then die and then comes a lot. I'm not talking about that.

You're talking about fraudulent deceased votes. And that's an important distinction. Yes. And if we have time, we can get into what happens to a vote cast early and then the voter dies before the election. It's a fascinating conversation. But in this case, we found actual deceased votes, very small numbers across the swing states, a few hundred duplicate votes, a vote cast in one of the swing states

and also in some other state. And that was the extent of the data mining that I was asked to do. But much more importantly, were the claims of fraud that others brought to the attention of the Oval Office and then ultimately the campaign infrastructure. And in that circumstance, we looked at between 15 to 20 different claims of fraud, some of them monumental in scope,

every one of which was wrong and could be proven with data to be wrong. And I did that time after time after time after time to the point where when Alex brought me a new claim, instead of asking me whether the claim was correct or incorrect, he just began saying to me, tell me why this one is wrong, because they were all wrong. Was your instinct that your contact this Alex Cannon, did he also know there was nothing behind these claims? I think he was skeptical of the claims. I can't say that with any certainty. We didn't have a first person conversation about that. In fact, we did no chit chatting at all because we had to audit a national election in 35

days. That's a poll order no matter how you slice it. So I was on task from the minute the contract was signed until the last swing state certified its election results. Now, interestingly, you didn't find zero examples. You didn't find enough that they would have made a difference to the results of any state, but you didn't find zero. Now, let's just imagine a hypothetical.

Imagine that in in some election with an eight vote margin of victory, you found 30 examples. Then then what? What would happen then? What would be the process? election with an eight vote margin of victory, you found 30 examples. Then then what? What would happen then? What would be the process? So what most people don't understand and I'm not sure the Trump campaign understood nor Rudy Giuliani or any of the lawyers we all know have infamously participated in the claims of voter fraud.

When we vote, we vote anonymously. Once you stick your ballot in the machine or whatever the mechanism is by which you cast your ballot, it becomes anonymous. They can't trace your vote to having voted for a specific candidate. So in your example where the margin of victory was eight votes and 30 fraudulent votes were found, you can't show that those 30 fraudulent votes harmed a specific candidate. It's impossible to do. So without being able to show the harm, had I even found 20,000 fraudulent votes in Georgia, I can't imagine a scenario where a judge would look at the proof of those fraudulent votes, but then leap to an incorrect determination that those votes therefore harmed the Trump

campaign. That's a that's a leap you can't make and you cannot possibly infer for whom somebody voted. And now that applies. I don't think that he would ever have been successful with the attempt to try to overturn an election by using fraud. Now, that applies to the sorts of votes you were looking at. I'm guessing in some, you know, the voting machine, someone hacked it and flipped votes from one candidate to the other. And we have some kind of digital paper trail,

that would be something different altogether. Right. That's not even in the scope of what you were looking at. Correct. But I was focused in on voter data and claims that others made that were based on voter data. And as examples of some of these claims are there, there were funeral homeowners in Pennsylvania who were convinced they had found hundreds of deceased votes. They ultimately didn't understand the data they were looking at.

The wildest claim of all came out of Wisconsin, where a group of amateur analysts made a determination that more than 700,000 votes in Wisconsin were fraudulently cast twice. And they made a fundamental mistake in not understanding the data they were looking at. Their claim went to a golfer that went to the manager of a Trump golf course that went to Eric Trump that came to Alex Cannon and then to me. And that sort of encapsulates the insanity that was going on in November and early December of 2020, there were probably thousands of people heavily vested in trying to prove the claims of voter fraud. And they all came up short. And where the claim wasn't based on data, it was hearsay. It was somebody saw someone do something

kind of evidence, which is not allowable in our courts of law. And those none of those were successful in any of the lawsuits that were filed. And they won't be in the future either. If I zoom out a little bit and I understand that now I'm asking beyond just the sort of alleged fraudulent votes you were looking at, we saw everything from, well, the legal complaints were thrown out, not on merit, but for standing. So courts didn't really rule on anything. Or in Arizona, some ballots had bamboo fibers indicative of some kind of Asian interference. Or in Pennsylvania, when the vans with supposedly sandwiches showed up, they didn't have enough sandwiches for the workers. Therefore, there must have been fill in the blank boxes of ballots. Who the hell knows?

I'm talking about the full gamut of this stuff. Have you ever seen any of these sorts of approaches? I don't care which of these you're talking about. Has this ever actually materially been confirmed to affect the results in any race you've ever looked at these sorts of claims? Speaker 1 The claims you just suggested Speaker 2 any kind of them, the double voting, the dead people voting or machines or stuff from Asia, like any of this stuff. So in North Carolina, a congressional primary was ordered redone by the courts because of an illegal ballot harvesting operation. Right. So that is one example where an election was redone in Virginia a few years ago, uh, one legislative seat, uh, ended in a tie and they

had a cast. I think they cast the die to figure out which candidate won that race. I remember that and the winner of that race determined which party controlled the Virginia, uh, legislature. So, uh, a single fraudulent vote can, depending on the circumstances, have a huge impact in an extremely tight race. In Florida in 2016, I determined in 2018 that about 2,200 duplicate votes were cast in that state and also some other state. And this actually makes perfect sense. People who own multiple homes sometimes do something really bad and take two bites of the electoral apple. And I was able to prove that. Now, 2200 votes across Florida's nine million registered voters or whatever the number number is, is tiny. But remember that in Bush v. Gore in 2000, the margin of victory was 547 votes. Now again, 2,200 fraudulent votes over 547 vote margin,

you still can't determine who those votes were cast for. And in 2020, before the 2020 election happened, I predicted two deceased votes in Pennsylvania before they happened. That prediction was part of a court case that was filed in October of 2020. And sure enough, those two votes ended up being fraudulently cast votes on behalf of a deceased person. The votes were counted. After the election, the registered voter was removed. The person who voted, two different people voted each of those fraudulent votes. They were charged, prosecuted and convicted. Now what do you mean? You predicted it.

Yeah, I was. I found that that the registered voter was deceased and that deceased voter was registered in September of 2020, just ahead of the mail ballot window. And they and they were already dead at that point by many years. Yes. Wow. OK, so, yeah, that may be the first example of predictive voter fraud analysis. But what's really interesting about it and it happens, right?

I mean, it's not it doesn't happen very often, for which we should all be thankful, but their states, Pennsylvania in particular, does a terrible job at removing deceased voters, which is what made this fraud possible. And in both circumstances, the voter who, the person who committed those fraudulent votes was a registered Republican who admitted that they committed that fraud and that the fraudulent vote was cast on behalf of President Trump. So the whole narrative that voter fraud is something perpetrated by Democrats almost exclusively isn't true. And in the eight thousand plus duplicate votes I found in 2016, it was about 50 50 Republicans versus Democrats in terms of who cast those votes. Now, the interesting thing about that is if there's a thousand vote margin and you find 30000 fraudulent votes, but about 15000 were Democrat to Republican and or to the benefit

of one party, the other 15000 to the benefit of the other party, your result is still pretty good, which is there's a margin of a thousand. Right. I mean, that's the interesting thing about it being done equally. It doesn't really change the outcome. I mean, it does. Well, it doesn't. But more importantly, it can't change the outcome because you can't infer that just

because the registered voter was a Democrat, that the vote cast was Democrat. True. By the way, Trump didn't have standing in some of the court cases because he couldn't just he couldn't document the harm that the campaign received as a result of the fraud claims that were part of the lawsuit. So it's complicated. And in my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough to know, I think that trying to overturn an election legally on that with a foundation of fraudulent votes probably won't ever prove to be successful.

Last thing I want to ask you in a country with 331, probably 340 million people at this point. And, you know, I don't know the total number of people who could vote, but we're talking about over 150 million who do in most presidential elections is zero examples of this stuff. The goal we need to get to or is it acceptable in a modern Western society to say, listen, the number isn't zero, but it's so small that it's not really something we need to worry about because it doesn't affect the outcomes.

Uh, many democratic states have joined a consortium of states called Eric E R I C all uppercase whose mission is to try to address some of these data issues, duplicate registered voters, deceased voters and that sort of thing. So now, and it's mostly Democrats that we can't get into the politics of it right now, but what the answer to you is yes, it's mostly Democrats. We can't get into the politics of it right now. But the answer to you is, yes, it's important. And most Democratic secretaries of state understand the importance. That's why,000 registered voters born in the year 1800 per their voter registration database. That's not voter fraud. It's sloppy, sloppy, sloppy data. 8,000 of those voters cast votes in 2020. That's not voter fraud, but that's really bad data practices. It's really important. Because our elections are so important, having quality data behind our elections is

important. And yeah, we should strive for zero as much as we can, because when an election is decided by one vote, we shouldn't have to have the agita of, oh, my God, there were a thousand fraudulent votes in the framework of that one vote. Now what do we do? Right. We can avoid the fraudulent votes. It's not rocket science.

We've been speaking with Ken Block. The book is disproven. My unbiased search for voter fraud for the Trump campaign, the data that shows why he lost and how we can improve our elections. Ken, I really appreciate you being here today. Thanks so much. Thank you. Taking care of your health isn't always easy, but it really should be simple, simple. That's why for years now I've been drinking AG1 every day. It's just one scoop mixed with water once a day, and it gives me the foundational nutritional elements I want for the whole day. Each serving of AG1 gives me what I want in terms of vitamins, minerals and more. It's just a simple habit. I know that with AG1, I'm getting high quality nutrition. The ingredients are sourced for nutrient density and absorption. If you want

to take ownership of your health, start with AG1, try AG1 and get a free one year supply of vitamin The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com.. . . . . . . .

. ..... a free email provider, you should know that they're scanning every email you send and receive, even after you delete it. They're usually using the data to build a picture of your life, to show you ads, which many find creepy. Our sponsors start mail never scans or tracks your emails. Privacy is what comes first. And unlike other email services, when you delete an email and start mail, it is gone forever. It also protects your data by blocking tracking pixels in emails, which companies and hackers can use to track you. You can create unlimited email aliases to protect your identity and cut down on spam. You can encrypt every email you send, even if the recipient isn't using

encryption. Start mail gives you 20 gigs of storage. That's more than you get on Gmail. And it only takes a few clicks to migrate all of your emails and contacts over to start mail. Go to start mail dot com slash Pacman to get 50 percent off your first year. That's only about two bucks a month. That's S.T.A.R.T. mail dot com slash Pacman for 50 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. We have to now ask the question is Donald Trump broke. Trump can't make his bond payment in the New York civil fraud trial. Asset seizure, including his properties, may be next. Take a look at this. Reuters reports Trump fails to secure bond for four hundred and fifty four million dollar

judgment in civil fraud case as asset seizure looms. That's Trump getting his properties taken. Can you imagine the triggering that would happen? The article by Luke Cohen reads Trump's efforts to secure a bond to cover a four hundred and fifty four million dollar judgment in a New York civil fraud case has been rejected by 30 surety companies, his lawyer said Monday, inching him closer to the possibility of having his properties seized. The former president must either pay the sum out of his own pocket or post a bond to stave off the state's seizure while he

appeals Justice Arthur Engeron's February 16th judgment against him for misstating property values to dupe lenders and insurers. Trump, two of his adult children and other Trump organization executives had so far approached the 30 companies through four separate brokers without success. The other defendants face face judgments totaling 10 million dollars. Remember that a bonding company would be on the hook for any payout if Trump loses his appeal and proves unable to pay. Why do you think that these companies don't want to give Trump the money?

It's because if Trump loses the appeal, which he may well, he would then have to be he would be on the hook for the full four hundred and fifty four million. And if Trump can't come up with it, they don't get their money back. And Trump's lawyers have already said Trump can't come up with it unless he sells real estate. Trump doesn't have the money. Later in the show, we'll get to Trump actually admitting this. I want to remind you, by the way, that when Trump's lawyer, Alina Haba, was asked,

does Trump have this sort of money sitting around? She said, of course he does. Of course he does. This was just about a month ago. My goodness. So Judge Engeron says that he wants this three hundred and fifty million dollars within 30 days. Now, I know that you're planning on appealing this. Right. But you've still got to put up the full amount pending that appeal. Does Donald Trump have that kind of money sitting around? Yes. I mean, he does. Of course he has money. You know, he's a billionaire. We know that. Of course he has the money. So condescending, so pompous. Of course, he has the money. He's, you know, a billionaire. Turns out he doesn't. And as we now understand, part of the reason he doesn't have the money is the same reason that the judgment was made against him, which is so

much of Trump's net worth is in completely irrational, unhinged, overstated property values. And that is not easily convertible into cash, especially if you go and you say, hey, I want a line of credit. And especially now, if you say I want a bond, you say, look, here's a one point five billion dollar property. And they say, dude, the reason you even need this bond is this property is not worth one point five billion dollars. That's exactly what the court found. So Trump is in trouble here. And the next question that we have to discuss is whether bankruptcy could be on the horizon.

The next issue for the failed former President Donald Trump is whether he is about to go personally bankrupt. Now, as Trump has said many times before, my bankruptcies were business bankruptcies. I was using the law to my advantage. It was strategic. It was brilliant. It was smart. It was just me being a business genius. Well, the possibility of a personal bankruptcy is now on the table. The New Republic has a nice write up about this. Is Donald Trump about to go bankrupt? Insurer Chubb has stepped in with a timely loan to help with some of the former president's

mounting legal fees. But he's still nearly half a billion dollars short and he says he hasn't got it. This is interesting to me because it's becoming a campaign issue. We will get in a moment to Trump's statements about the money and the bond and all of this sort of stuff. And it's sort of interesting, but I'll be honest, I don't really care about that. Trump's a liar. He's lied about his net worth for a long time.

He's lied about the value of his businesses for a long time. But this is becoming a political issue. Trump's personal debts here, especially the nearly half a billion dollars in fines that he now owes. These are becoming a 2024 campaign issue because Trump is out there. First of all, the time spent trying to secure these loans to cover the debt, that's time consuming and it's taking up headspace. and it's so far been unsuccessful. Chubb has offered the ninety one million dollar loan to secure a bond in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. But that's just one issue. You then have the New York civil fraud trial. We know that Trump has gotten the idea,

which may work to some degree, of taking over the Republican National Committee such that that money from the RNC will now become a legal slush fund for Trump's legal bills. But again, my understanding and you never know what's legal, what's not legal. Can Trump get away with it? If nobody holds you accountable, does it really matter what the letter of the law says? Apparently apparently the RNC can fund Trump's direct legal bills, meaning the cost of lawyers, but not the judgments against him. So not the 350 million that's relevant from the New York civil fraud, 355 million. That's there. Trump has all sorts of other liabilities overall.

His fortune is declining in the sense that if we say, well, what is he really worth based on reasonable property values? It's nowhere near what he claims. So Trump's financial situation is far more dire, certainly than he's going to be willing to admit, and certainly much more dire than many magas are willing to to admit. There is precedent for presidents declaring personal bankruptcy. And it's Trump's favorite Ulysses S. Grant. I say it Ulysses. For some reason, Trump calls him Ulysses. And Trump would be

the first president to declare personal bankruptcy since Ulysses S. Grant. I don't know the direction that this is going to go. It really doesn't look like Trump's going to be able to get a bond. It doesn't look like he has the liquid assets to cover the bond himself. Most experts agree that the vast majority of his real estate assets are dramatically overvalued but also leveraged already for other debts. That's another critical part of this, because you could say, well, let's say Trump's Mar-a-Lago isn't worth one point five billion, but it's still worth five hundred million.

Trump could get an 80 percent loan off of that. There you go. That's your four hundred million. What legal experts and financial experts are saying is that he's already opened that line of credit. And if you already have taken a loan against Mar-a-Lago, you're not going to get another loan against Mar-a-Lago. So the entire portfolio really seems to be a house of cards.

It sounds exactly like Trump. And there would be some is it irony? Is it justice? I don't know what it is, but there would be something interesting to Trump being unable to get the money he needs for the bond, for the judgment. For the very reason that the judgment was issued against him in the first place, which is over leveraged properties whose value he claims is much higher than it actually is.

So now let's hear from Trump in terms of what he actually says about this money. We don't have to wonder whether Trump has the money for the bond he's seeking. He's admitting he doesn't have the money in a wacky series of truth central posts. Let's take a look. Trump writing yesterday, quote, I built a magnificent business which helped rebuild New York City and state with amazing, unparalleled historic properties and tons of cash, which crooked Joe Biden and his maniac prosecutors are trying to wrongfully and illegally take from me. A bond of the size set by the Democrat club controlled judge

in corrupt racist Letitia James is unlawful, which Hunt is unconstitutional, un-American, unprecedented and practically impossible for any company, including one as successful as mine. So Trump is saying. Yes, it's an impossible financial barrier for me to meet, but nobody would be able to meet it. He's trying to say, I can't meet it, but nobody else could. And so the problem is the judgment and the bond. He goes on to say the bonding companies have never heard of such a bond of this size before, nor do they have the ability to post such a bond, even if they wanted to.

Page two, the statute used to attack me has never been used for such a purpose before. No jury allowed. Ridiculous $18 million value for Mar-a-Lago. Remember, that's the value for assessment for property tax assessment. It's not the market value. The judge ignored the statute of limitations decision by the appellate court. Ironclad disclaimer clauses. No damages, no victims, a disgraceful case. This sham is forcing companies and people to flee New York and stopping companies from entering. If they did, they would be crazy because they don't need the communist

China or old Soviet Union model of business to interfere with their prosperity and success. We will fight and defeat this hoax and all of the other crooked Joe directed hoaxes once and for all. If I wasn't running for president of the United Chase and leading by a lot, this kind of witch hunt would never have happened. Almost everything in there is a lie, except. Trump's admission that he can't meet the bond. He says nobody could. I'm no worse than anybody else, but nobody could meet the bond.

So that is the truth, ladies and gentlemen. We go all the way back to February and Alina Haba saying, of course, he's a billionaire, as we know. Of course, he has the money. And it turns out that he does not have the money. What happens next? Don't know. Could it be his properties are seized? Boy, would that be something, wouldn't it? We'll wait and see. We have a voicemail number. That number is 2192. David P. You can call any time you want. And I present to you today what may be one of the most unhinged callers of all time. I would even say I know it's a high bar, but I would present to you today what may be one of the most unhinged callers of all time. I would even say I know it's a high bar, but I would suggest to you this may be the most unhinged caller of all time. Furious because apparently I blocked him on my personal Instagram. Listen to this.

Speaker 5 Oh, David Pakman, you actually have the audacity to block me on Instagram because I called you out for somehow getting invited to the White House and having a sit-down with the Vice President of the United States and how you're a democratic shill at this point, a complete shell of yourself, of your former self, back in the day when you used to be against Big Pharma, you used to be against the military-industrial complex, you used to be against the deep state. But now all of a sudden you're having conversations with the deep state and I call you out on Instagram and you actually get so upset enough to actually block me and remove me from your Instagram. How pathetic of a snowflake trigger did you get? Oh, it's absolutely sad

because you're the same guy who goes out there and critiques every single Republican about how they get triggered by a certain topic. And then this is the guy that sounds triggered. Oh, wow. There you go. Blocking me on Instagram like a pathetic shill. DNC shill. Oh my God. So horrible.

So horrible. Latinos for Trump 2024. Mr. David Hackman. Latinos for Trump 2024. And not fake Latinos like you that pretend you were born in Argentina. You can speak Spanish. And now all of a sudden you're Latino. No, you're not Latino. You're white.

You don't pass for it. Pathetic. David Hackman. Wow. This is a guy who apparently was that triggered because I blocked him on Instagram. Now a couple of different things. First of all, yes, on my personal Instagram, when people show up and just make insulting comments, I just block them.

I don't even think twice. I it's my Instagram. I'll do whatever I want. People show up. They they talk. They'll come up with what they think is the most hurtful thing they can say. Oh, your baby daughter is ugly. I just block you.

I never hear from you again. It's no big deal. Oh, you stupid shill showing up part of the deep state with Kamala Harris. I just block you. It's my personal Instagram. I'll do whatever I want. Now, there's a very long and ugly history of gatekeeping around who is really Hispanic. And there's a long history of saying that South American Jews aren't really Hispanic and a history of saying that Argentinians aren't really Hispanic because most Argentinians are white. What I can tell you is I'm not lying about being Argentinian and I am also not lying

about speaking Spanish. Now whether you want to start gatekeeping, not a game that I'm a big fan of. So have at it, Haas. But oh boy, speaking, calling in saying others are triggered. I've never heard someone that triggered wacky, wacky stuff. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Eric Adams, New York City mayor, is getting sued. I'll tell you why. The EPA has banned asbestos. And you probably are saying, what do you mean? It's been banned for decades, right? No, it was a it was a partial ban. It is now fully banned. And we will talk about electric vehicles being almost as inexpensive as gas cars at this

point. All of those stories and more on the bonus show. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. Can't wait to see you there.