The David Pakman Show - 4/10/24: AZ okays 1864 abortion law, RFK's VP not seen since announcement

Episode Date: April 10, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Elie Honig, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, New York Magazine Columnist, and author of the new book "Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away with It," joins David to discuss the real two-tiered justice system, accountability, and much more. Get the book: https://amzn.to/3PV7vrT -- Just days after Donald Trump puts out a video about abortion essentially saying "let states do whatever they want," the Arizona Supreme Court upholds an 1864 abortion law that is a near-total ban on abortion, without exceptions for rape or incest, and with criminal penalties for abortion providers -- Republican Congressman Greg Murphy drops the grotesque abortion lie that Democrats want "after-birth abortions" during an appearance on Fox News -- Failed former President Donald Trump takes credit for President Joe Biden's stock market record and warns Jews during a disgusting interview on Real America's Voice with Wayne Allyn Root -- Karoline Leavitt, Donald Trump's 2024 campaign National Press Secretary, claims during an interview that President Joe Biden can't speak, and in doing so, uses the made up word "damnening" twice -- Sarah Matthews, former aide to President Donald Trump, says that she has no choice but to vote for President Joe Biden in 2024 -- Nicole Shanahan, Robert F. Kennedy Jr's 2024 Vice Presidential running mate, hasn't been seen at public events since her VP announcement -- Former Trump voter Jim-Bob from West Virginia is voting for President Joe Biden in 2024 -- Absolutely furious voicemail caller attacks David for a long list of reasons -- On the Bonus Show: Sage Steele says ESPN told her to stick to Biden interview "script," AOC sounds alarm over explicit AI-generate videos, Millennials and Gen-Zers are now "splurging" on groceries, much more... ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF a year subscription at https://startmail.com/pakman 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 🪒 Henson Shaving: Use code PAKMAN for FREE blades at https://hensonshaving.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

. Just a single day after Donald Trump bragged about ending Roe v. Wade and endorsing whatever states want to do, as long as you vote for him, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a near total abortion ban that was passed in 64. That's 1864, not 1964, an 1864 anti-abortion bill that comes with the potential for imprisonment for doctors who perform or participate in abortions. Providers can be subject to two to five years in prison. Wow. And all of a sudden, the implications of what Trump is saying are very, very real.

NPR reports the Arizona Supreme Court allows a near total abortion ban to take effect soon. There's the medical and ethical reality. And then there's the political repercussions, which seem to be sort of bad, regardless of your view on abortion. And I'll get to that in a moment. The NPR article explains abortions will soon be outlawed in Arizona, except in cases where a pregnant person's life is at risk. Note that missing from that are exceptions for rape and incest.

The only exception is life of the mother. The state Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona should follow a restrictive abortion law dating back to the 1860s. Since December of 2022, Arizona doctors have been allowed to provide abortions up to 15 weeks into a pregnancy based on a lower court's interpretation of state law. But the state Supreme Court now says Arizona should follow a law banning abortions in almost all cases. It makes no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, and makes performing an abortion punishable by two to five years in prison. They are going back to an abortion law from the era in which

leeches were used as so-called medical treatment. That's where we are today. Now, understand that the reason you might be wondering, wait a second. So the law goes back to 1864. Why is it all of a sudden coming into force? It's coming into force now because this law became unenforceable after Roe v. Wade, when Roe v. Wade set a sort of minimum framework for what it is that has to be legal and what is illegal when it comes to denying women certain care. The existence of Roe v. Wade made this 1864 law essentially irrelevant. This is not only the case in Arizona. In fact, we've talked about the very real scenario and now it is extraordinarily real, wherein there are lots of old abortion laws which were irrelevant during the multi decade

period that Roe v. Wade was in force when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Thanks to the Supreme Court that was molded by Donald Trump's three Supreme Court picks. The question became what happens now with all of these really old draconian abortion laws, at least as far as Arizona is concerned. What happens now is that those abortion laws become active law. Here is how Fox News covered this news. I mean, did you reap what you right, at the end of the day. Meanwhile, John, we've got some breaking news on abortion and Arizona.

The Supreme Court in that state has now ruled that it can uphold a ban on all abortions except those to save a mother's life. This rule was originally passed back in 1864. It provides no exceptions for rape or incest, but allows abortions if a mother's life is in danger. This ban goes into effect 14 days from today's ruling. And obviously this is heating up more and more, John, as a major focus as we head toward the presidential election. Now, there's a few different questions here. First of all, is the one of are there any other areas where we want to go back to 1864? Is there any area of medicine where we would say what we came up with as a species in 1864 makes more sense than what we have right now, whether it comes to treatment, whether

it comes to prevention, whether it comes to lack of antibiotics. I mean, you tell me. But on abortion, 1864 is the gold standard. The saguaro cacti in Arizona now have more rights and protections. Not a joke. Not a joke. Then women, when it comes to reproductive rights. The second question is whether Maga and Trump will be blamed for this to the extent that

the country disagrees with it. And I will remind you, even though there's lots of lip service paid to pro-life murder is bad, you know, all this stuff for all the lip service. The majority of the country believes abortion should be legal in most circumstances. And this is a direct result of what Donald Trump's position now is. Remember from his whacked Monday video, a swollen and orange sweaty video where he essentially says, listen, states can now do whatever they want. Just make sure you vote for me.

OK, my view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state. Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others. And that's what they will be. At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. My view is that Trump's position that he has outlined is this is fine. And by definition, by definition, regardless of Trump's personal view, regardless of where Trump would draw the proverbial line on this, Arizona saying, let's go to our 1864 law is part of the framework

that Donald Trump outlined as OK. Will this impact voters in Arizona, a state that Joe Biden won in 2020, not by a large margin and which could be a critical state in assembling that same slate of electoral votes in 2024. I don't know. In a sane and logical world where the vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in most cases, you would have enough Republicans in Arizona who say, listen, I'm I'm as I'm as much for low taxes as the

next guy or gal. But when it comes to this framework where Trump says states should do whatever they want, no more Roe v. Wade. And here's what my state of Arizona did in a normal world that would impact enough Republicans where Trump doesn't stand a chance in November. Is that actually the reality and the way that it will go down in November? I don't know. I don't know. It's there is a lot of hyper partisanship, weaponized ignorance. So I'm just not sure. And in the meantime, the grotesque post abortion, post birth abortion lies

continue from Republicans in the aftermath of the Arizona Supreme Court saying, let's go with the 1864 abortion law, which bans exceptions even for rape and incest, almost a total ban on abortion. Republican Congressman Greg Murphy went on Fox News and again floats the lie that Democrats want post birth abortions, which, as you and I know, aren't abortions at all, because that is not what an abortion is. Here is the latest example. They've been pulling this for years. It's, of course, untrue. Let's listen and then discuss. Do you think a big issue in the 2024 election? Speaker 5 Yeah, it's going to be a big issue every time because you have folks on really on both sides,

really probably more Democrat that wants abortion literally when it's coming, when the child is coming out of the birth canal, always to force the issue because it's an emotionally charged issue. And that's what elections are. They're emotionally charged events. Speaker 1 Right. We all know, of course, OBGYNs famously the head is halfway out and they go, ma'am, would you like an abortion now? We would love to give you one. Not a single state allows so-called post-birth abortions. First of all, an abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy. There is no pregnancy after birth. Definitionally, this is impossible. Secondly, it would be killing a human being who is entitled to equal protection under

the law, as well as prohibition against murder, murder illegal in all 50 states in Washington, D.C. There is no state that allows it. But we all have to remember what this is really about. They go with there is such a thing as post-birth abortion and Democrats like it and Democrats do it. They go to that even though it's not true to then skip over the reality that there are so few abortions performed in the third trimester at all and even fewer after the eighth month. The overwhelming number of abortions, I think it's 93 percent happened before 13 weeks and 98 percent happened before 20 weeks and ninety nine point eight percent happened before something like 24 weeks. These are insanely rare circumstances. Obgyn have testified under penalty of perjury under oath where they say women don't show up in the eighth or ninth month and say, you know, I've decided that this is not what

I want for myself or for my family, that it doesn't happen. These are not requests that they get. This isn't the way it works. And that's what they want to skip over when they talk about post-birth abortion, because they can get some people to go, OK, fine. Well, so maybe post-birth isn't really a thing. But what about all the abortions in the eighth and ninth month? Just because women decide, hey, you know what? I don't think I really want the baby.

That is almost nonexistent. And when it does happen, they are incredibly difficult decisions based on very complex, unusual and difficult medical situations. This is per the OBGYNs, who I trust more than this guy. OK, more more than Greg Murphy. So the lies continue. And the critical thing is that the entire framework that is now developing an 1864 law going active and enforceable in Arizona, all of this, this is all what Trump promised. And so to the extent that you don't like it and most Americans don't, it is Trump who should be punished by not voting for him in November. That's the takeaway.

Whether that message is going to get through. I just don't know. Let's take a quick break after the break. So much more. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube at YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman Show. We'll be right back. Think of your most personal emails. If you're using 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. your The David Pakman show does depend on the support of our audience to continue. We were talking the other day, myself and some other content creators, and I explained that I estimate somewhere between zero point five and zero point

six percent of our audience supports the show directly. And if we were able to get that number simply to one percent. Right. In other words, I estimate that right now, one out of 200 people in the audience are directly supporting the show. If we could get that up to one out of 100, the show would be financially sustainable in perpetuity. And so be part of the one percent. This really is. This is a one percent that it's a very nice thing to be a part of because you're subsidizing independent media

for everybody. We make the show available for free to everybody, including community radio stations and community television stations and in so many other places. So grab a membership at join Pacman dot com. If we can go from call it zero point five five. If we can go from zero point five five percent of our audience supporting us to one percent, we achieve a level of stability and independence that lots of folks can only dream of. So the website to sign up is join Pacman dot com. You can read about all the great member benefits and they are numerous. And of course, you can use the coupon code Save Democracy 24 if there's any extra incentive to take advantage this week. It's that Sunday the new website launches and with that the first price increase to memberships in over 10 years, you always get to keep your price for life.

So if you sign up now, that's the price you lock in. Sunday's price increases won't affect you in any way, which is a fantastic thing. Join Pacman dot com is the place to do it. Failed former President Donald Trump is issuing another ominous warning to Jewish Americans and taking credit for the extraordinary stock market performance that happens to have taken place while Joe Biden has been president. As you all know, I don't like playing politics or injecting politics where they don't belong. Much about stock market performance doesn't directly relate to who is president, but a little bit of it does.

And as we know, stock market performance is overall better when there's a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. We'll get to those numbers in a moment. Here is Donald Trump with no option at this point. But to acknowledge that the stock market is doing well, says it's thanks to the expectation that he'll be president. But before we get to that, check this out. Wayne Allen Root is the interviewer on Real America's Voice.

Wayne has been a guest on this program many times. Check out my interviews with him. They're pretty whacked. Wayne Allen Root asks about abortion. Somehow within 90 seconds, Trump is warning Jews in response to a question about abortion. How Trump manages to do these non sequiturs, I don't know, but he does manage to do it. Listen to this. I am pro-life.

I'm 100 percent pro-life. But the issue has killed the Republican Party for 30 years and it killed us in the midterms. And you just took it off the table. You're brilliant. This is the perfect answer. It is not a political issue. It is not a political football. It belongs with the states. It belongs with the people. And you supported what the Supreme Court just did. Now, by the way, I totally disagree with Wayne Allen Root. In fact, again, as I said, if Arizona voters see they've gone back to an 1864 law

and it's in force thanks to Trump's election to the Supreme Court, which overturned Roe v. Wade, it is very much a political issue. But we'll pause on that. It is not a federal issue. Brilliant. Well, I appreciate that the Supreme Court had the courage to give it back to the states. All legal scholars on both sides of this issue, controversial. They all agree that it should be back with the people. And that's where it should have been a long time ago. And what the Democrats are trying to do is demagogue and do as much as they can to talk about this issue so they don't have to talk about the border and the millions of people that are coming in. And so now watch his transition to Jews. This is wild. And from prisons and from mental institutions and terrorists and all these people, drug dealers that are pouring into our country with the death and everything else they bring. They don't want to talk about that.

They don't want to talk about the attack of October 7th on Israel because Biden is no fan of Israel. Any Jewish person that votes for Biden does not love Israel and, uh, should be spoken to how a Jewish person person can vote for Biden is or a Democrat because they are on the side, 100% of the Palestinians and he doesn't know how to get out of it. He's stuck. So Trump, once again, any Jewish person who is voting for Biden needs to be talked to. And this is the continued campaign from Trump to sound the warning to Jews. You'd better not vote Biden or you're going to have a problem.

And how Trump gets to that from the issue of abortion. My goodness, it is stunning. The non sequiturs. Then we get to the stock market. At this point, there is simply no way around it. The stock market has been performing and, there is simply no way around it. The stock market has been performing and performing really well under President Joe Biden. Is it because of Biden or not? Well, we can debate that. But certainly the 1929 style depression and crash that Donald

Trump predicted would take place if Biden became president has failed to materialize with no choice but to acknowledge the performance. Trump is now simply taking credit for it and saying because of the expectation that he will win in November, the stock market has been performing well, apparently for years, a really strange pill to swallow. The only thing that's doing well is the stock market. And the smartest guys are saying there are a lot of smart guys at this stuff. They're saying the only reason the stock market is good is that the polls are showing that

I'm going to win the election and that if I win the election, the stock market is going to go up. And if I big and if I lose the election, you might end up with 1929 stuff again. Now remember that in 2020, Trump predicted a 1929 style depression if Biden won. Instead, we've seen record stock market performance with all time high after all time high after all time high. Trump is making the exact same prediction. Well, this time, if Biden wins, you'll really see the 1929 style depression. And of course, those who are constantly predicting depressions, recessions and downturns, eventually they'll be right because we have an economy that works in a cyclical nature.

But the most important takeaway here is there is no evidence of the fear mongering about Democrats in the Oval Office with the stock market being based in fact, remember the truth about the stock market and political party. Here's a chart from the Motley Fool. On average, the stock market return of the S&P 500 when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office is eleven point four percent. And the average annual return when there is a Republican in the Oval Office is seven percent. So the returns are roughly 50 percent greater, even more than that, more like 60 percent greater when it is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Now, if you want to really talk about is that coincidence, is it policy?

Is it based on some other factor? We can do that. But needless to say, we don't have disastrous stock market performance when Democrats are in the Oval Office. In fact, we tend to have better stock market performance. So Trump has nothing left at this point in time. He has nothing left but to lie and to fear monger and to threaten people. And that's what he's doing.

Wayne Allen Root is welcoming it with open arms. He loves it. This is all they've got left. We just have a few months to go. And if we can avoid a Trump win, I am cautiously optimistic, cautiously optimistic that we can be done with Trump, maybe not done with Trump ism, maybe not totally done with MAGA, but we can at least be done with Trump for for life. That'll be it.

That's my hope. Call me naive. Hey, this is so funny. This is a special one. Caroline Leavitt is Donald Trump's 2024 national press secretary. She went on Newsmax and said that Joe Biden can't speak. And in the 40 seconds that she was talking about how Joe Biden can't speak because of dementia or whatever, she makes up a word and uses it twice. The word is damning. And

you may be saying, David, what would say that? What did what did you say? Not damning, damning. And whether that's something that, you know, I thought maybe it's like a word about what badgers do. Are they building a dam? Is it damning? No, she is making up the word damning because she doesn't know the word is damning. And meanwhile, she wants to tell us that Joe Biden's speech is the problem. You can't write this stuff. Well, that's because America Garland has completely weaponized our Justice Department.

He is a henchman for Joe Biden. He is protecting him. The transcript in the HUR report was incredibly damning to Joe Biden. Not only did it prove that he committed multiple crimes taking classified documents when he was vice president of the United States, despite having no authority to do that, it also suggested that Joe Biden lied under oath, and it also was extremely damning to him politically, as it showed. But the American people see with their own eyes every single day. And that is Joe Biden can hardly speak. And so they gave us the transcript. But that's why they don't want to give us the audio,

because it will. Joe Biden can hardly speak, but she's the one using the word damning about this, that and the other thing. I should be saying something about the glass house calling the kettle black. Right. Isn't that the metaphor I'm supposed to be using here? Caroline Leavitt, they're not exactly sending their best. And I certainly haven't heard Joe Biden make up the word damning. I've heard Trump make up a lot of words. I've heard Trump struggle to say a lot of words.

And there it is. Caroline Leavitt reminding us as she makes up words that it is Joe Biden who is unable to speak. I respect honesty and forthrightness. And even though I would have political disagreements with Donald Trump's former White House aide, Sarah Matthews, she is being forthright and honest about something which other anti-Trump Republicans are not being honest about, which is that she really has no choice but to vote for Joe Biden in November. that William Barr and John Bolton and others have done about how the progressive agenda is the greatest threat to America and Trump is no good. But listen, I mean, I can't vote Biden right at the end of the day. Here is Sarah Matthews appearing on MSNBC yesterday. And we we it's not news that she is now anti-Trump. She says if it's Trump and Biden, she must vote for Joe Biden.

And it's about the danger to democracy. I appreciate her being this up front because there's a lot of these anti Trump rightists who are playing coy or dancing around this exact question. I think a lot of people are reluctant to speak out. As Miles kind of mentioned, people are concerned with their career prospects and they worry about going against the grain and speaking out against Trump. And then I think, too, that even if there are people who know that Trump is dangerous and maybe are thinking about speaking out, they do not want to go as far as endorsing Joe Biden then. And I've been someone who has said that if my choices in this election are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, then I will have no choice but to vote for Joe Biden. Because to me, it's not a lesser of two evil situation. There is no comparison here. Even if I don't like the policies of the Biden administration, I'm willing to put that aside because I know that Donald Trump is a danger to our democracy and that he is unfit to ever serve as president again. And so I'm going to do everything I can and use my voice and my platform in order to educate the American people about this threat.

But I hope that will inspire other Republican elected officials and former Trump administration officials to feel comfortable to come forward and speak that truth, too, because I think that we have a duty to the American people to educate them on. So this is, you know, it's very easy to say Sarah Matthews only just figured out that Trump's unfit. I mean, she how why didn't she previously realize that Trump was unfit because he's been unfit all along? It's a fair criticism, but to the extent that it is important to hear from Republicans who say this is bigger than policy. OK, I think taxes

should be lower than what Joe Biden thinks, but I don't want to put democracy at risk. So I'll vote Biden. And then in twenty twenty eight, we can run a normal Republican, maybe who will lower taxes the way I want to see them lowered. That's a respectable view. And you have a lot of these Republicans that are playing coy or they don't have the testicular or ovarian fortitude to just say what it is, which is I am voting for a Democrat. And it's not because I love the policies, but it's because I find it to be most important not to put anyone in power who is fundamentally unfit and who

threatens the pillars of democracy. And then in twenty twenty eight, we'll take another shot at it, maybe with something that doesn't mean that democracy is is at risk. There is a moral clarity here that's been lacking from some of the softer anti-Trump figures, the William Bars and John Bolton's. Sarah Matthews is being clear. Mitt Romney is being clear. We don't have to agree with them. We can say they were wrong before when they thought Trump was fit and they were wrong before, but we still have to welcome them. Remember, part of deprogramming, part of getting people out of cults, et cetera, is you don't attack the people

that are coming to the right conclusion now. Yes, they were wrong before and they should have seen it before. But we say it's great you figured it out. Welcome to the side of reason. And hopefully other Republican voters will see that and will agree. That's the critical point. As many of you no doubt know, I'm originally from Argentina, and one of the things I really miss about being there is the soccer and how easy it is to find it on TV. And now that I live in the US for soccer, I turn to private Internet access. Our sponsor, Private Internet Access, is a VPN that lets you change your IP address and make it look like your computer is anywhere in the world. So I can set it to Argentina

to access the soccer matches. I can set it to the UK to access British Netflix content, much of which is really good. A VPN is useful for many things like preventing your browsing history from being leaked online. But downloading and streaming large files like TV shows and movies is one area where private Internet access really shines. Many VPNs are just too slow for streaming the buffering, the disconnects. It's a nightmare. It is super easy to use private Internet access.

You turn it on with a single click. You're done. Works on your computer, tablet TV, Roku game console anywhere that you stream and you can use it on all your devices with just one account. Get private Internet access for 83 percent off, which comes out to two or three a month, plus four extra months for free. Go to PIA VPN dot com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome to the program today, Ellie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst, New York magazine columnist and also author of the book Untouchable. How powerful people get away with it.

And with Donald Trump's first criminal trial, maybe starting Monday, April 15th, a lot to discuss. Ellie, listen, to start with, you know, Donald Trump has insisted for years that the two tier justice system is Democrats and Republicans are treated differently. I've seen no evidence of that. There does seem to be a different justice system depending on your access to money and high priced attorneys, et cetera. But it's really more than just the lawyers. Right. I mean, lay out the the landscape of how different sorts of mechanisms are available to the wealthy and to the elite under our system.

Sure. Well, glad to be with you, David, first of all. Before we get into sort of the Trump of it all, although he will factor into some of these examples, I think there are things that people basically understand. More money, more power gets you more lawyers. It's harder to convict the person. What I try to do in the book, though, is take it to a next level because I was a prosecutor for 14 years, so I really got to see how these things play out and to point out things that maybe are more subtle or less widely recognized. And I'll give you one example. We all know that rich people can pay for these quote unquote dream teams of lawyers, you know, famously OJ Simpson on through. Although I don't

always agree that more expensive lawyers are necessarily better. I think we've seen some examples of very expensive lawyers do very lousy jobs for people over the years. But here's something that people didn't really understand until we started to see it happen with Trump around the same time I wrote about it in my book. It was very common in the mafia cases that I did. If we would indict 15, 22 gangsters all at once, the boss and the family would pay for lawyers, not just for the boss, but for everyone on that indictment. And the reason they do that, of course, primarily in the mob, at least,

is to prevent those people from cooperating. So these lawyers can keep tabs. So it becomes basically impossible for these lower-ranking defendants to try to flip. And I tell a story in the book about one case where we indicted 20-something Genovese family members, and a guy who was pretty low-ranking wanted to flip, but he knew he couldn't do it through his mob-paid-for lawyer. So we had to go through this whole cloak and dagger thing. He sent his girlfriend to talk to the FBI agent to tell the FBI agent he was interested. We had to have a secret lawyer appointed by the court to go talk to this guy who confirmed that he did

want to cooperate. We whisked him out of the jail. We put him in a safe house. So the point is, this is something that I saw a lot in the mob world. Well, guess what? It happens all the time in the political world, the financial world. And Donald Trump, we have learned, is using this tactic all the time. He pays for lawyers, for people around him. Take Cassidy Hutchinson, right? We remember her testimony in front of Congress. She has said publicly now that while she had a Trump paid for lawyer, she didn't believe she was capable of fully cooperating. And she was intimidated from doing that. As soon as she broke free from that guy and got her own lawyer, that's when she fully came clean. So you can see this is

a lesser known tactic. Now I do have to also fault DOJ, the justice department, because they're complicit as well. Up until 2008, DOJ had a written policy saying, if this is your situation, if you're a corporation or a boss and you're paying for lawyers for others around you, it's not illegal, but we're going to count it against you when we're considering whether you've been cooperative. In 2008, with the stroke of a pen, the attorney general changed that policy and said, actually, it's fine. We don't care if you if you pay for lawyers around you. And that has been the policy ever since. And AGs under both Democratic and Republican administrations have had now 16 years to change it and they haven't. So it's a very common practice. It absolutely

does protect higher up people in the chain. And DOJ is just fine with it. The the mob examples are interesting. I just read Selwyn RAB's book, Five Families, where there's a lot of discussion of the different mechanisms that were at play behind the scenes. I also just finished Patrick Radden Keefe's book about the Sackler family. And one of the really interesting, excellent book. One of the interesting things there is, yes, if you can pay a very high hourly rate for a bunch of great lawyers, there's some value in their experience and skill.

But a lot of it was that the Sackler lawyers had connections. They were dining reportedly with prosecutors the night before that they would then go into court and then have to argue on opposite sides. And they would say, hey, we want to meet with James Comey to see if we really want to go forward with this. It seems that there's that intangible as well. Well, and I'll give you another a great example of that, by the way, that the Patrick Radden Keith book is remarkable.

I read that, too. Really, it's a it's a triumph of reporting. I talk about an example in my book, and this was reported by, I believe, the New Yorker. I credit whoever it was in the book. I think it was the New Yorker. It might have been New York Magazine. But back before Donald Trump was a presidential candidate in the early 2010s, the Manhattan DA basically had Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. dead to rights on a fraud case. They were basically, tell me if this sounds vaguely familiar. They were basically over-inflating the value and the size of the apartments and the units and the occupancy in this new apartment building where they were trying to attract new buyers and

they were lying about what they had. And the DA's office, there were people in the DA's office who wanted to charge them, but Donald Trump got involved. His lawyers got involved, and several of his lawyers had been big donors to the DA, Cy Vance's campaign for DA. And Cy Vance gave them direct meetings with him, which happened sometimes, but he sort of let them jump up the chain of command. And he gave them direct meetings and he said, no, we're not charging. Now, I'm not saying Cy Vance was bribed or anything like that. I don't, I mean, that's not the case. There's no evidence of that, but the appearance is certainly questionable at best. And the money and power and connections allow Donald Trump's lawyers to get this high level meeting and resulted in a good outcome. And it's especially fraught where you have elected prosecutors that are out there

raising funds. And by the way, I should say, I think we're in a way seeing almost the opposite of this with some of the elected DAs and AGs who are going after Trump. I've been critical and I'll remain critical of Letitia James and Fannie Willis in particular. Both of them have inarguably politicized their cases. Both of them have fundraised, campaigned, asked for donations based specifically

on their pursuits of Donald Trump. And so I think that's sort of the flip side of the coin here. I think it's really dangerous to have elected politicians, elected DAs taking solicitations from people and then sort of going soft on people around them. But I also think it's very dangerous to have elected DAs and AGs taking donations on a premise of vote for me, donate for me, and I'll nail this guy who we don't like politically. I object to both of those. When you were working as a prosecutor, did you have situations where someone above you who was in the political system would come to you and say, listen, Ellie, I'm not arguing with you

about the evidence you have. I'm not I'm not taking issue with the investigation. It's just do we really want to do this? And it's sort of had that tone. No, not well, not exactly that. I mean, first of all, that would be a stupid and reckless thing to do. I'm not that I'm like some paragon of virtue, but most prosecutors would tell you to get bent and would go up the chain. U.S. attorney's offices are somewhat insulated from this because, A, nobody's elected in DOJ from the AG on down. The AG is appointed. The U.S. attorney is appointed. I was just a worker, B.

Right. And, B, there's sort of this ethic of hands off. But I do say this in the book, and I think this gets to your point. that if you're about to do a search war or an indictment of a person who's an elected public official or is likely to generate national media, you have to raise that complaint up higher and higher in the chain of command and get higher and higher levels of sign-off. And I give a couple of examples in the book.

I give an example from my own experience when I was at the New Jersey AG's office. We had done dozens, I think over a hundred cases involving fraud relating to Hurricane Sandy, right? People were putting in for relief funds and lying about destruction done to their houses or that kind of thing. And we were churning these cases out.

I was the director of the Division of Criminal Justice. I wouldn't even really look at them. I was leaving them to the lower level folks. But then we got one case involving an employee in the governor, then Governor Chris Christie, who was in the, you know, we thought at the time in the process of running for president, but the governor in the governor, then Governor Chris Christie, who was in the, you know, we thought at the time in the process of running for president, but the governor of the state, someone who worked in his office was committing one of these frauds. She was an assistant type

person. And because she was closely tied to Chris Christie, that case was subjected to 20 times more intense review. It went up to me. It went up to the attorney general. It took us months and months where if it was just Jane Doe, no one would have given it, you know, I mean, it would have been looked at by a line level prosecutor, but because it was this person with proximity to power,

it was given much higher levels of review. And that's the written policy of DOJ. So if you're indicting a famous person, it has to go up higher and higher and the higher levels it has to go. The more people there are who can say, I'm not so comfortable with this. When it comes to Trump, there are there's the feeling and now we'll apply some facts to the feeling.

There's the feeling that when it comes to another individual with 91 felony counts in four different trials in different parts of the country, they would not have a lot of the same leeway that Trump has had someone regularly violating gag orders, someone with access to a plane, although the plane is not something the average person has. So maybe that's not a great example. Are there ways in which Trump has been given a longer leash when it comes to the attacks on court employees, the judge's daughter, et cetera, that the, quote, average person wouldn't get? Yes, there are examples, but there are also counter examples where I think he's being

treated worse than an average person. And it's interesting that the world has played out this way. When I wrote the book came out a year and change ago, he had not been indicted at all. I say in the book, by the time you're holding this, he probably will be indicted probably multiple times. And I sort of forecast ahead. I'll give you a couple of examples where I think he has been given more consideration. Look, he was, I don't think he would have been locked up pending trial. I know he would not have been locked up pending trial in any of these cases, but the fact that he's a former president and a current candidate made any kind of meaningful bail restriction impossible, whether home confinement.

You can argue, look, there were January 6th defendants who got locked up pending trial or who got home confinement pending trial. There was no way he was going to have any bail restriction in place. You know, the gag orders, he has more than pushed limits, but it's odd because if you look at the technical gag orders, he's only really actually violated them a couple of times and he's been fined. I think he has, you know, pushed the limits on what is smart, fair and reasonable to say. But he's only he's only actually now here's the thing, though. I don't think there's any way he ever gets locked up for violating a gag order. And I think he knows that. And I think that's a little bit of extra consideration that he's being given. You know, so I think those are a couple of examples. But I will say, I think there's a fair question about whether he ever would have been charged

in Georgia if he wasn't politically unpopular in Manhattan, if he wasn't politically unpopular in the New York AG's case, that one to me is entirely, the AG said she was going to sue him for something while she was running. She didn't even know what. So I do think that, and I will say, and I've been critical of Jack Smith, Jack Smith clearly is trying to artificially expedite these cases because he wants to try Trump before the election. Normal cases of this complexity would not be going to trial within a year. The average DOJ conspiracy case takes two years. Jack Smith has been desperate.

He's been pushing judges to super expedite everything because he's trying to try Trump before the election. I want to see Donald Trump tried before the election. The vast majority of the American public does. But I also don't think that he should be given less time to prepare than an average defendant because of the election. And that violates DOJ policy, by the way. DOJ policy says our prosecutors are never to consider anything to do with an election when it comes to the timing of any event. So it's played out interestingly. And I will say this,

I think that a story arc of this whole era is and will always be Trump's abuses, Trump's conduct, which I argue in the book, he should be indicted. He should have been indicted and he will deserve whatever comes to him. But the emerging and growing B storyline is prosecutorial overreach. And frankly, I hate to use this phrase, but weaponization of prosecutorial power to go after someone who is politically very unpopular. Um, and so I think it's important we watch both of those storylines. And so if I hear you correctly, you're not saying Trump doesn't deserve to be indicted, but you are saying that in a different climate where he was super popular, broadly speaking, there would just be less

interest in pursuing some of these charges. Yeah. Let's just look at that. Let's look at a counterfactual. What if Donald Trump had served as president and didn't cause January 6th, which he did, but didn't cause in our hypothetical, didn't cause January 6th, did an OK job as president, you know, wasn't openly, you know, aggressive and say crazy things and say racist things. And just just like let's say he was a George H.W. Bush, did an okay job, lost reelection, you know, had 40% of the vote. And when he lost, just said, well, I'm really disappointed that I lost, but I wish the new president the best

and I concede and all that. You really think he would have been indicted? Yeah. I mean, I think it would have been maybe not all, not all. I think the Manhattan case is the weakest for sure. And probably they would have attached fewer accounts. I mean, I think it would have been maybe not all for not all. I think the Manhattan case is the weakest for sure. And probably they would have attached fewer accounts. I mean, I don't know. I think you're probably right to a degree. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So so I do make that argument.

And I think that's fair. But people say to me, well, what do you think should happen to this guy? You know, Mr. No, no. And my answer is, and I say in the book, he should be indicted. He should have been indicted for what he did to try to steal the 2020 election leading to January 6th. He should absolutely have been indicted for the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The way it should have been done was A, by DOJ and B, much, much quicker. DOJ wasted over two and a half years before indicting both of those cases. The ideal scenario is Merrick Garland either should have put a team

on this or appointed special counsel the moment he took office or within two months of taking office in early 2021. If he had done that, there's no reason this case would not have been indicted. Give him a year. Early 2022, we would have had plenty of time. The trial would have already been in and over. Appeals, who knows if Trump would even have been a viable candidate at this point. But what I object to is a DOJ delaying as long as they did, leaving us with next to no time, which is now causing this traffic jam and be to the pile on that we've seen from state and local elected prosecutors. And to be clear, some of the classified documents actions didn't take place early enough. I mean, yeah, but to some of the counts, you're absolutely right. No, that's fair. I mean, so I guess what I said before

applied to January six, you know, the classified documents stuff went down in twenty twenty two, probably arguably still took a little long, but I can't I can't say outrageously long. Yeah, I'd be more on the order of a few months sooner, maybe. But yeah, I think that's fair. We've been talking in part about Ellie Honig's book, Untouchable, how powerful people get away with it. And the context, of course, being Donald Trump's upcoming trials. Ellie, I really appreciate your time and insights here.

Thanks, David. Great to be with you. actually manufactures parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover. And they are bringing that exact same precision engineering to the shaving experience. It hurts when you shave because blades extend too far and thus they wobble slightly. But with their aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson is able to make metal razors that extend just zero point zero.0013 inches. That's less than the thickness of a human hair, which means a secure, stable blade with a vibration free shave. It also has built in channels to evacuate the hair and the cream. No more clogs, no more rubbing your

thumb on the razor to get the hair out. I use Henson at home. Shaving is a great experience. Now, Henson wants to be the best razor, not the best razor business, which means you only need to buy it once. And it's awesome. Go to Henson shaving dot com slash Pacman at a razor and a hundred pack of blades to your cart. Then enter the code Pacman to get the hundred blades for free. That is a three year supply. That's H E N S O N shaving dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Do you remember when presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. loudly and proudly announced his vice presidential running mate, Nicole Shanahan, who, by the way, was a major donor to his campaign.

And it seems that it might be one of the first recent examples of someone buying a slot as vice presidential running mate. Remember when that all happened and it was a really big deal and then she hasn't been seen in public since. And nobody knows what the hell is going on. What on earth is going on here? NBC News reports Nicole Shanahan has been quiet since being named RFK Junior's running mate. Shanahan has not held a public a held a public event since the big rollout, putting her on Kennedy's ticket in mid-March. And that is absolutely true. Alison Novello, who's an embedded reporter in the twenty twenty four campaign coverage of CBS News, tweeted,

quote, Nicole Shanahan, active on social media, hasn't appeared with RFK Jr. since her reveal over two weeks ago. This Saturday, Kennedy will be hosting an assembly in Des Moines, Iowa, for ballot access. But Shanahan won't be attending. The campaign told CBS News going back to the NBC News article. It adds that after leaping into the political spotlight two weeks ago, she's been out of the public eye. She's posted a few times on social media, hasn't been to any of Kennedy's events, hasn't done any media appearances. And she did post on Friday that she's going to the southern border and that she's realized she's realizing how serious and critical everything on the southern border is. On Monday, the Fox News show Fox and Friends promoted a live joint interview with Kennedy and Shanahan that was supposed to take place yesterday, Tuesday.

But Shanahan was missing. And when NBC News reached out to the campaign, the campaign said, oh, actually, she wasn't supposed to appear. It was lost in translation. It was just a confusion. You know, there's a real question here as to who is using whom. In other words, is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using Nicole Shanahan for money purposes and doesn't really care about her presence as a vice presidential running mate? Or is Nicole Shanahan using Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to get herself nominally and ostensibly listed somewhere as a vice presidential candidate without herself having any interest in participating

in this campaign? I really don't know. And the initial interpretation of the selection of Nicole Shanahan was this is a way to maybe bridge the political divide that sometimes exists with big tech and Silicon Valley. And Nicole Shanahan is going to help bring in more big tech money and Silicon Valley money to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. rather than it being split between Trump and Biden. Maybe that's the point. It's a play on Silicon Valley money. Biden. Maybe that's the point. It's a play on Silicon Valley money.

Maybe. Maybe that's the case. But as I said at the time, money aside and money matters, but money aside, it's not obvious to me in any way that Nicole Shanahan actually moves the needle for our RFK in terms of voters. I can't think of a voter. You know, we sometimes it's useful in these instances to envision a particular voter who's impacted by an endorsement or a decision. And back in 2016, when evangelical voters were disproportionately not supporting Trump

early in the Republican primary, they were supporting Ted Cruz and maybe Jeb. And then all of a sudden, Ted Cruz says, hey, you know what? We're getting behind Trump. Yes, he called my wife ugly. Yes, he stands for everything we don't stand for. But I'm getting behind Trump. It opened the door for, you know, imagine a particular evangelical voter in rural northern Indiana to say, hey, you know what? I was skeptical about Trump. But Ted Cruz said he's going Trump. I'm going to vote for Trump. I can't think of the voter that is sitting around saying I'm undecided. Oh, Nicole Shanahan is Robert F. Kennedy's running mate. Now I support Kennedy.

I struggle to imagine that that's any serious contingency. And so I don't really know the point of this entire thing. The one good bit of news and we talked about this already and I'll state it again. The one good bit of news is that when you look at polling compared to two months ago from the last week compared to two months ago, number one, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is garnering a lower level of support. Many polls lately in which RFK has six, seven or eight percent support compared to the 14, 16 and 18 of two, three months ago.

That's a good sign that a lot of people are waking up to the reality that the next president will be Biden or Trump supporting Kennedy helps Trump. You don't want to do that. Don't support Kennedy. And number two, when you look at the same poll that does head to head Biden versus Trump or a three way race, the effect of adding Kennedy is less damaging to Biden than it was two months ago. There were lots of polls two, three months ago where when you went from head to head to three way, the addition of Kennedy would take four or five points from Joe Biden. There's lots of recent polls in which adding Kennedy only has the effect of taking a net

couple of points, one to three points from Joe Biden. That's another sign that left leaning voters, Democrats, independents who lean left are increasingly less bamboozled by the Kennedy presidency. So where is Nicole Shanahan? We don't know if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound? Well, you know, if your vice presidential candidate is never to be seen again, does she really make a difference to the campaign?

That's the question we're asking. We don't yet have an answer. Ladies and gentlemen, even Jim Bob from West Virginia. Is abandoning Trump and supporting Joe Biden. Now, some of our international viewers might not understand what's funny about this. I want to be really clear. We're going to hear from a voter named Jim Bob in West Virginia, and he very thoughtfully explains why he will not be supporting Donald Trump in November. The joke is Jim Bob from West Virginia is sort of the archetypal MAGA right winger. Jim Bob or these hyphenated double first names are sometimes joked about

as being a signal of kind of low information, rural right wing culture. Obviously, we welcome anyone, anyone who realizes supporting Trump's not a good idea. But the joke is, if even Jim Bob from West Virginia has figured out Trump's no good, that's a very good sign. Let's listen to Jim Bob explain why he is no longer supporting Donald Trump. Voting for Trump is unconscionable to me. It is clearly against the national interest to give him any more power for any period of time. I'm Jim Bob. I live in St. Albans, West Virginia, and I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. I jumped off the Trump train on January 6, 2021.

When I saw the events unfold in the Capitol, I was disgusted. And I felt that it was either incompetence for failure to send in the National Guard or to prepare for possible political violence, or that he was complicit in it. And events since then indicate that he was complicit in it. I'm concerned about a second Donald Trump term for a number of reasons. He's already indicated that he's going to seek retribution against his enemies. I do believe he will end support for the Ukraine, which is horrendous. The other issues that I find concerning about Donald Trump are his desire to get out of NATO. This would be a catastrophe of the greatest order, would remove a linchpin of American security since World War II. I also believe that he would not be effective in standing

up to Putin or Xi or any dictator in the world. He has gone out of his way to praise them. I must say one thing, I find Donald Trump to be very persuasive because he has persuaded me this year to vote Democrat for the first time in over 50 years. In November 2024, I'll be voting for Joe Biden. Voting for Trump is unconscionable to me. I believe he is incompetent. I believe it is corrupt and I believe he is insincere. It is clearly against the national interest to give him any more power for any period of time. Now listen, these stories from the group Republican voters against Trump. These are not typical Trump voters. We have to acknowledge when you were

bamboozled and when you came to the wrong conclusion. These stories are very powerful anecdotes, but there is a large contingent of Trump supporters that are not capable or willing of this sort of examination of their beliefs. But it is fascinating to see. Again, I'm sort of joking a little bit here that even Jim Bob from West Virginia is able to realize that with regard to January 6th, with regard to foreign policy, with regard to Trump's being enamored with authoritarian dictators around the world, with all of these different elements, even as

a Republican who probably, you know, Jim Bob and I would probably disagree about taxes. We would probably disagree about foreign policy. We would probably disagree about education policy. We would probably disagree about abortion policy. We would have a lot of disagreements. But Jim Bob is able to say, OK, I'm a Republican. This time, the people that the I'm sorry, the person that my fellow Republicans have selected is so outside of what this country needs that I need to put country over party. Jim Bob is able to do it. He's doing it in West Virginia, a state that Trump is going to win easily because that's

the way West Virginia works. But hopefully there are enough of these folks around that it'll make a difference in November. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. I do want to warn the audience. This is a very aggressive and weaponized voicemail. I listen to it twice already and I listen to it a third time with you now. I'm struggling to understand what the criticism is from this person. Let's see if we can figure it out. Let's also figure out whether this guy is serious. OK, let's buckle up and let's dove in.

You know, idiot, the whatever the f*** your name is, why is it that you can't bring anyone on your show that actually has a word to say for people? But yeah, you only bring on people that can't criticize. You have no idea what the they're talking about and have less IQ than I have money in my bank account. So first of all, in terms of who I bring on, I assume the caller is referring to live calls. I don't know how articulate or prepared the callers are before I call on them. And in fact, I try to make an effort to let the right wing callers on because I want diversity

of views. The fact that so many of them can barely string together a coherent thought. I have nothing to do with that. OK, I'll call on whoever and I don't know how articulate they are. Let's continue. It's honestly embarrassing, not only for yourself, but for your entire show, that you think they're bringing on a bunch of randoms that can't talk to you about the topics you bring up because they've never been educated in them before because you bring up stupid topics that don't

actually have a worth of debate. And yeah, I'm talking fast right now, but that's just something that you can't understand. That's part of debating. But you can't get into that because you're not an actual debater. You're just someone who comes online to talk about everyone else. You know, well, it is true that I'm not actual debater. You're just someone who comes online to talk about everyone else. Well, it is true that I'm not a debater. I am not a formal debater, nor do I have a background in debate, nor do I even enjoy debates. That's all true. But my method is I ask people, how did you get that idea? How did you come to that conclusion? And sometimes they implode

because they don't even know how they came to those conclusions or why they believe the things they believe actually know the facts. So why don't you know how they came to those conclusions or why they believe the things they believe. Actually know the facts. So why don't you actually bring someone on your show who has a voice, knows the you're talking about, is actually smart, actually has something going with their life and actually can defend the stupid that you say on your show, bro. I don't even I don't even have to bring up examples of things you've said. Well, you know, I wish he would bring up at least one example that would help us to figure out who's right and who's wrong on the facts. But he says he's not going to bring up any examples. The she said about Jimmy, the she said about think before you sleep, bro.

Oh, hold on a second, Jimmy. And think before you sleep. I don't even know what that is. Is this another case where someone is responding to something from a different show, Jimmy and Think Before You Sleep? I don't know what on earth he's referring to the defend defending of alienation after the stupid he's done, bro. Illie nations. I'm starting to think this guy has the wrong number. You're you're a clown. That's all you are, bro. Your family tree is a family pole. Like actually do something for your show that's well and worth your time. Little. Wow.

I'm actually thinking that he maybe was trying to call somebody else. I don't like does anybody know what that is, Jimmy? And think before you sleep. Is that like a reference to the Stephen Kenneth Destiny Bunnell, the second show, or is that maybe a topic that was broached by Brian Tyler Cohen? I just don't know. I don't know who the guy thinks he's calling, but I think he's got the wrong show. We have a great bonus show for you today. We are going to talk about claims from Sage Steele that her entire interview with Joe Biden was, quote, scripted. And what that means,

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic congresswoman, is sounding the alarm over explicit videos generated by A.I. And then there is a very, very strange headline about millennials and Gen Zers, quote, splurging on groceries, which is a really strange term to use. I have to tell you all of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join Pakman dot com. Get the newest children's book. Think like a voter at David Pakman dot com slash book. I'll see you in moments on the bonus show or back here tomorrow.