The David Pakman Show - 4/13/23: Alvin Bragg sues Jim Jordan, Trump says people cried during arrest

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Farron Cousins, host of "Farron Balanced" and "Ring of Fire," fills in for David -- Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sues Congressman Jim Jordan to get him to stop interfering in the prosecution of Donald Trump -- Representative Jim Jordan sends letters to universities to look into what he calls the "Biden censorship regime" -- Republicans don't actually know how to be in charge once they've been elected -- Donald Trump's judicial appointments could ironically hurt Republicans in the 2024 election -- A judge shuts down Donald Trump's attempt to shield documents from New York Attorney General Letitia James's investigation -- Melania Trump is furious about the coverage of the Stormy Daniels hush money payment that resulted in her husband getting indicted -- Donald Trump claims that authorities who processed him at the Manhattan courthouse were crying and apologizing over what they were doing -- Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is getting inundated with racist threats from Trump supporters -- Dianne Feinstein's leave of absence is preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from approving Joe Biden's judicial nominees -- Media organizations sue to get access to the January 6th footage that Kevin McCarthy gave to Tucker Carlson -- On the Bonus Show: Sarah Sanders making job applicants suck up to her, MTG whines about northerners being mean to her, Republicans trying to undermine Alvin Bragg, and much more... 🚲 Lectric eBikes! Shop for your new electric bike at https://lectricebikes.com 🌞 Get 10% off your first month of BetterHelp online therapy: https://betterhelp.com/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep: Get 20% OFF a mattress + 2 free pillows. Go to https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.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

Welcome to the David Pakman show. I am Farron Cousins from Ring of Fire sitting in once again today for David Pakman. We've got a wonderful show coming up for you today. Jim Jordan is being sued by Alvin Bragg. Melania Trump is furious at the media for talking about all of her marriage problems. Dianne Feinstein is facing more and more calls to resign after it was revealed that she has missed more than 60 votes this year. And of course, all the legal problems with Donald Trump. All of that and more is coming up on today's program. So let's jump right into it. Alvin Bragg, Manhattan district attorney has announced that he is suing Republican representative Jim Jordan and pretty much the House Judiciary Committee trying to stop a subpoena that Jordan issued last week for Mark Pomerantz.

Now, I had already thought that the idea to subpoena Mark Pomerantz by Jim Jordan was very dumb. If you're not familiar with Mark Pomerantz, he is one of the two former assistant prosecutors at the Manhattan DA's office, along with Kerry Dunn. They worked under Cyrus Vance on the Trump investigation and Pomerantz and Dunn resigned last year. And Pomerantz has revealed since then in both his resignation letter and his new book that he resigned because when Alvin Bragg took over from Cy Vance, he pretty much killed the investigation into Donald Trump. Pomerantz has gone as far as to say that he and Vance actually had the indictments drafted

against Donald Trump. He said they were less than 10 days away from charging Donald Trump with financial crimes. And then Bragg came in, put that investigation on ice and the rest is history, right? Well, Jim Jordan, for some reason, thought it would be a smart idea to bring Pomerantz into the house judiciary committee to testify because he thought Pomerantz's testimony would somehow prove that Alvin Bragg had actually weaponized the Manhattan DA's office to go after Trump. And he weaponized it to go after Trump by not going after Trump, according to the guy Jim Jordan wants to talk to in the house. So, um, if it's a little confusing, don't worry. It's

very confusing. Jim Jordan's strategy here makes no sense at all. Pomerantz is not going to waltz into the house judiciary committee and say, oh yeah, Alvin Bragg absolutely weaponized this. No, he's going to say based on what he's already said, that Alvin Bragg should have gone harder after Donald Trump. And then he's going to start laying out all the evidence they had against Donald Trump with the financial crimes. So if Pomerantz goes to that judiciary committee hearing, it's going to make Jim Jordan look even dumber than he already has this year. Like, that's a good thing. I want that to happen.

But I can understand why Alvin Bragg doesn't. And that of course is why Alvin Bragg is suing to stop this subpoena from happening. And honestly, legally speaking, he has very strong grounds under which to challenge this subpoena from happening. And honestly, legally speaking, he has very strong grounds under which to challenge this subpoena. He can easily say that obviously, because these are ongoing investigations, they have not been closed. We under New York state law are forbidden from turning over evidence, from turning over documents related to ongoing investigations to third parties. And at this point, because Congress does not directly oversee the Manhattan DA's office, they would be considered

a third party. It'd be no different than handing over the information that they've gathered to Fox news. That's kind of how Congress is for the Manhattan DA's office. You're just an independent third party. Sure. You've got some power, but you have no power here. So he has very strong legal grounds under which to challenge this subpoena, but I kind of wish he wouldn't. I really, really, really want Mark Pomerantz to waltz into that, uh, chamber and spill the beans on all of the horrible evidence that they uncovered in their Trump investigation.

That is what I want to see. And I think a lot of people probably want to see that as well. If we're going to air some dirty laundry, let's air it out. Let's put it all out there on the line for the world to see, because that's what Jim Jordan wants to do. And I think in this particular instance, we need to honor Jim that's what Jim Jordan wants to do. And I think in this particular instance, we need to honor Jim Jordan's request. We need to give him exactly what he wants. Because I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said, you know, there's two great tragedies in life.

One is not getting what you want. The other is getting exactly what you want. So let's give Jim Jordan exactly what he wants. Let's give him Mark Pomerantz's testimony about the investigations into Donald Trump. Let's let the entire country hear what Mark Pomerantz has to say about all of that evidence about the indictments that they had drafted and about why those indictments didn't get filed. Let's hear it from him. But that's not what Jim Jordan wants to hear. It's what he would hear, but it's not what he wants to hear. He wants to hear Pomerantz go in there and whine and cry and say, Oh, Alvin Bragg made us look at this stuff

and we didn't want to, we knew it was phony baloney, but yeah, that ain't going to happen. But flip side of the coin, as I said, I understand why Bragg doesn't want this to happen. If Pomerantz were to go into a judiciary committee hearing and start saying that Bragg was a weak prosecutor. We had all this strong evidence. He chose not to do it. It's going to make Bragg look bad. And then you're going to have people on the left, as well as all of the freaks on the right hating on Alvin Bragg. And that's not what we need right now. I am still annoyed. I'm still angry that Alvin Bragg did not go after Donald Trump for the big financial crimes that Pomerantz and Dunn and Vance were all investigating and ready to indict

him for. I think that was a mistake. I think that was a giant misstep based on the statements that Pomerantz has already made publicly. It seems very clear that they had Donald Trump red handed in a lot of these instances. Now that would have been up for a jury to decide, but now a jury is not even going to get the opportunity to decide that. And that's not fair. If the indictments were ready, as Pomerantz says they were, they should have been filed. Bragg didn't want to go that route. Bragg went the route he did. He got his indictments, you know, 34 counts against Donald Trump trial coming up probably in about a year. So it all worked itself out, but Bragg doesn't want Pomerantz to talk. And again, I understand why. And I understand there's laws in New York that would likely prevent Pomerantz from saying the things that I want to hear him say. But Bragg has the law on his side.

Jim Jordan only has politicization, the weaponization of the weaponization committee. And maybe he wins. Maybe he doesn't. We'll see what happens as this lawsuit that Bragg has filed plays itself out in the court system. And speaking by the way of Jim Jordan weaponizing the weaponization committee, it was revealed this week that Jim Jordan has sent letters to multiple different colleges and universities across the country, demanding all of the information about their efforts to research disinformation in American politics. According to the letter that Jim Jordan sent to these colleges, he said, quote, certain third parties, including organizations like yours, may have played a role in this censorship regime by advising on so-called misinformation.

So he's going after colleges now. He already failed in going after Twitter. I mean, we all remember Matt Taibbi coming in there and testifying and didn't, didn't go so well. And if you've been paying attention to the most recent drama between Taibbi and Musk, that relationship has had a horrible falling out. But Jim Jordan so far has come up with nothing with this weaponization committee. So he is grasping at straws now. Remember when he brought in those FBI so-called whistleblowers that all turned out to be extremist Trump supporters who actually hated the FBI. So they weren't actually whistleblowers. They were just mad at the agency

because they didn't like it. And then they delivered no explosive bombshells in their testimony. And it was revealed of course that a couple of them had actually gotten some money from Kash Patel, one of Donald Trump's close allies from his group. Yeah, it was a whole big mess and it made Jim Jordan look very stupid. Just like the Twitter files hearing made him look very stupid. So now he's going after colleges. He's saying, how dare you, how dare you research misinformation? And then how dare you, I suspect, give that information to social media companies or the Biden administration. Now, the thing is based on the letter, Jim Jordan doesn't even know that

that happened. Jim Jordan is just making these wild accusations against colleges saying, I think you probably may have, could have at some point thought about possibly thinking about doing these things. That's the basis for this investigation folks. The problem is even though these colleges have nothing to hide, they also don't want to have to spend time hiring lawyers, you know, sending their people down to Washington, DC to go and testify, wasting man hours, going through all of their research, compiling it in a way that Congress can actually read.

That takes time and money. Something that a lot of colleges don't necessarily have a lot of on hand, especially for something like this. So according to some of the researchers at these colleges, they're already worried that this is going to have a chilling effect on their efforts to combat misinformation in the United States ahead of the 2024 election. Multiple sources who spoke to ProPublica about this story say that they are worried that colleges, rather than have to live under congressional scrutiny, will simply scrap the programs or scale them back to the point where they become completely ineffective. And that's the goal. That's what Jim Jordan wants. That's what

Republicans want. They don't want colleges and universities, you know, smart people looking at the amount of misinformation flowing all day, every day on social media, because what is that going to point fingers back to? It's not going to point fingers back to this show. It's not going to point fingers back to my show. It's not going to point fingers at, at, at Sam Cedar or any of the other folks who do this, Jesse Dollimore. No, it's not going to come after us. It's going to come after your, your Charlie Kirk's and your Candace Owens and your Fox news is in your daily wires, daily callers, daily morons, whatever it is. Those are the ones that are going to get flagged for misinformation because those are the ones that are filled with misinformation, with disinformation,

with lies of omission. If you've spent any time watching conservative media, reading conservative outlets, you quickly begin to realize as a rational person, um, there's some things missing here. There's some context missing. There's a quote that you've taken and distorted. That is commonplace in a lot of conservative media. Sometimes they just outright make things up and they never get held accountable, right? We're not seeing slander, libel, and defamation lawsuits filed left and right against these organizations. We should, but we don't. So the only weapon we have are these institutions that are actively investigating misinformation and calling it out and reporting on it. And Jim Jordan knows that. And he also

knows we're heading into a contentious 2024 election cycle. He doesn't want people hyper focused on the lies coming from the right. So he's trying to have this chilling effect on this research through his requests to these colleges. That is the point of it. That is the goal. That is what he wants to do. And some folks at the colleges are already admitting it's probably going to work. Look, I am Farron Cousins. You can follow me on YouTube at youtube.com slash the ring of fire. Also youtube.com slash Farron balanced. I am on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Tik TOK at Farron balanced. This is the David Pakman show. And we'll be right back with more. I love my car, which is electric. I love my bicycle. And I have to say

that the perfect medium in between is my electric bike by electric. If you're looking to spend about eight hundred dollars or so on an e-bike, electric is where you want to go. I've tried e-bikes that cost seven thousand dollars and electric delivers the same performance and specs, but at a much more reasonable price point. I take my electric e-bike everywhere these days. I've almost completely ditched my regular bike for now. E-bikes are, of course, better for the environment than taking a car. The e-bike gives you more flexibility and range than a regular bicycle. You can go further. You can see more. My e-bike is just my favorite form of cardio. At this point, it comes fully assembled to your door. It includes a bright LCD display, seven speed gearing,

five levels of pedal assist and a powerful battery that's removable so you can bring it indoors for charging. It's also fully foldable so I can put it in the back of my car and they have financing The David Pakman Show-bikes dot com. The link is in the podcast notes. One of our sponsors is BetterHelp. I am a huge believer in therapy. Let's say you've been thinking for a while about getting into therapy. You know, it's the right move. You have things you'd like to talk to someone about. There is no better time than the present, but you don't have to drive across town every week and sit The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. in a wide range of issues. You answer a few questions about yourself and better help will match you with a therapist based on your specific needs and preferences. The sessions can be on the phone, video call chat anytime, anywhere from your couch at home, from your office at work.

And if your therapist isn't the right fit, you can switch anytime at no charge. My audience gets 10 percent off your first month at betterhelp.com slash Pacman. That's better H E L P.com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Welcome back to the David Pacman show. I am Farron cousins from ring of fire sitting in once again today for David Pacman. I hope David is enjoying his time away. Meanwhile, we've got more news to talk about. Specifically, I want to hit on something that I touched upon in yesterday's show. Yesterday I mentioned that throughout my entire lifetime, Republicans have not had an actual economic plan that goes beyond let's cut taxes for the rich. And I wanted to expand upon that

idea because I think it's something worth discussing, especially since we're going to be heading into election season here long, not long out. In fact, we are technically already in 2024 election season. So it's important to talk to people about what the Republican party of today and of the last 40 years actually stands for. And the answer is nothing. The Republican party stands for nothing. I know they have a party platform. I know they say they like small government, but then they, they pass all these laws, letting the government intrude. I mean, quite literally to inspect your genitals.

That, that, that doesn't seem like small government at all. Yet you're passing laws, Republican party at the state level that will actually allow the government to inspect your genitals. That, that's not very small government-y. But here's the big point. Throughout my entire life, and I turned 40 years old two months ago, so I've been on this earth for 40 years. I was born during the Reagan administration, subsequently lived through every other Republican administration. I have lived in a red state that has been solidly controlled by a Republican governor and a Republican state legislature for 25 straight years here in Florida. So I know a thing or two about having to live under solid Republican rule. And I can tell you from my experience

and from working in progressive media for 19 years, Republicans don't know how to govern. It's that simple. That is the line. Republicans have no idea what they're doing. What have we seen from them in the last 40 years? And I use that timeframe because that's when the Republican party really kicked into this shift when Reagan came into office, but it also happens to be the timeframe I've been alive. So I, I like to focus on that. For 40 years, the Republican party's entire economic policy, whether it's at the federal level or the state level, has been one idea and one idea alone. Let's cut taxes for the wealthy. That's it. That is all that party knows how to do. Even with their Republican majority in the house right now, they've already talked

about extending the Trump tax cuts. You know, we're worried about the debt ceiling. We're worried about inflation, you know, the supply chain shortages, the gas prices they wouldn't shut up about last year, but went completely silent when gas prices fell again. None of that actually matters to them now that they're in power, the only thing they've wanted to do other than carry out investigations into stupid things is cut taxes. Make sure that tax cuts stay there. Part of the debt ceiling negotiations may include repealing or changing of the inheritance tax again, because that is the only thing Republicans know how to do. Think back just a few years ago, right? When Republicans were trying to draft their healthcare bill and it turned into a tax cut bill.

Like that's all it had by the time it was finished. It was just a bunch of tax cuts. Everything they touch turns into just tax cuts because that's all they know how to do. And it's not tax cuts for you or me. It's tax cuts for people like them because that is their economic policy. If they had to actually sit and govern and deal with the problems that they love to whine about during campaigns, if they had to try to do something about inflation, if they had to try to do something about inflation, if they had to try to understand monetary policy and how the debt actually works in this country, they wouldn't know what to do. And I say that because we're watching them right now,

try to deal with these things and they don't know what to do. But it's not just the issue of economics that Republicans have failed this country on for the last 40 years. I want everybody to, to, to think for a moment. When was the last time that a Republican majority passed a piece of legislation at the federal level that benefited the lives of average working class Americans. Can you think of a single specific instance where they did something like that? Because again, almost 20 years of working in progressive media, literally researching and doing things like this every day, I can tell you, I can't think of a single one because they don't have one. We have seen them bust up unions, which has hurt the middle class.

We have seen them ignore environmental pollution and destruction, which is harming low income and middle income American people. They live in areas that are, you know, tend to be statistically far more polluted than where the 1% lives. They have done nothing to make your life better. They've done plenty to make it worse. You know, at the state level, passing the right to work laws, which is basically right to work for less. Passing laws that allow massive corporations to come up, buy in entire neighborhoods or buy up entire neighborhoods, excuse me, and price you out of the housing market. That's happening all over the country right now because

Republicans are letting it happen. They don't know how to do anything about any actual real problems. So what do we do? What are we hearing this week? What is the biggest issue for the Republican party this week? Bud light. I know you've seen it. I've done my best to try to not talk about it, but you know, sometimes you kind of have to, we've got real actual problems in the country. We've got a debt ceiling crisis. We've only got like two months left to figure it out before we have to start shutting down agencies and programs. And you've got Marco Rubio going on Fox news saying this week that our global standing

has decreased. Our allies are now abandoning us because of Bud Light. That's what Marco Rubio said. I'm paraphrasing a bit there, but he said all this wokeness because you've gotten men, you know, hawking Nike sports bras and, and, and a transgender influencer promoting Bud Light, our allies are now like, whoa, we may have to go it alone. That's what Marco Rubio said. They want to distract you from the real issues because they don't even understand the real issues. Like let's forget for a moment, everything I said that they don't know how to govern. That's

true. That's a given, but I'm at the point now where I genuinely think they don't even understand how to do it. It's bad enough that they won't govern. It's even worse to think that they literally don't know how to do it, which is why they pushed the culture war BS on us. It's why we end up talking about Bud Light for a week. It's why they went after M&Ms. It's why they went after Oreos and Keurigs and Nikes and Yeti coolers and Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. I mean, good God, how many things have the Republicans tried to cancel in recent years because they allegedly went woke? We have seen interviews with Republican, you know, Trump supporters out there. Even some Republican politicians are on video, ask what CRT is and none of them can tell you, but they know they want to ban it. They don't even know what it is and they want to ban it, not because it's a threat,

but because it gets their low information base riled up. This is the same base that is getting destroyed by these Republican economic policies, by these Republican environmental policies, by all of these know nothing Republicans. And they just keep doing it because they're like, ah, but we like the culture war stuff. I don't, I don't want to walk into a bathroom and see a guy wearing a dress, taking a whiz as if that's an issue that affects anybody on the planet. But that's what they tell us to worry about. That's what they want us to focus on because that is the only thing they know how to do. And according to Washington post reporter, Jennifer Rubin, that's going to come back to bite Republicans in the 2024 election. Jennifer Rubin, that's going to come back to bite Republicans

in the 2024 election. Jennifer Rubin with the Washington Post had a great new article this week. The title is right wing judges may cripple the GOP. And she spends about a page and a half talking of course, about last week's ruling with regard to the Texas judge who banned the abortion pill, used a bunch of activist language in the ruling, you know, completely violated the, I think it's a six year statute of limitations to even challenge the FDA on a drug being on the market because Mephepirone, I forgot how to say it. I'm so sorry. Mephepristone, Mephepristone. Yeah. Mephepristone

has been on the market for 20 years. So the judge way missed the statute of limitations, but still decided, nope, I'm going to ban it anyway. And the public's pissed. And that's what Jennifer Rubin is talking about. So let me read this from Rubin's article. Again, I think it's very well-written and I think it's very on point. Here it is. It is one thing to gin up the base on the uninvented threats from critical race theory or the great replacement theory. But when the MAGA movement's judges begin to inflict radically unpopular edicts on those outside the right-wing audience, that risks sparking a counter response, a determined broad-based movement

insistent that the United States not turn the clock back on decades of social progress. Republican setbacks, such as the disappointing 2022 midterms, a progressive Democrat last week, winning a crucial Wisconsin Supreme court seat and rising support for abortion rights over the past year, suggest that conservatives may have won the battle to stack the courts with ideologues, but might be losing the war for public opinion and ultimately electoral control. The more the Supreme Court diverges from overwhelming public sentiment on issues such as abortion, guns, and voting rights, the more strength and more allies the progressive movement may gain. I kind of like the sound of that. Now Now it's obviously not worth losing our rights in the

meantime, because God only knows if we're ever going to get them back. But Rubin's overall theory is that it's one thing for these horrible Republican politicians, like what we have down here in Florida, you know, to push the CRT bans, to push the transgender bans, to go after woke Disney. And, you know, the same thing's happening in Texas with the bands in Oklahoma and all the red States. It's one thing to do it at the state level because you're doing it to an audience that typically likes these things because as I previously said, they don't understand them. But when the judges come in, those decisions aren't local. Those decisions are national, meaning they don't just

affect the red states. They're affecting the blue states, but more importantly, they're affecting those swing states. Kind of like the overturning of Roe did last summer. That played a massive role in what happened in the 2022 midterm elections. We even saw red States like, uh, Kansas veto on their ballot in 2022, a ban on abortion. So even in red States, these things aren't that popular. And if these judges continue down this path, as Ruben says, you're handing 2024 to the Democrat, well to the progressive, she says, which is even better. Hand it to us. We'll take it. We'll fix the problems. We have ideas. We have better ideas than Republicans have because our ideas don't

involve tax cut, tax cut, tax cut. But in the meantime, people suffer and that's not okay. That's not okay at all. These activist judges are doing the job that Republicans put them there to do. And the voters need to remember that when they head to the polls next year. Yes, the judges might be the ones doing it, but you have to punish at the ballot the ones who put those judges there in the first place. Otherwise, you're going to end up with more Republican activist judges giving even worse rulings than what we've already seen.

I am Farron Cousins sitting in for David Pakman. Don't forget, you can find me at youtube.com slash the ring of fire, youtube.com slash fair and balanced and all across social media at Farron balanced. We'll be right back with more. I recommend it to everybody. The other day, even though she's not allowed in the big bed, I put my baby daughter on the mattress and even she loved it. Helix Sleep is the premium mattress brand offering tailored mattresses based on your unique sleep preferences. Take the Helix Sleep Quiz. It asks you about your body type, your sleeping position. Do you get hot at night? Do you have back pain? And then Helix will match you with the mattress that's perfect for you. Most people don't know where to begin when shopping for a mattress, including me.

Helix makes it simple and less risky because you know you're getting a mattress that fits your needs. It ships free. You can try it for 100 nights to see if you like it. And it comes with a 10 or 15 year warranty. Unlike many mattress companies, all Helix mattresses are made in the USA by a skilled production team. So you are supporting good jobs. Helix Sleep is giving my audience up to 20 percent off plus two free pillows. What other mattress company is going to give you 20% off? Go to helixsleep.com slash Pacman. That's H-E-L-I-X sleep.com slash Pacman for up to 20% off and two free pillows. The link is in the podcast notes. Welcome back to the David Pacman show. I am Farron Cousins from Ring of Fire sitting in for David today as he enjoys a

nice little break from all of the insanity happening in the world of politics. So let's jump right in to all of that insanity. Late last week, a judge, Judge Arthur Ingaron, the one overseeing Donald Trump's upcoming trial for the $250 million lawsuit filed against him and his kids by New York attorney general Letitia James. Ingaron ruled last week that Donald Trump's new accounting firm cannot continue to shield his financial records and they must turn them over to Letitia James. Now you may be thinking to yourself, but Farron, the judge had already ruled that Donald Trump's accounting firm had to give all of this information to Letitia James, right? Mazars, Donald Trump's accounting firm was ordered to turn all of the financial documents over.

They're vital to the case. That is true. So Donald Trump did what most major corporations did and he employed a tactic known as the Texas two step. Typically we see it in corporations facing billions of dollars in lawsuits. What they do is they create a new subsidiary, spin off all of the liability, but none of the money into that subsidiary, then file for bankruptcy saying, Hey, you can't sue us because we got no money. Now Trump's little scheme here, his version of the Texas two-step was slightly different. What he did was as soon as the judge said, Hey, may czars, you got to turn over this financial information. Trump said, okay, may czars,

I'm taking it away from you. And I am putting it down in Texas where they have very strict privacy laws with a firm called Whitley Penn. And so for the last few months, Whitley Penn, who now holds Donald Trump's financial records, has been telling Letitia James that, hey, sorry, under Texas law, right, this guy's our client. You know, we love him dearly. We've known him for days. We can't give you his documents because Texas law prohibits that.

So Ingaron, of course, was forced to step in and say, no, no, you can't do that. I'd, I'd already ordered all of these documents, regardless of who held them to turn them over. And that was when the documents were in fact, by the way, in my jurisdiction here in New York, they were moved after the ruling, you have no claim to continue to hide them. So Donald Trump's financial documents should, should is the key word, be handed over to Letitia James so that she can continue on with her $250 million lawsuit against Trump and his kids. Now this is probably going to be appealed. That's what Trump does. He does the delay tactic. He tries to exhaust all of his appeals so that he can make sure he's fought as hard as he can to hide these documents. But again, when you look at the facts of the situation,

while the documents were in custody in New York, they were ordered to be delivered. They were moved after that order came down. Whitley Penn should have no legal claim to continue to keep them hidden because the order came while the documents were in the jurisdiction of the judge. Like it's pretty black and white. It's pretty simple. I don't think this will or could be overturned on appeal, but we've seen some wacky things come out of the court systems, not necessarily with regard to Donald Trump. He, he tends to lose a lot throughout most of his life. So I have every, every faith that this ruling is going to stand,

but it is quite telling, isn't it? Trump was ordered to turn over these documents. Rather than turn them over, he decided to hide them. Now I'm not on the jury. I haven't seen the documents. All I can do is speculate at this point. But if I'm looking at this case as a prospective juror, because they will know that the documents were moved, all right, this public knowledge, I'm going to be asking myself why after he was ordered to turn them over, did he go and hide them in Texas. That, that doesn't sound like something that somebody who is totally innocent would do, does it? Again, I'm not on the jury. I'm not in New York, so I won't be on the jury. But those are questions that the prosecution may ask during the trial. And those are questions

that Donald Trump's rag tag team of second rate attorneys are going to have to have some pretty dang good answers for. Otherwise it's only going to make Donald Trump look guilty as hell in front of that jury. But here's one person who doesn't necessarily care if Donald Trump is innocent, guilty, or what the heck happens to him. And that person happens to be his spouse, former first lady, Melania Trump. After several weeks of trying to just ignore all of the legal problems that her husband is facing, Melania Trump finally came out this week and released a statement attacking the media for

all of their reporting on her allegedly not giving one single care about what is happening to her husband. So let me read you this statement because I don't think the statement really says what Melania had wanted it to say. Here it is. News organizations have made assumptions about the former first lady's stance on subjects that are personal, professional, and political over the past few weeks. In these articles, unnamed sources are cited to bolster the author's claims. We ask readers to exercise caution and good judgment when determining whether or not stories concerning the former first lady are accurate, particularly when they fail to cite Mrs. Trump as a source of information.

So you're not actually saying that they're not accurate. You're just saying, Hey folks, you may want to think for a minute and then decide if it's accurate, but you, you're, you're not denying the stories by telling people make up your own mind. Like that's, that's what they were already doing. You don't have to tell people to make up their own minds because they've already made up their own minds. And these reports citing anonymous sources. Sure. I know how much that drives y'all crazy down there in Republican land, but they're talking to sources close to you. They're talking to people who know you, people who work for you, people who have been around you for years.

And they don't want to be named because they probably don't want to lose their jobs. Kind of seems like a pretty easy gig. If you ask me, probably pays pretty well. And yeah, you don't want to lose it, but you also want the public to know what's really happening. So what we know from Melania Trump based on recent reporting, I mean, we've had reports, you know, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, you know, pretty much all major outlets, the Daily Beast. Melania Trump, as we all know, did not attend her husband's victory speech after his indictment and arraignment last Tuesday. So she didn't show up for that. Previous reports before that even happened said Melania Trump wants nothing to do with her husband's legal problems.

She's going about living her life. She lives in a separate wing at Mar-a-Lago. They do not share living quarters. So they're, they're not even sleeping in the same bed. So that's usually a pretty big indication that there's some marital problems there. And these reports say that Melania spends most of her days happy with, with Barron and her parents who also live down there. And they're just going about their lives as if none of this is even happening. Good for her, right? I'm not going to fault you for that. Your, your, your marriage appears based on what we see to be falling apart, you know, based on all of the, you know, visual evidence, you don't even seem to like the guy. I honest to God, can't figure out why you're even still with him. You, you look miserable

all the time when you're around him. And then when there's photos or videos of you with not Donald Trump, you seem to look happy. I mean, you know, it doesn't take a marriage counselor to understand that you are happier when you're not with this guy. So maybe it's time to cut bait and just say, Hey, thanks, but, uh, I'm out either way. It's your life. You do whatever you want, but your, your little message here, your, your denial of the stories, which isn't actually a denial that doesn't help your case. It just makes it sound like, Hey, some of these may be true. Some of them may not be, who knows? I don't know. Do you not exactly the stellar statement that you thought you were making. So I don't know, maybe go back to the drawing board, maybe come up with a better statement, maybe deny the stories

or hell, maybe confirm them, put it all to rest. The focus is on your husband. Anyway, nobody wants to be talking about Melania. She's not doing anything. Like I said, she's living her life and seemingly happy, but don't go out there and poke the media and accuse them of things when you're not even denying the things that they're reporting. That's not exactly honest either. And while we're on the subject of the Trumps, Donald Trump did an interview this week with Tucker Carlson, the man who in text messages revealed during the dominion lawsuit said he wished Trump would go away. He was looking forward to never having to talk about him again, hates him with a passion and then sat down like a little sad puppy to interview Donald Trump and give him a shoulder

to cry on. But it wasn't Trump that was crying. It wasn't Tucker either, because according to Donald Trump's interview, it was actually the courthouse workers in New York that were sobbing uncontrollably when poor old Donald Trump was brought in for the arraignment. Here's what Donald Trump said to Tucker. They were incredible. When I went to the courthouse, which is also a prison in a sense, I'm sorry, before I could even finish that statement, like what, it's also kind of like a prison. No, it's actually not like, that's not what a

courthouse is. A courthouse is a courthouse. It's where you have trials. It's where you have arraignments. It's where you sometimes go to pay parking tickets. It's not the prison. I'm sure they probably have a holding cell there for people that are held in contempt if there's not a local county jail nearby, but a courthouse is not in and of itself also a prison. So that's just a weird statement and it's not even the dumbest thing he said. So I'll continue. They signed me in and I'll tell you, people were crying. They were actually crying. He said, it's just sobbing, just tears flowing like a river throughout that Manhattan courthouse. They had to put out wet floor signs because the tears, I guess, were just overwhelming. Nobody was crying. If there was any

crying taking place in that courtroom that day, it was most likely tears of joy, tears of joy that justice had finally caught up with Donald Trump, tears of joy that this man was no longer to get away with everything that he has been accused of for years and years and years and years. Tears of joy that maybe, maybe this guy might finally get his comeuppance. But even then, I don't even think they were crying tears of joy. They were just people doing their jobs. Like it's just our job. But I will say if Donald Trump thinks these workers in Manhattan love him,

there is video where Donald Trump was, you know, they were kind of holding the doors for people. And then when it was Trump's turn to walk through it, they just let it go and it almost hit him in the face. So I, I don't exactly think those workers were in love with you. Not to mention, we're talking about a courthouse in Manhattan. Donald Trump, you are universally disliked in Manhattan. If this had been a courtroom in Texas, yeah, you probably would have had some, some diehard Trump supporters in there crying for you. Same thing if a courtroom in Texas, yeah, you probably would have had some, some die hard Trump supporters in there crying for you. Same thing if it was in Texas or Florida or Alabama. Yeah, I'd believe that story then. But see, that's the point, Donald. Like when you're going to lie

to people, and of course, Tucker Carlson didn't push back at all because he's a coward. But if you're going to lie to people, you got to make the lie believable, Donald. I mean, come on, you've done this enough. You know how to play the game. Nobody's going to believe that these courthouse workers that other people have seen were crying that day. There is nobody with tears in their eyes on video or in any of the pictures. There is no one coming out to corroborate your story. Tucker Carlson, if he had a shred of

dignity would have pushed back on this, but of course he doesn't. So he didn't, but nobody in that courthouse was sad, Donald, except for you. And I say that because you've talked a big game attacking that judge before and after your arraignment, but you were silent during the arraignment. You said a total of about 10 words. Most of them, just one word at a time. Yes. No, thank you. Not guilty. So when you actually had the opportunity to stand up and tell that judge what you thought, you didn't do it because you're also a coward. So instead you then go running to your little buddy, Tucker Carlson, who again claims to hate you. You tell him a lie. He doesn't push back and nobody believed your story. consider the products you buy and the impact they have on our planet. So if you're still using conventional toilet paper in your home, there's no better time to switch to reals. One hundred

percent bamboo toilet paper. Thirty million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the U.S. alone. Real paper makes toilet paper from one hundred bamboo stocks, which grow forever, no cutting down trees. So when you use real, it doesn't feel like you're sacrificing anything to help the earth. Real paper is soft and fluffy the way you're used to. It's always shipped free to my door in plastic free packaging. I can schedule it on a subscription if I want. And real is partnered with one tree planted. And with every box of real paper you buy, they fund reforestation efforts across the country. Make a positive change this month.

Go to real paper dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman for 30 percent off and free shipping. That's our E.L. Paper dot com slash Pacman coupon code. Pacman gets you 30 percent off plus free shipping. That's R E E L paper.com slash Pacman coupon code. Pacman gets you 30% off plus free shipping. The info is in the podcast notes. Welcome back to the David Pacman show. I am Farron cousins sitting in for David Pacman today. If you want more from me, you can find me on YouTube at youtube.com slash the ring of fire. I also have my other channel, youtube.com slash Farron balanced, and I'm on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Tik TOK at Farron balanced. Now I want to end

in this last segment with a couple of interesting stories from throughout the week that I felt needed a little bit more exposure. Now to begin the show today, I talked about the fact that Alvin Bragg has sued Jim Jordan to stop the subpoena that he issued against Mark Pomerantz. Now, what I didn't mention about that lawsuit was that contained within the lawsuit, Bragg, the Manhattan DA's office outlined the threats, the racist threats that Bragg has received since the indictments were announced. According to the report, the DA's office received more than 1000 calls and emails from Trump supporters since March 18th, the day when Trump inaccurately predicted his own arrest. Many of those messages have been quote, overtly racist and anti-Semitic.

So I'm going to read one of them here. I'm going to censor some of this stuff because it's not appropriate. Hey, George Soros, a whole puppet. If you want President Trump, come and get me. Remember, we are everywhere and we have guns. Another one referred to Alvin Bragg, the first black man ever elected as top prosecutor in New York called him black trash. One of them called him AIDS infested. And here's the thing. I have talked repeatedly on my channels about the fact that it's only a

matter of time before these threats turn into material action. But it turns out as Bragg revealed, that's already happened. Let me read this from Vice. Bragg received an envelope containing white powder and a specific death threat against him. The letter was immediately contained to prevent exposure and was later determined to contain no dangerous substance, according to a letter Bragg later circulated to his staff. So you had an angry Trump supporter send a letter saying, you know, basically I want you dead. And the letter contained a white powder. The white powder of course was obviously meant to scare them because luckily this Trump supporter couldn't get their hands on anything actually dangerous. That doesn't change

the nature of the threat. They believed at the time it was real. They, they almost have to believe that it's real every time this comes in. And this is what happens. This is what I believe personally Trump wants to happen. That's why he's been out there attacking Bragg. He has called him an animal. He has called him a pervert, a lunatic, a maniac. Those are all words that Trump has used just in the last week to describe, to describe Alvin Bragg, to describe Judge Merchant. Donald Trump has gone after Judge Merchant's family. These attacks from Trump on these individuals have to stop. And the only way you can stop that is for Judge Merchant to put a gag order in place. Not that I think that would stop Trump, but if you violate the

gag order, the judge in the, you know, issuing has to say a single violation is a night in jail. Like every time you violate this, every time you send out a tweet, that's an attack on one of these people, you're going to jail for a night. So if you send out a post on Truth Social with three different attacks, that's three nights in jail. That's what the judge could do. That's what the judge should do to protect these people, to protect Alvin Bragg, to protect himself and his family. But the judge had said in the order, well, not necessarily in the order, but in the court discussions last week during the arraignment, the judge said, look, a gag order is a far off thing. I don't want to do it. He urged Trump's lawyers to, you know, tone it down

to rein him in. And clearly they failed to do that because I don't think they want to do it. And even if they wanted to, they're dealing with a client that's not going to listen to them. So the only possible option here is the judge to put that gag order in place. People's lives could be at stake. I mean, Trump posted the picture of him with the baseball bat and then Alan Bragg on the other side of it, looking like he was going to hit him. That's not okay. That is violent imagery that his base sees and they think, oh, okay, this is what he wants me to do. That is how those people operate. Trump doesn't have to do the damage. Trump doesn't have to be the one out there getting violent because

he knows that if he just says a couple of buzzwords to his base, shows them a couple of pictures, they'll take it from there. And I firmly believe personally that that's gotta be what Trump wants. Moving on. We've talked a lot about Republicans. It's now time to talk about some problems that the Democrats have. And it's a problem, unfortunately named democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. This week, of course, it was revealed that Feinstein has missed 60 votes. Her absence from the Senate committee is actually preventing Biden's judicial nominees from being confirmed. They can't move out of committee because they have to have her vote, but she's been out since early March with shingles.

She is now out of the hospital. Of course, she only spent a few days there. She's been recuperating in her home in California. She's 89 years old. She is not running for reelection. Her term ends at the end of the year 2024. And it's time for her to resign. That is my personal opinion. I think it's time for Dianne Feinstein to resign, but I'm not saying she has to resign because of her health issue. I'm not saying she has to resign because of her age. My plan, my idea is I have a plan. I have no control over any of this. My idea is she needs to resign for the good of the democratic party, not for the Biden judges thing, but for the house of representatives. We got three Democrats that are going to be running in that Senate primary next year. And because they're running in the Senate primary,

they cannot run for their house seats. So three of those Democrats running at least two of them, obviously will lose their seats and will no longer be elected officials here in the United States. And what terrifies me are the people we could lose. We could lose Katie Porter and Barbara Lee from the house of representatives. That thought terrifies me. I love them both. They are vital voices in that house of representatives. We need them there. The third person running, of course, is Adam Schiff. And I hate to say it, but I think Schiff is probably the shoe in for this job. I don't want him to be the one to get it. I'd love to have Katie Porter in the Senate. I'd love to have Barbara Lee in the Senate, but I don't want it to come at the expense of the other one having a job as an elected official because

they're both good people. So how do we overcome that? Dianne Feinstein resigns. What happens when she resigns? Well, California is one of 37 states that says if a Senator resigns or you know, uh, is no longer in office during the rest of their term, the governor gets to appoint their replacement until the next election. Gavin Newsom would be able to appoint the replacement. That replacement is the one who would most likely go on to obviously be the nominee for 2024, which could get rid of the need for the primary, which means we wouldn't lose those Democrats from the house. Now I know that's a weird idea because it takes away the primary. It may not. I mean, if they still want a primary, they can still primary. They still have

the option, but it kind of solidifies, you know, listen, here's what we can do. So Gavin Newsom needs to go meet with Dianne Feinstein. They need to have this talk. They need to work this out. Feinstein does need to be a part of the conversation. My God, she has been in office. She deserves to be part of the conversation. She's been there for so long. She is an institution, but she has also done her service and it's time to pass that torch. But that torch has to be passed in a way that doesn't screw over the democratic party in the house of representatives. And right now that is exactly what we're headed towards. Like that's what's going to happen, but we can avoid that if she resigns and Gavin Newsom can appoint that replacement. So Gavin Newsom could say, listen, all right, Katie Porter, you're the Senator now, which would mean obviously Katie Porter wouldn't lose her seat. We could probably avoid a messy

primary at that point and go from there. He could say, Barbara Lee, you're the Senator now. That may make Katie Porter say, okay, look, if she's got it now, clearly she'll win the primary. I'm going to back out. I'm going to keep going on my house seat. It may not work the way that I'm thinking, you know, I could be wrong about this. This is just my idea, my theory, but

I think it's the best and smartest move. Let Feinstein resign on her own terms. Let her have a say in what happens to the seat. I know that's not how politics is supposed to work. The people get the choice, but for the good of the democratic party, we can't lose those voices. For the good of the country, we can't lose both those voices in the house. We simply cannot. And this may avoid that. It may not be the prettiest scenario. It may not be the thing that everybody loves to do, but I think it's the smartest path forward at this point. And finally today, that footage that Tucker Carlson got his hands on 44,000 hours of footage from January 6th, security cameras all over Congress given to him by Kevin McCarthy. A coalition of news organizations are now suing the federal government to get their

hands on that very same footage that has been handed over to Tucker Carlson. Those organizations include Advanced Publications, the Associated Press, CNN, CBS, the EWS Scripts Company, Gannett, the New York Times, Politico, and ProPublica. And basically what they've done is they've sued the federal government. Well, not necessarily sued the federal government. Well, not necessarily sued the federal government. I, that may be the wrong word. They, they filed a motion in federal court saying that we have jumped through all the hoops. We have filled out all the paperwork, the freedom of information act requests, asking the FBI, the DOJ to turn over this same footage,

which is technically already publicly available via Tucker Carlson. So it's not like it's hidden. It's not like it's top secret or classified. We want this information. So the, the news organizations are asking the court to compel the government to turn it over to them. I hope this lawsuit works. I think it needs to work for the good of the country because Tucker Carlson got that footage and did exactly what everybody predicted he was going to do. He showed weird camera angles that just showed people walking down a hallway. And then he was like, see, they're not violent. It's just like tourists on a trip. They're learning.

It's a field trip. And of course he omitted all of the part where they're breaking windows, climbing up walls, smashing vases, stealing stuff, jumping over chairs with a bundle of zip ties on their belt. Yeah. All the really important things. Tucker Carlson said, nah, we don't need to talk about that. He's whitewashing the events of that day to make Republicans look better. These news organizations want that same footage so that they can show what really happened. You can't just show a piece of the puzzle and say, oh yes, clearly that is a basket of puppies. You have to put the whole puzzle together, every single piece of it.

And another thing that I think Tucker Carlson didn't take into consideration is that those people that he's shown just walking around that building, being peaceful, their very presence in that building is what's a crime because even if they were just walking around, they were still trespassing on federal property and interrupting an official government proceeding. So those videos Tucker showed could actually lead to more prosecutions and arrests in the future. Listen, that's all the time we have for today. I've got an exceptionally fun bonus show coming up. Thank you, David. Thank you team for letting me fill in, uh, for these last two days. I am Farron Cousins. You can find

me on YouTube at youtube.com slash the ring of fire, youtube.com slash Farron balanced Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tik TOK at Farron balanced. Thank you so much. Stay tuned for the bonus show.