The David Pakman Show - 3/22/23: Protesters a flop as yet another lawyer takes a shot

Episode Date: March 22, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Matt Gertz, Senior Fellow at Media Matters, joins David to discuss the potential fallout from the Fox News Dominion lawsuit, the recent Trump vs DeSantis dynamics that have developed on Fox, and much more -- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says that a Trump indictment would "blow up our country," except protesters aren't seeming too motivated at this time -- The few protesters that show up outside of Trump Tower are protesting in favor of a Trump arrest rather than against it -- Donald Trump is reportedly completely disconnected from reality, doesn't understand the legal trouble he is in, and wants to be handcuffed if he is arrested -- Donald Trump's new hip-hop attorney, Drew Findling, appears on MSNBC and makes a fool of himself -- Failed former President Donald Trump goes into full conspiracy mode about the "Deep State" in a dangerous new video -- Urine drinking promoter Christopher Key is now offering a sticker that goes on one's forehead to reduce pain -- Asked about Donald Trump's crime, Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy talks about Hillary Clinton -- The Eggman leaves a voicemail considering whether Lauren Boebert being a grandmother at 36 years of age is actually beneficial to the right wing Christian movement -- On the Bonus Show: Vladimir Putin welcomes China's Ukraine proposal, spring break videos prompt MAGA to attack Florida, junk fees costing consumers tens of billions per year, much more... 🌳 Use code PAKMAN for 20% off HoldOn plant-based bags at https://holdonbags.com ⚠️ Try Ground News for free, or get unlimited access for 30% OFF by 3/26: https://ground.news/pakman 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com 💻 Stay protected! Try Aura FREE for 2 weeks: https://aura.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 -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanfinance -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Let's start today with the topic of protests. Many of you have been writing to me and in different versions asking, do I think there are going to be violent protests or even riots if and when Donald Trump is indicted, arrested, surrenders, arraigned, whatever the case may be? Increasingly, it seems as though that is going to be sometime over the next seven days, if at all. I am I'm couching all of these things with if at all. So I won't say it every time, but that's the speculation right now. And Donald Trump called for protests in some of those original truth social posts that first started this entire conversation about the arrest. Donald Trump putting protest, protest, protest. It's time on and on and on. And of course, we're well positioned to be concerned. It's reasonable to be

concerned about violent protests from MAGA because violent protests from MAGA are in a way how we got into this mess in the first place with what happened on January 6th of 2021. But there's a difference. The early signals are that it's really not clear the MAGA people are willing to go out and do the protesting in this particular case. Partially, this was evidenced by Monday evening's completely flaccid, pathetic rally, just an impotent rally in lower Manhattan, where like there were more media people than protesters and there were maybe a couple dozen protesters. We also had that video from Trump Tower yesterday where five people were there holding signs saying Trump won and one person blew a shofar. It's not exactly an electric atmosphere of protesting in defense of Donald Trump right now. Well, Republican Senator Lindsey

Graham appeared on Fox and Friends yesterday, and he's using language that raised the eyebrows of many. And the language he's using is that if Trump is indicted, it will blow up our country. And again, many of you taking this as a sign that he's leading protesters to maybe behave violently, violently. Let's listen to what Lindsay had to say. So are you concerned about the district attorney Bragg, Alvin Bragg, indicting President Trump next week in an unprecedented way and the circus that would be around that? It's going to blow up our country. And this is a bunch of BS. You've had the prosecutor before Bragg, Mr. Vance, look at the case and pass on it.

You had the U.S. attorney in New York say, I'm not going to do it federally. There was an intervening cause other than Trump running. One of the guys in the DA's office wrote a book, very critical of Vance. You should have prosecuted Trump. You let him off. And Bragg feels that pressure. He's a George Soros backed prosecutor. OK, so Lindsey is on topic with all of the bullet points. But that first line, if Trump is indicted, it will blow up our country. Some are understanding to be an allusion to violence that Lindsey is saying, go out there and do the violent stuff. Now, I'll be very honest with you. I find Lindsey Graham to be a completely deplorable, two faced individual. He for years now has bounced like a

pinball between playing the rational Republican who can step back from MAGA insanity and tell things the way they are, sort of like pretending to be Mitt Romney in a way. But then he will behave in ways reminiscent of someone who should be evaluated a psychiatrically, for example, his unhinged rant during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings where Lindsey got all red in the face screaming at the top of his lungs about how no one has been treated more poorly and unfairly and unjustly than Brett Kavanaugh. So there are two Lindsey Graham's. Lindsey Graham has no qualms morally with subtly inciting violence

in the event that Trump is arrested. But I think what the wrench in this is going to be is that the Trump people don't really seem to care enough to actually go out and protest. Now, this may change if and when Trump is arrested. But in other times, I would have said this is very dangerous. This is a tinderbox that's about to explode. But right now, I'm not really seeing the evidence of that. I'm not seeing the rage and the engagement on the ground that these right wingers insist is actually out there ready to come out in defense of Trump. And again, case in point, just look at the turnout for the protest on Monday, which we covered in lower Manhattan,

more media than protesters and even our friend Jason Selvig from the good liars getting multiple minutes of being interviewed by right side broadcasting because they didn't really have real protesters that could coherently speak. So normally I would say this is extraordinarily dangerous. Now I say people like Lindsey Graham are dangerous. Hopefully they're being dangerous in an environment that is not actually going to lead to violence. That's the hope. Let's now look at another example of one of these so-called protests. This is so funny. Donald Trump has been calling for protests for days on the basis of his allegedly imminent arrest and indictment. Trump has been saying

protest, protest, protest. It is time. It is time. It is time. Take the country back, etc. Well, protesters did show up yesterday outside of Trump Tower, except they were protesting in favor of Trump getting arrested. This is just so funny. Trump's screaming to anyone that will listen. You've got to go and protest. You've got to go and protest. There were protesters, but they had a sign saying Trump is guilty. No one is above the law. Seditious conspiracy. Lock Trump up, etc. Take a look at this. Take a listen. Not exactly the protest Trump was looking for. Interestingly enough, we bring you this live shot here. We know the former president has called for for protests in a peaceful manner. Many Republicans push back on that. But interestingly enough, it's the opposite

side that's outside protesting now saying insurrection. Tick tock. Time's up. No one is above the law. Trump is guilty. Sir, the protesters are here. Fantastic. What do the signs say?

Sir, they say to lock you up. And many supporting the possible indictment of former President Trump there. Again, those signs really look like they were made by the grassroots grassroots groups, too, don't they, John? Yeah, we'll continue to follow that again. And so this is a report from Newsmax, by the way, the guest here suggesting the signs that are being held up are too professionally made to really be actual activists. Grassroots sign. Clearly, there's someone behind it. And usually the someone is George Soros. I mean, you have to understand the language. That's a dog whistle if I've ever seen one. Not exactly the protests that Donald Trump was looking for. One more thing on protests.

A group did gather in Florida yesterday outside of Mar-a-Lago, and this was in West Palm Beach. This is really funny. MSNBC interviewed a Trump supporter who was at the protest, and she says, we are not protesting. We're not. And by the way, if Trump's indicted, we're not going to do anything, seemingly wanting to preempt any possibility of Trump is being accused of violence. It's she she seems not to be liking this narrative. You know where we are here, Chris. I want to just introduce you real fast to one woman who we met.

You were telling me that you helped promote this online. What type of folks have you done this before? Have you had to try to get people out and come out here before? I just have a group of friends and we have flyer made and we just get it out to some and they get it out to some and that's just how it gets around. When you saw Donald Trump call for protests, what did that mean to you? We're not protesting. We're supporting the president. No protests.

And if he were to be indicted, what should the response be from supporters like you? Nothing. We'll just have a big party and laugh it off. Speaker 1 No protest. Speaker 2 And if he were to be invited, what should the response be from supporters like you? Speaker 1 Nothing but just have a big party and laugh it off. That's the best. What if? So what would people like you do? Nothing. We would celebrate the arrest.

Speaker 1 What type of folks are here today? Speaker 2 Every day, normal, every day, hardworking people. There you go. Obviously, very hardworking enough to be out protesting at 109 p.m. on a Tuesday. As we know, that's notoriously a time when hardworking people are able to go and just hold flags for a guy who lost a recent election and simply can't accept that. So this is going to be super interesting. But I maintain right now when I take the temperature of MAGA, I don't get the definitive feeling that they're ready to go and riot if and when Trump is arrested. And I think that's a good thing. You know, a lot of right wingers write in all the time and they say, David, you want

in order to get ratings and clicks, you want there to be violence and that will allow you to go after Trump supporters as being violent. And that's you. It's terrible that you want that. No, no, no. I don't want that. I don't want that at all. And in fact, if you go back to the January 6th, 2021 Trump Trump live stream that we did, you see that I don't exactly look thrilled when they breach the Capitol and break in, despite the fact that it did generate a lot of attention. I would rather what's better for the country, which is for there not to be violent outbursts as a result of the justice system carrying forward and indicting when there is evidence to do so. That's not an action that I want to see there be violence in response to. So, of course, we will be watching it. Latest rumor is maybe indictment today, but

Trump surrender next week or maybe nothing will happen. We really don't know. But as soon as I know anything, you will as well. Make sure you're subscribed to The David Pakman Show YouTube channel at YouTube dot com slash The David Pakman show. We have a packed program for you today and I'm glad you're here. Plastic. It's everywhere we look and not enough is being done about it. 100 billion plastic bags are used and thrown away every year. Here's something super simple you can do to reduce plastic and help the planet a little bit. Our sponsor, Hold On Bags, is the company making plastic-free trash bags and zip seal kitchen bags. They're just as strong and high quality as the plastic bags you're used to.

Hold On Bags are 100% plant-based and home compostable, meaning they break down in just weeks, not decades. Their zip seal kitchen bags come in sandwich or gallon size to fit all of your needs, whether it's carrots or crayons at home. I put all of my food waste in a hold on trash bag, throw it in the compost pile. And when I throw a hold on trash bag in my dumpster, I love knowing it's not filling our landfills and oceans with plastic. Single use plastics harm the planet at every stage. Production, disposal, decomposition. Join the growing movement away from single use plastic. These products are really great.

It's so easy to make the switch. Go to hold on bags dot com slash Pacman and you'll get 20 percent off with code Pacman at checkout. That's H.O.L.D. O.N. B.A.G.S. dot com slash Pacman code Pacman saves you 20 percent. The info is in the podcast notes. One of our continued sponsors is Ground News, an app and website that aggregates local and international news sources to show you how breaking news is being reported around the world. It has become a go to resource for me right now. I'm looking at a story about residents in Ohio reporting medical symptoms after the

train derailment. Ground news shows the headline from The Washington Post owned by Jeff Bezos says East Palestine residents should look to Agent Orange victims. The headline from The Epoch Times, a radical right wing outlet, says federal officials enter 500 East Palestine homes after toxic train crash. I also like that you can sort things by factuality, location and bias. Check out ground news for free at ground dot news slash Pacman. If you find ground news as useful as I do, subscribe for unlimited access. That's ground dot news slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. To all of our new viewers and listeners this week, and there are many of you, the David

Pacman show is an audience supported program. I invite you to add your name to our list of supporters by signing up at join Pacman dot com. You get a whole bunch of great benefits, including an extra show every single day just for you, during which we discuss more stories. But producer Pat Ford joins me on the bonus show. You also get commercial free daily video and audio streams of the show. Maybe you prefer the audio podcast. Maybe you prefer the video. Either way, all commercials stripped out of it. And you get invited to the members only town halls. You get a members only soundboard behind the paywall and a lot of other great things. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. And of course, the coupon code 24 starts now is always available for a

limited time. You can also use the coupon code indict. I don't think I have to explain that one to you. The code indict saves you a bundle of cash at join Pacman dot com. All right. Let's run through the latest over the last 24 hours related to this potentially looming arrest of failed former President Donald Trump, starting with there is a stunning new report from New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Michael C. Bender that Donald Trump is completely disconnected from reality, wants to be handcuffed if he is arrested and seems to see most of this as no big deal and something that will just galvanize his supporters in favor of him, which to some degree I think is true and I will get to it. But the people around Trump are telling the New York Times Trump genuinely doesn't seem to

understand the legal jeopardy that he's in here because it's not only one, it's not only two. He is looking at potentially three or more arrests and indictments over the next couple of months. The New York Times article Trump at Mar-a-Lago, magical thinking and a perp walk fixation. Those who have spent time with Donald Trump in recent days say he has often appeared significantly disconnected from the severity of his potential legal woes. Behind closed doors, Trump has told friends and associates he welcomes the idea of being paraded by the authorities before a throng of reporters and

news cameras. He has even mused openly about whether he should smile for the assembled media. And he has pondered how the public would react and is said to have described the potential spectacle as a fun experience. No one is quite sure whether his remarks are bravado or genuine resignation about what lies ahead. If he is truly looking forward to it, he may be disappointed. And part of that disappointment is this paragraph indicates is that even though often that perp walk handcuffed situation happens where law enforcement walks you by a throng of reporters and they take pictures of you in handcuffs with someone like Trump, you would expect that it's quite plausible that Secret Service would arrange

with the court to do it in a quieter and different way. But I have to tell you that this is very much a reflection of Trump's narcissism. There's also a Guardian article that explains Trump wants to be handcuffed for his court appearance in the Stormy Daniels case. People close to the former president said to be unsure whether he's serious about wanting to do a perp walk, but he wants to be handcuffed. He thinks that that would turn things into a spectacle and that that would be a really, really great thing. A very common narcissistic tendency, as we've illuminated and enumerated for you before, narcissists tend to think that they're

always smart enough, clever enough, smooth enough to escape consequences for their wrongdoing. So when it's if indeed Trump is the narcissist that we and many believe him to be, and we remember other elements of this. Remember, during the Mueller probe, he wanted to sit down and testify, even though every single lawyer who got anywhere near him said, you absolutely do not want to do that. Lawyers realizing that Trump would just lie and lie and lie because another trait of narcissists is they're not going to be able to tell that I'm lying. They're not going to be able to catch me in a lie. So given that we know that about Trump, he may realistically be seeing this entire series of possible arrests and indictments against him, almost like as a TV show, almost like

as an out of body experience where it's kind of happening to something else. He's just playing a character in the entire thing, but he's in control and he's always going to come out on top. Now, I do think he is going to come out on top in the sense of I do believe. That if there is one arrest and it's the Stormy Daniels case and it's the weakest of all the possible cases, at least in the Republican primary, it will help Trump in the general election. If Trump is the nominee, I believe the arrests are not going to help Trump. The MAGA crowd and many of Trump's more hardcore, ardent supporters certainly will be galvanized by what they will see as an unfair, politically motivated arrest if it happens. So in the primary, I think Trump will benefit from it. But I think it's going to hurt him in the general if indeed he is the nominee.

And Trump, again, because he's a narcissist, he has this idea that he'll always spin it in his favor. And what sources are saying is he doesn't really have any idea how serious all of this could be, how expensive all of this could be and how damaging it actually could be in a hypothetical general election where Trump is the Republican nominee in 2024. This is not stopping Trump from continuing to send bizarre lawyers on TV. And that's what I want to look at next.

We looked over the last week at an incredible viral interview where Trump lawyer Joe Takapina went on MSNBC and was interviewed by Ari Melber and lunged for papers, tried to lunge and take papers from Ari Melber's hand. Another Trump lawyer has gone on MSNBC and it went just as poorly, if not worse. Instant collapse from Drew Findling. Drew Findling is a criminal defense attorney. He's really known like as a hip hop attorney because he has represented a number of well-known hip hop musicians. Doesn't make him any better or worse of an attorney. Just it's an interesting thing that Trump has gone with someone who is known really as as a hip hop attorney. He went on MSNBC. Ari Melber asked him questions.

It really doesn't go well for Findling. Take a look at this level of passion. But you're not the judge or the jury in this case. You're the lawyer. We're talking to you not for your conclusions without evidence, but for the evidence you can marshal right now. I'm giving you the time. If you can't do it tonight, if you can't give us any arguments, then we will note that.

But let me put up on the screen again for your rebuttal. If you want to take this time. And importantly, I should mention this is a defense attorney for Trump in the Georgia case, which I believe is potentially the strongest one. Election fraud in Georgia. If you request or attempt to cause another person to engage in voter fraud, that's criminal solicitation. If you conspire or agree with another to commit a violation, that is another Georgia statute. Those are both felonies. Those are just two, and there are, as you know, others. Donald Trump, post-December 14th, I'll give you the widest possible burst,

that before it's certified, there are arguments that could be theoretically made about alternate electors. But post-December 14th, he's on tape doing it. We have a new call we learned about in the last week demanding it. How is that not soliciting or conspiring fraud? Yeah, so Ari, I'm familiar, my team is familiar with all those statutes. And while I'm looking at this camera, I can tell you we're incredibly familiar with those statutes. They aren't new to us. We do a lot of political cases. Sure. We are absolutely confident, having looked at the evidence, that our client has not violated any of those.

We're not going to look at it two-dimensionally. We're going to look at it three-dimensionally, which we've done. What did he mean when he said fine? And he's completely innocent. But what did he mean when he said fine votes that don't exist after certification? What could that possibly mean other than fine votes that don't exist? Well, I will say this, and that is that, again, okay, looking at the entire 62 minutes, putting it all in context, there was nothing illegal said by our client. That's the best. When Trump said, I need 11000 votes, give me a break.

I just want to find 11780 votes, which is one more than we have. What did he mean when he said that? Well, you've got to listen to the whole call in context. Oh, really? Did he open the call with everything I'm about to say is merely a joke. What what could have preceded that that would have made that in any way not a violation of those statutes? And this continued. And Melbourgh is doing everything he can to try to actually get substance from Drew Findling.

He lost the election and got people to submit false material to the government and everywhere else or conspire to do so. And that's a potential crime. Now, it's sorry. Let me tell you, because what I'm not going to do is I'm not going to be a hypocrite and I'm not going to be disingenuous. Oh, good. Well, then I'm sure he's going to. That's a nice disclaimer. When I talk about prosecutors who I know very, very well, OK, and have great relationships with. But when I call and say and file something that they that they went down the political avenue and that has no place in this case, I'm not going to turn around and start being political because they so understand that this is a case where the fact this

is this is a classic, particularly for lawyers on TV, where you're not you're not trying the case on TV, at least not overtly. If if the facts aren't on your side, you argue about process. It was political and it was the wrong venue and it was all targeting my client unfairly and blah, blah, blah. I'm a hypocrite for everything that I put in 50 pages. So respectfully, I appreciate you bringing that up. And I appreciate that you appreciate it. I do appreciate being on the show, but I got to tell you, Drew, I'm not going political. I got to tell you, I'm not going. I'm giving you time and I'll

give your colleagues time and we'll have you back. But it is not accurate. Absolutely. But this is a case about trying to steal an election. Ascertaining the facts of that is not quote-unquote political. It is the beating heart of the center of this case because Donald Trump lied about it. And it seems today that you have an inability to acknowledge that he lost the state of Georgia, which is odd because you know he lost the state of Georgia. We all know that. I don't have an inability to do anything. I have the ability to tell you what I think was in the scope of the questions that I'll answer regarding the filing

of 50 pages motion and 400 pages of exhibits about concerns that we have about a special purpose grand jury. Nothing, right, understood. But nothing in that is political from our vantage point. In fact, we call out. He's not going to do anything political at all in terms of answering inconvenient questions. But then when they stuff this filing full of 400 pages of, quote, concerns that are riddled with political concerns, that's not political, according to him. If you're having trouble following this, I don't blame you for being political. So I'm not going to be disingenuous and start being political. I'm going to talk about the facts that are contained in there. Yeah. Right. And I'm not going to be put in a position where I have to make one claim or

another claim. I am, as you know, you pointed out my relationship to the bar, deeply committed to my profession and deeply committed. All right. Yeah. So now he's saying he really is committed to being a lawyer. Wow. You know, I thought that Trump, I really thought they had Trump dead to rights. By the way, the look on Ari Melber's face here in this still shot kind of says everything says it all. I Trump seems like he's super guilty. He seems guilty as hell. But did you know his lawyer is really committed to the practice of law? Oh, he is. Oh, well, then it must be not guilty. I guess this is a nonsense interview. And I don't really even know whether. So I guess MSNBC wants to do these interviews because they sort of always go like

this and it's very cartoonish. I guess the lawyers want to do the interviews because they know probably that Trump doesn't always pay his lawyers. And so if they can get some publicity out of it, then maybe they can make money on the back end from other people hiring them. I don't really know, but they come together and it just instantly implodes. And so the continued interviews with Trump, Trump's lawyers not going particularly well. And then closing out our review of the last 24 hours, it also not going particularly well for Donald Trump. I have to mention. That in his latest tirade in which he goes full conspiracy, Donald Trump now doesn't even look orange. It's like burnt sienna. For those who used to watch Bob Ross, I can only describe this as the color of a sunset very late in the evening.

I don't know why Trump is doing this to himself, but he is now a bizarre color and he is raising the deep state in his latest full conspiracy rant. Trump is now announcing if indeed he becomes the next president of the United States, he will create a truth commission. This now does sound like 1984. You know, for for so long now, I've been saying everybody says this is Orwellian. It's really Huxley. And this is really more out of Brave New World than it is out of 1984. The truth commission Trump wants is more Orwellian. Here's Trump's latest promise. I don't know, folks, this is scary stuff to expose the hoaxes and abuses of power that have been tearing our country apart. We will establish a truth and reconciliation commission to declassify and publish all documents on deep state spying, censorship and corruption.

And there are plenty of them. Right. Fifth, we will launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with the fake news to deliberately weave false narratives. Now, understand that's a crackdown on whistleblowers. Trump calls them false leakers. But in many of these cases, we're talking about whistleblowers. And Trump clearly wants to go after not only the whistleblower, but the media outlets that publish the stuff as well. The journalists as well, completely attacking overtly journalism as an institution to subvert our government and our democracy. When possible, we will press criminal charges.

There you go. As many as 100000 government positions could be moved out. And I mean, immediately of Washington to places filled with patriots who love America. And yeah. So first of all, it's like, sure, sure, you're going to do that right after your new health care plan. And Mexico is going to pay for it as well. Right. So so, of course, with all of these things, it's less about what Trump will do, but what Trump would like to do or is willing to admit that he would try to do. This would be endlessly chilling, so corrosive to many of the fundamental institutions of American democracy. And in a sense, it's the same old song and dance. This is the real grievance

politics. When we've talked before, the right says the left wants to censor. It's the right that's doing a lot of censoring. The right says the left is going to try to steal an election. Well, the right tried to steal, steal the election. And of course, the right loves to say the left is all about grievances, grievances over racism and grievances over this, that, the other thing. The right is running at this point, the height, the epitome of grievance politics. But it's based on grievances that are imaginary, completely imaginary grievances. So Trump looks absolutely terrible. He sounds terrible. He is now regularly releasing these videos often at midnight or even later. They don't make any sense. They're scary.

And if you're wondering, like, why is Trump doing this stuff when it seems like he's about to get arrested? The New York Times article we talked about earlier says that Trump's totally disconnected from the reality of his legal problems. Trump seems to think that it's all going to be great. He wants to be handcuffed. He thinks it's going to be great for his campaign and that he's going to win and that he's going to put in place a truth commission would be really scary if he were likely to be able to do it. But it's up to us to make sure that he's not able to. That clip I just played and others from today. You can find them on our Instagram. You can find them on our Instagram. You can find them on our YouTube channel. You'll be able to find them on our tick tock or anywhere else that

we publish content. Everyone should have a go to financial partner to guide you through a continuous and ever changing life journey. Our sponsor facet can help you not only start that conversation about money, but support you every step of the way. Facet memberships give you unbiased, personalized, affordable financial advice for any financial decision you may be facing real estate tax benefits and equity, whatever the case may be. And they are fee only, as I have always said, one should seek a facet. Membership includes a dedicated CFP professional. That's the highest possible certification, plus a team of experts using industry leading investment management strategies based on Nobel Prize winning research

and facet is offering a five hundred dollar kickstart to your financial journey right now. They're waiving their two hundred and fifty dollar enrollment fee for new customers that sign up for an annual membership and offering two hundred and fifty dollars right into your account. If you invest five thousand dollars within the first 90 days of membership, go to facet dot com slash Pacman. Take the five minute financial wellness quiz at minimum to unlock insights into your personal finances. That's FACET.com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Facet Wealth Inc. is an SEC registered investment advisor. This is not an offer to buy or sell securities, nor is it investment legal or

tax advice. One of our sponsors is ZipX nicotine toothpicks. Don't you think it's time you stopped putting smoke and vape oils in your lungs? ZipX toothpicks are a convenient way to curb the nicotine cravings. Zippex toothpicks are super discreet. You can use them anytime, anywhere. Smoking and vaping aren't allowed, including flights, sporting events in restaurants. They're available in six different flavors with options of two and three milligrams of nicotine. If you're not a nicotine user, Zypix also offers caffeine and B12 infused toothpicks. Zypix has already helped tens of thousands of customers ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vapes. They might be able to help you, too. If you're a smoker or a vapor, give Zypix toothpicks a try.

Your lungs will thank you. Go to Zypix toothpicks dot com today. Save 10 percent with the code Thanks, David. 10 at checkout for 10 percent off. That's Pacman one zero. The info is in the podcast notes. It's great to be joined today by Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters, where his work focuses on the Fox Trump feedback loop, news coverage of politics as well as media ethics. Matt, really great to have you on. I appreciate it. Good to be here. So, I mean, let's just start with something. And maybe that can be the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News. We have, of course, been covering with great interest. For me, one of the most interesting storylines has been yet another layer to what goes out on the airwaves at Fox doesn't necessarily match what the feelings are among some of the hosts behind the scenes. And that's totally fine.

But what's the bigger story if there is one yet about how the audience of Fox News is reacting to this lawsuit and the leaked texts, if they are even aware of it? Because this is something I've been talking to my audience about. Will will the average Fox newer Fox News viewer even know what it is that is going on? Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. That's really the question. I mean, as we know, people who follow Fox News are really in a bubble of right wing media. They are getting their news solely from outlets like Fox. They are disinclined to believe what they hear from people like you and me and the New York Times and the Washington Post and everybody else.

And that's something that Fox has really cultivated for decades, trying to make its viewers not believe other sources. I think what we are seeing, though, is some right wing outlets are trying to get the news out in hopes of building up their own audiences. That internal rivalry within the right could be causing Fox some trouble as outlets like Newsmax try to hive off a little bit of Fox's market share by revealing what Fox hosts and executives were saying behind the scenes. We know that Donald Trump has been arguing that now Fox News isn't doing as well in the ratings, he would argue because they are no longer as positive about him as they once were. And

we'll get to the narrative about Trump on Fox more recently. But as far as the ratings go, is there any truth to that claim that Fox is not doing as well? I mean, I don't think specifically it's easy to make that claim right now. I mean, in general, there's been a drop off, uh, in, uh, cable news viewership since the last election. Um, I would expect that to pop up up a little bit more as we get closer to the next presidential election. Um, but, uh, right now I don't think we're seeing an evaporation of Fox's market

share due to it not supporting Trump enough, though, as we saw in the Dominion filings, they are very, very attuned to that possibility and are willing to take fairly substantial action in order to prevent that from coming to pass. So there's a survey which suggests that about a fifth of Fox News viewers now say they trust the network less since the revelations from the text messages. This is this is pretty squishy. It doesn't strike me as the most scientific claim. And there's some definitional questions here. And how much did they trust them before? They probably still trust Fox way more than you or I would. So there's sort of some squishiness here. But if we can believe that there is a portion of the Fox audience that is now less less trusting of Fox News, what specifically would it be?

Would it be that they feel the hosts are telling me one thing but privately believe something else or like what would be the practical belief that's affecting them? Yeah, that's the real question and something that the poll can't really get to is why they trust Fox less. Is it because, you know, they think Fox was lying to them on TV or that they think Fox was not sufficiently supportive privately? Like, is it because Fox is too into election denial or not into it enough? It's something we can't really parse out of that poll. Though, I mean, I do think to a large extent, what Fox fears the most is other rivals on the

right. And so, you know, it is bad for them if Newsmax or OAN can make the case that they are the real pro-Trump, pro-election denial outlet and Fox's audience turns to them instead. What is the landscape, by the way, right now of what we would consider the biggest competitors to to Fox and the context in which I ask that is one in which many of us in this business, we know about Newsmax. Newsmax has chosen to stream live 24 seven, I believe, on YouTube. They're also on a number of cable systems. OAN famously has had issues where I think they've been they've been non renewed by DirecTV and maybe one other. I don't think you OAN is currently on YouTube. And that may be because they were kicked off, although the details sort of escaped me at this point. What what does like the competitive landscape look

like right now? Yeah, that's definitely an issue. I mean, I think, you know, the TV landscape is, I think, less robust, if anything, than it was during the 2020 election cycle. You had both Newsmax and OAN, as you mentioned, losing access to some cable systems, being generally less available to the public. At the same time, as the TV audience deteriorates, some of the digital and streaming options have gotten stronger. So you see outlets like the Daily Wire or the Blaze picking up some steam. And, you know, those are competing for the same audience, if not, you know, showing up in the Nielsen ratings or what have you. And what's the deal with Real America's voice? I see clips very often, but it's not clear to me

whether it does that even have a cable channel that is available aside from whether anyone's carrying it or is it online only? It's mainly online. I think there's some cable availability, but not a ton. Um, that said, you know, as cord cutting continues to, uh, you know, be a real business imperative for these networks. Streaming does become somewhat more viable and important. So let's shift a little now and talk about the primary coverage that we've seen of the Republican primary. My assessment right now, and you'll be able to give us some kind of more fine tuned assessment, was that before the news of the looming arrest of Donald Trump, it seemed as though Fox News was sort of creating a little bit of space for themselves in the

direction of Ron DeSantis. There were some, you know, men on the street, a.k.a. Brian Kilmeade in a diner segments that seemed tailored to find people that that wanted Ron DeSantis to run. They did some actual men on the street segments were like seven of the eight people they included in the segment said they want DeSantis there. Steve Doocy has been sporadically a little bit more critical of Donald Trump. And it sort of seemed like it was a soft escape hatch. So if it's DeSantis, they have a credible path to have access. But if it's Trump, they can kind of revert back and maintain the access that they want. We were talking before the interview. You said that that may have shifted back a little bit since the news of the looming arrest

of Trump. Yeah, I think what we tend to see with Fox and Trump is they often have these sorts of squabbles where the network will try to create a little bit of distance. Trump will lash out at the network for not being supportive enough. But in the end, they always come back to one another because their relationship is so valuable to both of them, because Fox is a very effective propaganda tool for Trump. And Trump has a real hammerlock on the Fox viewership. And so when we had we had a similar sort of sense that Fox and the broader Murdoch universe were trying to break away last year. But then the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago really sent the Fox hosts back into Trump's corner and news that an indictment may be pending for Donald Trump has created a similar situation. You have Fox hosts like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson really

rallying around the former president, saying that any indictment of him is an attack on his supporters, which obviously means their viewers, that it would be, you know, un-American and a sign that we're in a banana republic. So, you know, they're certainly not planning on using any indictment as a way to bolster some other candidate in his stead. It really seems like they've fully committed back to his side right now. How should we expect the primary to go, assuming Trump stays in it and that the arrests slash indictments don't don't lead to him dropping out if there is a real contested primary here? Should we expect some version of what we've been seeing throughout until it becomes clear who is

likely to be the nominee or since Donald Trump continues to pull so strongly at this point in time, is it likely that there will be some kind of, of shift? I'm trying to think of what, what we should expect as far as that goes. Yeah. I mean, Trump's polling has strengthened considerably since late last year when it really looked like DeSantis was making a run and you could see the possibility that there would be a sort of coalescing around him. But if that doesn't really happen, if DeSantis fades and it's Trump with 50 to 60 percent in the polls against a bunch of people with, you know, 10 percent or less. It's really hard to imagine the various tentacles of the right wing not coming back under his his wing.

I mean, he's going to have so much of the energy at that point that it will become sort of business imperative for them, like it was after he became the nominee in 2016 to find a way to be on his side. What do you make of the potential impact of the Dominion suit? Because from a business standpoint, there's some pieces that argue, yeah, it's quite possible that Rupert Murdoch is going to have to cut a pretty large check, but he can do that and it won't really have an impact on the network. Maybe there will be part of an agreement could be this is all hypothetical that some number of corrections need to be issued on air or something like that. We've seen that in other situations, but maybe not. Do you think that the actual outcome, aside from the fact that the texts

were released and now we know what's in them, will impact Fox News viewership one way or the other? Speaker 1 I don't know about its viewership. I do think that on the business side, things could get very dicey if Rupert Murdoch has to cut a very large check over this, there's going to be, I think, a substantial push from other shareholders to sue the network for various malfeasance cases. I think that's going to pose a real problem for Murdoch going forward, assuming that he does have to write that check. And, you know, that's always it's sort of tricky to make predictions around defamation

lawsuits, though. Obviously, this does seem pretty strong as they go. When it comes to just more generally coverage of the Biden administration, it seems almost like there are enclaves on Fox News where you see the sort of more conspiratorial elements of it, which seem to be the nighttime shows. Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, a lot more Hunter Biden talk and sort of this sort of thing. Daytime I see a lot more sort of what I would call contrived controversies that when you look at the story, you and I probably go, why is that even a story?

But it's like minor things about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris did or didn't say or go to a particular place. And they should have, it seems sort of more that style of criticism of Biden during the daytime news. Is my perception of that split accurate? What do we expect the coverage of Biden to look like over the next couple of years? I think what we've run into at this point is that the interest on the right for any sort of policy discussion has really just fallen off of a cliff. Yes. looking back at what Fox was like in 2009 or 2010, you had the sort of Tea Party push for lower spending, lower taxes, and so on and so forth. And that kind of discussion of domestic policy just doesn't happen anymore. Instead, it's been replaced with various

controversies about woke public schools and these kind of very minor, very specific events that they can dig up from local news and fit into their broader narratives. And so that's really what I expect to see more of in the next couple of years. I think they're very bored with Joe Biden and the Biden administration, that they have not really bothered to create much of a narrative against him. And that is going to have a very particular impact on the Republican presidential primary, because if they don't need to talk about major economic policy issues, they're just not going to. Yeah, there's been sort of an air of like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joe Biden's old and he's woke and he's confused. And Hunter Biden is probably a problem. But did you see what happened at this drag show in Tulsa, Oklahoma or something like that? And that actually does seem to be far more interesting to their viewers at this point. Yeah. And it's the sort of thing where they've trained their viewers to want a very particular thing from the news. And now that's all the viewers want. It's frankly, it's pretty bad for the Republican Party that this is the case because it's leading them to be like just completely unable to discuss issues that the broad scope of the American populace wants to know

about. Speaker 1 get news of what he is doing to these folks. But yesterday on my show, we talked about the money being released for the thirty dollar a month broadband credits, as well as adding some drugs to the Medicare Part B inflation indexing list. Like this is really tangible, good stuff that hits people's pocketbooks. But you're not going to hear about it if you're a primary Fox News viewer. And so I guess that becomes the question mark. I think it's less of an issue about reaching those Fox viewers than it is that the message that Republicans are going to make to the overall body of voters is going to be incomprehensible to them because it is so finely attuned for Fox viewers. they just don't have anything to say about the broad scope of domestic policy.

That's super interesting. We're going to be watching that very closely. We've been speaking with Matt Gertz, who's a senior fellow at Media Matters. Matt, really appreciate your time and your insights today. Great to be here. Imagine for a second that you try logging into your email account only to find that your password was changed an hour ago, and then you get notifications of activity from your bank and then your credit cards.

That is what identity theft is like. And it's a horrible feeling. And we dealt with it at the show not that long ago. But now I have an app called Aura, which gives me much more peace of mind. Our sponsor, Aura, is the all in one solution for keeping your online account safe because Aura will scan the dark web for your personal info, password, social security number, and you get fast alerts when they find something. You also get fast alerts about credit inquiries.

Aura protects all of your devices from malware. Aura even requests the removal of your info from data broker sites. And Aura helps you manage what your kids can do on their devices. You can restrict certain apps, set screen time limits, set focus times when you need them off of devices. Go to A.com slash Pacman to try it free for seven days. Your login credentials might already be floating around out there and aura will tell you instantly for free. That's a u r a.com slash Pacman to try aura for

free. The link is in the podcast notes. You know, I love keeping you abreast of different scams, and there has been no greater scam in the COVID era than this urine drinker, urine injector, urine nebulizer, Christopher Key. If the name rings a bell, you may remember that we covered this guy. Anti-vax leader urges followers to drink their own urine to fight covid. That is not actually recommended medically. You should not drink your own urine to fight covid. Anyway, he now says he invented a hologram sticker where he stores information and it has something to do with an energy field and it can relieve pain if you put it in the right spot. Now, here's my question about this.

Who is stupid enough to fall for this stuff? And I know that it's very easy to say, if you're dumb enough to fall for this, then you deserve it, Right. A fool and their money are soon parted or whatever the case may be. But it's hard for me to believe anyone with normal cognitive function would fall for this. So then I start to wonder, are the only people that fall for this those who are cognitively limited and actually do need to be protected from charlatans like this? I don't know. Let's think about that as we listen to what this guy explained. And I will send you these pain chips out anywhere in the world. And brother, I love it when it doesn't work for somebody, because then I want to go back to the lab and try to figure out why God

made you different. This little chip is a hologram. We're able to store information into the hologram and then we put in the energy field, it resonates. And when I took this to my professors at Alabama many years ago and they did the clinical study on like Christopher, how in the world is this doing? This is nothing but a sticker. Guys, it's not just a sticker. It is energy. It is frequency. Everything is frequency. Everything is it. OK, so. I can't imagine there's a single person in what I call my core audience, like I get that there are people who hate watch from all walks of life, OK, but the people in my core audience, people who like subscribe to the audio podcast

and, you know, not maybe not every episode, but like three times a week you listen to the show when you're at the gym or whatever the case may be. I can't imagine there's a single person in my audience that would fall for this. And our audience at this point is sizable. Where are the people that fall for this? Are they of normal cognitive function? And if the answer is no, then isn't what this guy is doing particularly disgusting and particularly predatory? And of course, I have the same questions that often come up. If he mentions God, if God made you a little different, then we just have to tweak the

sticker to get it to do the thing. Why wouldn't God just prevent you from needing the sticker in the first place? Why wouldn't God just cure your pain? Why isn't prayer enough? Why do you need this guy's sticker with the energy field and whatever the case may be? Now, when I look at the sticker, I can tell you why the sticker won't work. It doesn't have liquid silver in it, of course. That's a joke. But that's the main question I bring to you is who would actually fall for this? I don't I know a lot of people who don't have formal education.

I know a lot of people that I don't consider to be the smartest people. None of them would fall for something like this or the urine drinking. Who are the people that would? How many of them are there? And quite frankly, do they need to be protected from charlatans like this? Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has been asked to weigh in about the looming charges against the failed former President Donald Trump. And when he was given the opportunity to weigh in, he mentioned Hillary Clinton. I know it seems it seems impossible. They're not it's not they're not doing it again, are they? Yes. Kevin McCarthy brought up Hillary Clinton. I'm almost ready

to declare that Hillary Clinton must pay for the crimes of Donald Trump. Why not? Right. Hold her accountable. Here is the speaker of the House. About the investigation that your three committee chair yesterday into the prosecutor from your Speaker of the House. This is Manu Raju from CNN, by the way. for hush money payments to cover up this alleged affair with an adult film actress. Do you have any concerns about that? Look, the thing I think about, it was interesting. Someone briefed me on the use of money in a situation like this before. And you probably covered this. Remember when the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid the law firm a million dollars

and said that it was for something else. And we found out later it wasn't. Wait a second. Kevin, that doesn't sound like you're answering the question. About the Russia collusion. It wasn't for a legal part. And so they went through and they got investigated. A million dollars they spent.

And you know what? At the end of the day, they didn't get prosecuted. They got fined. Hillary's campaign got fined $8,000. And the DNC got fined $100,000, even though they used a million dollars. They knowingly hid the fact of what they were doing to try to hide. They got investigated. So I look at it from this perspective. Please. We live in America. It should be equal justice.

This was personal money. It's one try to hide. This was seven years ago, statute of limitation. And I think in your heart of hearts, you know, too, that you think this is just political. And I think that's what the rest of the country thinks. And we're kind of tired of that. Understand that Kevin McCarthy gives a 90 second answer or about a minute if it took 20, 20 or so seconds to ask the question. He gives about a minute answer.

The question is about the looming arrest and indictment of a president. And all he talks about is Hillary Clinton. You have to hand it to him. He's been trained pretty damn well. Deflect, deny and distract when it comes to Donald Trump and his criminal actions. And the is it gaslighting? A couple of people wrote to me and said, David, this this is essentially gaslighting. That's that's what Kevin McCarthy is doing here. He's gaslighting the media. Well, yeah, it's an attempt at gaslighting, but it's a very transparent one. And I don't know that this is going to work. I don't know that people are necessarily going to be going for this.

And it's particularly ironic that Kevin McCarthy says, well, we want equal justice. If it's one thing for a Republican, then it's another thing for a Democrat. But you know that Kevin McCarthy doesn't actually want equal justice or at least his party doesn't when it comes to actually trying to create equal situations where we say, well, the rich and the poor are treated differently by the justice system. We should equalize that. Now they don't they don't actually care about that. Well, we're seeing dramatically different outcomes in all sorts of different measures of attainment based on whether people live by no fault of their own in poor versus wealthy neighborhoods. Let's do something about that. Now, that sounds like

woke nonsense. They want equality when it's convenient for them. And then otherwise they go equality. That's just that woke nonsense that you guys won't stop talking about. So Kevin McCarthy, it took him a few days to be ready with the talking points, but it's all Hillary Clinton all the time and will break down. I mean, I do think I'm of two minds. On the one hand, if I spend a lot of time myself talking about how the Hillary Clinton situation he references was very different. I'm sort they're kind of winning, right? Because I start talking about Hillary at the same time. It might be worth doing a run through of the Hillary Clinton situation he's talking about

and why it is so dramatically different from what Trump is embroiled in right now. Let me know in the comments. Should I do that segment about how the Hillary situation is different or should I ignore it altogether? Because exactly what they want is for people talking about Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump. Let me know in the comments and I'm at your mercy. Whatever it is you want me to do, I will do. We have a voicemail number that you can call absolutely any time. Recently, you may remember that Lauren Boebert, the radical Republican congresswoman, spoke very positively about the fact that she's going to be a grandmother

despite only being 36 years old and acted like this is a great thing. The Eggman. And by the way, I told you all the reasons why outcomes are way worse when the younger mothers are the worst. The outcomes are for the kids in the United States in so many different measures. The Eggman called in and he has a different perspective that he believes is important to consider. Hey, Dave, I'm calling about Lauren Bobear, Taylor Greene, whatever her name is, the one that's bragging about being a 36-year-old grandparent.

Dave, I know we're putting her down for that, and it is deplorable, but Jews are like 2% of the whole entire population. Not even, actually, way less than that. I feel like Jews don't even have children until we're in our 30s, and we only have like one or two. So do you think that just the ideology of being responsible parent, taking care of your children is going to make the Jews and just smart liberals die out? Do you think liberals need to just spread their seed more and be less caring about reproduction if you want to keep our liberal moral agenda going or our Jewish heritage going for that matter. Shalom, brother. Oh, yeah.

Have you ever heard of a 36 year old Jewish grandparents? I'm 20 years older than her and I'm not a grandparent yet. Shalom. Very, very. That's very true. And I have a nine month old. So, no, there's a the Eggman. So the Eggman is using a lot of hyperbole, among other things. But he is bringing up an interesting issue, which is the fact that Lauren Boebert and in many parts of the country, among folks like Lauren Boebert, teen pregnancy is seen as a great thing and abortion is seen as a bad thing. It leads to grandmothers in their 30s and it leads to this hegemonic nature of they are having so many more kids. They are more likely to end up being right wingers.

They are crowding out liberal values. And that is a concern. I mean, when it's true that the more educated one is, the later they they have kids and the fewer kids they have. It's true that the wealthier one is on average, the more you wait to have kids and you have fewer kids. And it is also the case that I mean, to talk about the Jewish community, the Jewish community is overwhelmingly liberal. It's arguably the most liberal voting bloc in the United States other than black Americans. And it's right up there. Ultra Orthodox Jews have a ton of kids, much like Mormons do or

evangelical Christians. But that is a very small percentage of Jewish folks. And so the Eggman is not wrong in anything that he is saying. But I don't know that Boebert cheering being a 36 year old grandmother makes me say it's time to start having a whole bunch of kids that that doesn't follow for me, but an interesting subject. Nonetheless, let me know your thoughts. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. You'll get instant access. I look forward to seeing you there. It's going to be a great bonus show, everybody. But we'll be back tomorrow.