The David Pakman Show - 4/16/24: Trump sleeping in court, Clarence Thomas missing

Episode Date: April 16, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Congressman Ritchie Torres, a Democrat from New York, joins David to discuss the 2024 election, the state of political discourse in the US, mental health policy, and much more -- The Bidens release their 2023 tax returns, and despite there being no controversy over their content and the Bidens' joint income of $620,000, some are reacting as if it's some kind of smoking gun -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is unexpectedly missing from court without an explanation -- Failed former President Donald Trump reportedly falls asleep during the first day of his first criminal trial -- Donald Trump loses his mind after his first day in criminal court, claiming that the judge will not let him go to his son Barron's graduation, among other lies that he told -- Alina Habba, one of Donald Trump's former lawyers, misstates what due process is during a television appearance, among other confusions and misstatements -- David is notified that he successfully deprogrammed a hardcore MAGA Trumpist, a viewer's father -- David attempts to confront a random MAGA Trumpist on Instagram and it does not go well -- Voicemail caller says that "Republican Joe Biden" is supporting the "genocide of Palestinian children" and that people should vote for Marianne Williamson -- On the Bonus Show: Giuliani loses bid to dismiss $148 million defamation judgment, Missouri motorcycle deaths up dramatically after helmet law repeal, Arkansas Governor lectern audit released, much more... 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get a THC Seltzer for just $5 at https://ounceofhope.com 🖥️ Malwarebytes: Get 50% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://malwarebytes.com/pakman 🛌 Use code HELIXPARTNER20 for 20% off + free bedroom set at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🍷 Naked Wines: Use code PAKMAN to get 6 bottles for $39.99 at https://nakedwines.com/pakman 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Well, my friends, we finally got the bite. We have the smoking gun everybody's been waiting for for 40 years. The Bidens have immediately released their 2023 tax returns just after the tax due date yesterday, and they earned six hundred and twenty thousand dollars in twenty twenty three. Now, most of you are probably saying, what's the smoking gun? How does this connect to criminal bribery and influence peddling and selling access to or influence to China and Ukraine and whoever for tens of millions of dollars? Well, the answer is, of course, that it doesn't. And I want to take this opportunity to kind of go through some of what we would expect and some of what we might not expect when it comes to our elected

officials. Now, I think as a starting point, it's important to remember we continue to see complete and total upfront. Here's what it is, honesty and transparency from the Bidens, which think what you will about their $620,000 2023 combined income is a very different paradigm from what we've seen from the other candidate this time around. Donald Trump, who after promising and hemming and hawing, depending on if and what happens with audits, this, that and the other thing has only to the extent that we've seen tax returns. It's only because they've been released by other parties. So Biden's released tax return show they made almost six hundred and twenty thousand dollars

in twenty twenty three. Yes, this puts them in the one percent. But where do you expect them to be when Joe Biden's presidential salary is $400,000? And the instinct that I think is important to resist here is the instinct to say, see, Biden, Trump, it's all the same. They're just rich guys at the end of the day. This is like the Bernie is a millionaire controversy, which I've talked about before. And maybe I'll address again. Presidents make $400,000. Jill Biden made $85,000 teaching because of their age.

They get pension distributions and social security benefits to the tune of $34,000 in pensions and $54,000 in joint social security benefits. That's it. So on the one hand, we have the epic simplicity of it's April 15th and we're putting out the information. We earn salaries. We have Social Security benefits we're entitled to because we paid into them. It's April 16th and we're all already discussing it. And it's essentially an open and shut story. By the way, 400000 US dollars to be effectively the leader of the free world. Sort of interesting in a way.

And there are those who think it should be an unpaid position. And there are those who believe it should be much better compensated. We're not going to have that debate today. On the other hand, there really is no comparison to Donald Trump's situation, who, although he is not nearly as wealthy as he has claimed to be, four or five six billion dollars, doesn't seem like it. He's probably a billionaire and has extensive real estate holdings, highly leveraged and using financial instruments in order to use. By the way, this is what's what was the core of the New York fraud trial using very shaky and unsubstantiated property values in order to secure loans against those properties. Completely and totally different situation.

But what I step back to and this applies to the Bernie's a millionaire thing. What I step back to is what is the policy that they are advocating? If I look at the worldview and the policy package of a Bernie Sanders and a Joe Biden and a Donald Trump, yes, Trump is way wealthier than them. But putting aside the idea that wealth disqualifies you from having good policy ideas and it doesn't Mark Cuban, as an example, is extremely wealthy. Recently was saying, hey, I'm about to cut a two hundred and eight million dollar two hundred and eighty million dollar check to the IRS for my taxes. I get stuff from the country. I'm proud to cut a 208 million dollar, 280 million dollar check to the IRS for my taxes.

I get stuff from the country. I'm proud to pay it. It's what I owe. You can be a really wealthy guy like Cuban and still appear to have good policy ideas and the concerns of the average American in mind. So yeah, Bernie's in his eighties and he's a millionaire. And if you've been earning six figures for decades and you're 80 and you're not a millionaire, you've done something wrong.

I've done the math before. Bernie's been making six figures for decades. If you just put away 15 percent of your of your income for 40 years and it appreciates at 7 percent annually, which is the stock market average, and you own a property and you've gotten a little bit of an inheritance, which I think Bernie's wife got. You're going to be a millionaire. It would be more shocking. I would question Bernie's financial acumen if he weren't a millionaire at 80 years old,

having made six figures for decades. So the point here is you can be wealthy or not and have ideas that are good for the majority or not. And so six hundred and twenty thousand dollar income for the Bidens, given that four hundred thousand is the presidential salary, not concerning, not evidence that these are all just rich guys unconcerned with the average American. And Biden has done a lot of good things, things that Donald Trump would not have American. And Biden has done a lot of good things, things that Donald Trump would not have done. So we can now close the book. We it's April 16th. We're done with the Biden's income for 2023. And maybe at some point we'll find out something

about Trump's income in 2023. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absent yesterday from the Supreme Court. By itself, maybe it wouldn't be a big story, but nobody knows why. It was a so-called no call, no show. We don't know why he wasn't there. And of course, given the political importance of Clarence Thomas on the court, given the controversy surrounding Thomas recently and given Thomas's age, 75 years old, we just don't know why he was missing. Is it the flu? Is it covid? Is it some kind of serious

health issue or is it something unrelated to health? All raising many, many questions. Justice Thomas missed Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation, says the Hill. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absent from the court. Thomas, 75, was also not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can't be there in person. Chief Justice John Roberts announced Thomas's absence, saying that his colleague would still participate in the day's cases based on briefs and transcripts. The court sometimes, but not always, will say when a justice is out sick. Thomas was hospital hospitalized two years ago with an infection,

causing him to miss several court sessions. He took part in the cases then, too. He is the longest serving of the current justices joining the Supreme Court in 1991. A CNN article. Similarly, very little as far as detail goes. So we just don't really know much about this right now. I don't want to start thinking ahead in this way. But when the Supreme Court nomination process has been politicized to the degree that it has, I think it's important to mention that under normal circumstances, if something were to afflict Clarence Thomas such that he resigned or passed away during these last

seven months of Joe Biden's president of Joe Biden's term. We don't know if it's the end of his presidency. That'll depend on the results in November. We know that if Joe Biden were to nominate a Supreme Court justice right now, if Republicans controlled the Senate, they would be saying we're not even going to hold hearings. Now, Republicans happen not to control the Senate at this point in time. And so more than likely, Democrats would be able to hold hearings for a nomination put forward by Joe Biden in the last seven months of his term. But it is conceivable that Republicans could prevent the confirmation of that nominee. So this is a game Republicans have been playing for a long

time. They did it with Merrick Garland in the last year of Barack Obama's presidency, where they came up with this thing where they say, you know, when it's the when it's the final year of a presidential term or of a presidency, we really need the voters to have a say before we would consider replacing someone on the Supreme Court. It's complete and total B.S.. As you know, presidents are elected for a four year term. It's not you get to do stuff during three years, but during year four, we have to wait for the next president. So we know we don't know what's going on with Clarence Thomas as of yet.

We do know that if it were up to Republicans, if there were to be a vacancy right now with seven months, six and a half months left until the presidential election, Republicans would do everything they can to prevent that choice from being confirmed. It would be particularly influential right now because Joe Biden would, of course, choose to replace Justice Clarence Thomas Thomas, who's a conservative justice with a liberal or left wing justice. And so it would change the balance of the court. It would still be a right leaning court because it is so right leaning at

this point in time. But it would at least push us at least push us one justice closer back into balance from where it has gone, which is extraordinarily extreme. So all this is speculative. We learned of Thomas's absence yesterday. As of this moment, when we're recording today's program, there is no additional information as to why he is missing. Maybe by tomorrow we will know more. Let's take a quick break. We will be discussing Donald Trump's first day of his first of four criminal trials, he fell asleep. He fell asleep in court by numerous reports. Yeah.

Quick break. The new website is live. Check it out at David Pakman dot com. People are saying it's one of the most beautiful websites they've seen. And then the show will continue. So many people in our audience have become fans of our sponsor, Ounce of Hope. Ounce of Hope is a cannabis farm that ships CBD and psychoactive THC products to your door anywhere in the US. This is federally legal. THC, a THC, Delta eight and nine. They have

edibles. And now you can check out the brand new drink from Ounce of Hope for 2024. The very high five milligram THC seltzer. It's the only 16 ounce THC seltzer on the market. It's only five bucks, a price no one can beat at their cannabis farm in Memphis. Ounce of Hope sustainably raises fish to feed local homeless people. I've always thought it's a really cool operation. Besides the delicious seltzer, they have gummies, chocolate, rice, crispy treats, caramels, topicals, oils, soft gels, you name it. Ounce of Hope grows, extracts and formulates all of these world class products in-house

so that you can trust the safety and quality of every product that arrives at your door. So whether you're looking for a little help sleeping at night, something for aches and pains, a way to unwind on the weekend, Ounce of Hope can help you out if you are over 21. And right now you can pick up their very high five milligram THC seltzers for five bucks each at ounce of hope dot com. No one can beat that price. And aside from their drinks, you'll get 20 percent off everything else when you use the code Pacman. That's ounce of hope dot com. Pick up one of their THC seltzers for just five bucks.

Use the code Pacman to get 20 percent off everything else. The info is in the podcast notes. For a long time, when I had a computer problem, I'd go on YouTube and read it and try to figure it out. And it seemed like the advice that is given 95 percent of the time is download malware bytes and that'll clean everything up for you. So I have been using malware bytes in real life for years, long before they became a sponsor, simply because malware bites is way more than just an antivirus. It catches things other antivirus programs miss with malware bites. You have comprehensive real time protection against malware, spyware, other malicious attacks that could

jeopardize your privacy and personal data. It can detect and remove existing malware already on your devices with its best in class free scan, which is something traditional antiviruses lack. And now you can get identity theft protection as part of a bundle to keep your family's personal information safe with live monitoring alerts, recovery assistance and up to a million dollars in identity theft protection. Malwarebytes has a special deal they're doing just for the David Pakman show. You can get any Malwarebytes subscription for 50 percent off. That's half off at Malwarebytes dot com slash Pakman. That's Malwarebytes dot com slash Pakman

to get half off your subscription. The link is in the podcast notes. Well, the reviews are in and folks are loving the new member section of the brand new David Pakman show website still working out a typo here, a little bit of a glitch there, a short circuit, you might call it. But the website is looking really good and it is a great time to sign up if you are looking for the full experience with the David Pakman show and just want to support the work that we're doing. Signing up at join Pakman dot com is a beautiful place to do it. As I've said before, we estimate around zero point five percent of the audience supports us directly. The other ninety nine point five percent is with complete and total peace and love, getting everything we do for free, which is the point of the program.

The point is to distribute the show as widely as possible to as many people as possible. The costs are borne by about half of one percent of our audience. If we can grow our support base from half of one percent to one percent, we are indefinitely financially independent, regardless of what happens with YouTube revenue, regardless of what happens with Facebook revenue, which is down to essentially zero. So I do encourage you to sign up on the website. Join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code. Save democracy 24 to save about I think it's a 40 50 percent discount. So it's pretty appealing and available to anybody. Donald Trump's first day in criminal court included him falling asleep, slack jawed,

his mouth hanging open, reportedly, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. You couldn't write a crazier situation after all of this. Trump falling asleep in court and he says Joe Biden is Sleepy Joe. You call your opponent Sleepy Joe and you fall asleep with your mouth agape in a court of law. New York Times report a weary Trump appears to doze off in courtroom ahead of criminal trial. The former president flashed signs of irritation at times, but also seemed to fall asleep before jolting back awake. An incredible little detail is that apparently one of Trump's lawyers was passing him a bunch

of notes and Trump was Trump was sleeping and eventually Trump startled awake to a whole bunch of notes in front of him from his lawyer. Here is Maggie Haberman appearing just before 1 p.m. in the east yesterday to tell Jake Tapper he seemed to be sleeping. Trump appears to be sleeping. His head keeps dropping down and his mouth goes slack. Tell us about that. Well, Jake, he appeared to be asleep and repeatedly his his head would would fall down. There have been other moments in other trials like the E.roll trial which was around the corner uh in january where he appeared very still and seemed as if he might be sleeping but then he would move this time

he didn't pay attention to a note that his lawyer todd glanz passed him his jaw kept falling on his chest and his mouth kept going slack now Now, you know, sometimes people do fall asleep during court proceedings, but it's notable given the intensity of this morning. Yeah. You know, one of the things that this reminded me of is there are one of the things that is sometimes included as a story element in, you know, these authors like Lee Child and Harlan Coben type writers, they write the page turners you often find in an airport and read in their entirety on a cross-country flight is to add intrigue after some crime has been committed. I think there's a Lee Child story I read, which is like this. The police show up at the believed perpetrators home

and the guy is just dead asleep in bed. And it's so incongruous that someone who just supposedly committed some mass murder or terrible crime, the intensity adrenaline would be running high. You'd be hopped up that you would be so asleep. And it's sort of a similar situation of what they're describing here with Trump. Trump is fighting for his what we might call his life of freedom here, where if he were to be sentenced to prison, it could be effectively a life sentence and he's falling asleep. So, of course, the questions go to is this guy a complete and total sociopath? Is this guy so confident in his innocence and his lawyers that he's just not worried? Or is it a medical issue that is causing him to fall asleep in this way?

Here is Maggie Haberman later last night, interviewed by Caitlin Collins on CNN and indicated that Trump was glaring at her, presumably because he was furious that he reported that he was sleeping, was reading along to see what they were talking about. And there's a pool in there. So there's someone sending basically dispatches to us as we're sitting outside. And that's what that's what I was part of was the pool. And you were so you were actually in the room for that. At one point, the pool said that he was glaring at you for several seconds.

You had reported shortly before that during a break that he appeared to be falling asleep at one point as the proceedings were getting kind of tedious. Did you notice that? I mean, yes, I noticed it. He made a pretty specific stare at me and walked out of the room. I've been on the receiving end of said glare. I know you have. I have too. I reported earlier that he had appeared to fall asleep and we had seen him. And I want to be clear that lots of I've seen lots of people fall asleep in courtrooms. I've seen jurors fall asleep. I've seen judges fall asleep. If if anyone falls asleep as a criminal defendant in a case, we're going to report on it. But he doesn't like when such things are reported. And I'm I'm guessing

I don't know that that's what this was about. So anyway, Trump falling asleep in court, he did wake up and deliver some statements when he exited. Let's talk about that next. Donald Trump delivered an absolute mess of a statement when he walked out of his first day of his first of four criminal trials yesterday. And you may or may not be shocked to hear that they were riddled with lies. This is as triggered as we have seen this man, Donald Trump, Trump, complaining that

the judge told him he won't be allowed to attend his son Barron's high school graduation. But that is not at all what the judge said. Let's first start with Trump's angry tirade and then I'll tell you the truth about what the judge said. Thank you very much. We had some amazing things happen today. As you know, my son is graduating from high school and it looks like the judge will not let me go through the graduation of my son who's worked very, very hard.

He's a great student. I'm so proud of the fact that he did so well. And I was looking forward for years to have this graduation with his mother and father there. And it looks like the judges are going to allow me to escape this scam. It's a scam trial. If you read all of the legal pundits,

all of the legal scholars today, there's not one that I see that said this is a case that should be brought or tried. It's a scam. All right. So the judge did not rule on that. The judge did not tell Trump he's not going to be allowed to go. It is true that Baron Trump is set to graduate from high school, but it's in the second half of May. What the judge said yesterday is he's not going to rule on that right now. It was only April 15th. It's more than a month away. They don't know what will

be going on in the trial at the end, in the second half of May. And it is simply untrue. The judge simply said, we're not going to rule on that at this point in time. What did happen, however, is that the judge said he's not going to let Trump skip this trial to go to the Supreme Court next week for an argument about presidential immunity. Now, we're going to come back to that because Trump's failed former lawyer, Alina Haba, claims that Trump not being allowed to miss this trial to go to the Supreme Court is Trump being denied due process. It's not. That's not how due process works. And we'll talk about that in a little bit. But Trump lying, the judge did not say that. Now, by the way, this entire thing of how Trump is just so excited to go to Barron's graduation. I just want to remind you, Trump does not seem

very into Barron Trump. He just doesn't seem very into him. And when he was asked during an interview about his relationship with Trump, Trump mentions that he's tall and does a good job. Good tall guy to tall. How tall is he now? I'd say six, eight. Oh, my God. So he's up there, right? Yeah. And he's a great he's a great young man and he's a very good student. And I think he's doing a good job, Baron. He's think he's doing a very good job. I don't know what his job is, but Barron's doing a very good job. So anyway, whenever Trump talks about Barron, it's always a little difficult to believe that it's this important. But for now, going to his graduation is the key thing.

Trump is just generally furious that he even has to be at this trial. And he talked about that as well with regard to not being allowed to go to the Supreme Court next. And we're not going to be given a fair trial. It's a very, very sad thing. In addition, as you know, next Thursday, we're before the United States Supreme Court in our big hearing on immunity. And this is something that we've been waiting for a long time. And the judge, of course, is not going to allow us. He's a very conflicted judge and he's not going to allow us to

go to that. He won't allow me to leave here for a half a day, go to D.C. and go before the United States Supreme Court because he thinks he's superior, I guess, than the Supreme Court. We got a real problem with this judge, a real problem with. Speaker 1 So you get it. It is funny that Trump's criminal trials are conflicting with other motions and hearings also related to Trump's other criminal trial. It is wild. It is a wild and unprecedented situation. But we're going to get back to the idea of Trump not being allowed to go to the Supreme Court in a moment. So Trump, not a great first day in court, falling asleep, complaining about everything. He's the ultimate victim. He will be in court again today. We'll discuss what happens. Let's now slowly get

into this issue of due process. Trump's failed former lawyer Alina Haba was interviewed yesterday on Fox News. She repeated the lie that Trump isn't being allowed to go to his son's graduation. The truth is, the judge did not rule on that. The judge said that would be something to rule on in May, closer to the graduation date at the point at which they know more about the process and the sequence of the trial and where we are in the trial in May. But Trump and his former lawyer, Alina Haba, are repeating that Trump just isn't being allowed to go to the graduation. Trump and his former lawyer, Alina Haba, are repeating that Trump just isn't being allowed

to go to the graduation. He also she also is saying that Trump's Jewish lawyers aren't being allowed to observe Passover. That's also not true. But the theme is we are the victims. Everybody's being victimized. Even just being Trump's lawyer gets you victimized and you're not allowed to express your religion. Not even allowing a father, never mind a former president, but a father attend his son's graduation. And let's not forget Passover.

OK, observant Jews have a right to go and and and pray to who they want and observe Passover. And this judge would not allow it, not for any of the attorneys. By the way, how wild is it to slide in subtly that the judge may be an anti-Semitic limiter of freedom of religion? I mean, it's just wild. There are observant Jewish attorneys on the Trump team and as well on the D.A. team. It's just a sad state of affairs for the American people. All right. So, again, number one, the judge has not yet ruled on Trump going to Barron's graduation. He will eventually rule on it. In addition to that, the judge said that there would be days off for Passover. So even the argument that is being made about all of these things is based on lies. I don't know

that other defendants would be coddled in this way. They are getting every Wednesday off from the trial. Trump's getting a lot of goodies here. But now we get to the critical aspect of this. Alina Haba, who I guess is technically a lawyer, like I mean, she was representing Trump at one point. I believe she has a law degree. It hasn't been determined that she fraudulently claimed to have a law degree. She says that Trump is being denied due process by not being allowed to miss this trial to go to the Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity next week. Here's what she had to say.

Not even allowing a person due process the right to go sit in front of the Supreme Court and hear a case that determines many lawsuits that are currently against President Trump on immunity, on grounds for immunity. Let's not forget something here, Sean. President Trump was in Washington when this case was going on, when this is happening, when somebody made a notation in an accounting record at Trump Organization. All right. So they're playing her out with music.

But she says this is Trump being denied due process because he can't skip his criminal trial to go hear arguments about presidential immunity in D.C. Due process guarantees the rights of defendants in criminal trials, including the right to be present at one's trial, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, a speedy trial within reason if that's what they want. If a defendant wants to go to a Supreme Court hearing on a matter that might impact their case, but they are not a defendant in that situation, it is just not about due process. It can be judicial discretion. Trump can present an argument for why he should be allowed to go

to the hearing at the Supreme Court. No problem. But Trump not being allowed to be gone from this criminal trial where he is a criminal defendant to go to a Supreme Court argument about immunity, which has an impact on a trial that may take place. I'm not denying the connection, but it is simply not a matter of due process. And so this is why there are people wondering, you know, mistake after mistake in court then is replaced now is making specious, really non-legal arguments on TV. Is Alina Haba a competent attorney? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to answer it, although certainly there's a lot of question about it.

Let me know what you think. We're going to take a quick break. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube at YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman show as we press forward to two point five million YouTube subscribers. We'll be right back. I love my Helix sleep mattress. I've been sleeping on Helix mattresses for years now, which is why I asked them to be a sponsor. You actually take their famous sleep quiz takes just a few minutes to answer questions about your sleep preferences, body type, sleep position, whether you have back pain and Helix will match you with a mattress that's perfect for you, which is really unique and helpful because a lot of people don't

know where to start when buying a mattress. I certainly didn't. Their newest collection of mattresses called Helix Elite come with a built in Glaciotex layer to keep you cool at night, an extra layer of foam for pressure relief and thousands of extra micro coils for best in class the David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. as much as you can. As many of you have heard me say before, when I go to a wine shop, I have no idea what I'm doing. And I'm Argentinian and I still know almost nothing about wine. So if you're like me, you might be able to use some help. Our sponsor, Naked Wines, has you covered. Naked Wines is a subscription service that will connect you to the finest independent winemakers on the planet. You pay a fraction of the price you'd normally pay in stores because they cut out the retail to the bottle. You have friends over. You can seem like you know something by telling them something

about the wine. My girlfriend likes white wine. I'm more of a red guy by necessity just because I'm Argentinian, even though I know absolutely nothing. So we get like a split box that has a few bottles of each. Every bottle is a passion project from some independent winemakers. So you're literally making an independent winemakers dream come true. You'll get your first six bottles for thirty nine ninety nine. Go to naked wines dot com slash Pacman and click enter voucher at the top and type in Pacman as the code and as the password. That's naked wines dot com slash Pacman.

Enter Pacman as the code and password. The info is in the podcast notes. It is great to welcome to the program today, Congressman Richie Torres, who has represented New York's 15th congressional district in the Bronx since 2021. He's on the House Financial Services Committee, also the Select Committee on Strategic competition between the U S and China. It's so great to have you on. I really appreciate the opportunity to chat a little bit. So maybe to start with, I'm interested in your perspective right now on the progressive movement. And the reason I want to talk to you about this is I see you really, when people ask

me, who do you see right now as the sort of progressive that you like to be at the head of this movement going forward? I think of you and there's a bunch of different reasons why. And unfortunately, there is right now a bit of a division, as I see it on the left, on a number of issues that includes foreign policy. Certainly the Israeli Gaza situation has brought this into the forefront for a lot of people, even on things like tax policy and whether we should be pursuing something in the style of Northern Europe as opposed to further left ideas is a subject of contention.

So I'm curious as someone who I consider to be part of this movement, I believe you consider yourself part part of this movement. But there are some rifts. What direction do you want to see the left of the Democratic Party take over the next five to 10 years? You know, before speaking about the divide within the progressive movement, you know, it's worth reflecting on the success of the movement you know the Democratic Party is more progressive today than it's ever been uh all but

one congressional Democrat is pro-choice every congressional Democrat has been a sponsor of the Equality Act which would codify LGBTQ equality in federal law. And the fact that, you know, historically centrist political figure like Joe Biden has had the most progressive presidency in recent history is a testament to the success and to the strength of the progressive movement. And the legislation speaks for itself, whether it's the Inflation Reduction Act, we came extraordinarily close to passing the Build Back Better Act, only to be obstructed not only by the Republicans, but by the likes of Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

So the fact that the Democratic Party is fundamentally progressive is a triumph of the progressive movement. Having said all that, I do worry about the radicalization of progressivism. And there is a real danger of the progressive movement representing the views of, to be blunt, a largely white college-educated elite, rather than the views and sensibilities of everyday people of color who make up the heart of the Democratic Party. And so one example is defunding the police. I'm in favor of police reform. There's a real need

to bring greater transparency and accountability to policing. There's a real need to either abolish or maybe even reform qualified immunity. Those are historically progressive positions. Yes. But there's an organization in New York City, the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, that advocates or has advocated for defunding the NYPD, the New York City Police Department, by 50 percent. Right. You know, as far as I'm concerned, taking a machete to government agencies and defunding them is something Republicans do. But if you ask everyday

people of color, do you want policing to be defunded by 50%, the answer would be overwhelmingly no. And so why are we advancing an agenda that is fundamentally unreflected and unrepresentative of working class people of color in places like the South Bronx? And that's my greatest critique of what the progressive movement is increasingly becoming. You know, it's so interesting. You mentioned that when this idea of let's go to the stakeholders and see what they believe and what they want. You know, a very different but related in a way. I'm from Argentina.

I consider myself Hispanic by the US census. I'm Hispanic. I'm also Jewish, by the way, which I consider to be an extreme minority, which unfortunately there are some who say, no, no, no, no, that's not a minority group. But to focus on the Hispanic part for a second, this Latin X thing, which it doesn't ring true to me in any way, it doesn't represent or in any way bolster the richness of my background or for Hispanic Americans. I don't know any actual Latino or Hispanic folks for whom that resonates.

And it feels like one of these things you're alluded to that's imposed by a sliver of what currently claims to be the left. Well, I have no issue with the term per se, right? Like if you if you're a person of trans experience and want me to refer to you as Latinx, I will respect that because that's just basic common courtesy. Here's the issue I have. Pew Research revealed that many Latinos have not even heard of the term and many of them are offended. And if we know that the majority of the Latino community either identifies as Latino or Hispanic, then why has Latinx become the default term in corporate America and in politics? So that's the issue I have. It's not the term itself, but we are imposing a label on a community that never uses the

term. And again, I think it's an example of speaking for communities of color without actually speaking to them. And that, to me, is the Achilles heel of the progressive movement. Now, I don't want to just be negative because we've been talking about some things that we disagree with. I also find personally in my experience that while some of these slices of the progressive movement are loud, I don't think they're anywhere close to a majority or a plurality. I think that in certain spaces they are getting a lot of attention. But as you said at the beginning

of the interview, I actually think the left is mostly united around 99% of this stuff with disagreements around the fringes, recognizing the importance of denying, for example, Donald Trump four more years as president, recognizing the disaster that Trump 2016 has been on Roe v. Wade and connecting the dots all the way to last year. I am mostly positive in the united nature of the progressive movement. Are you in agreement with that? I have a more nuanced view, So I agree that I actually agree that the left is united. And we wereing Democratic events. They're not targeting Donald Trump. They're targeting Joe Biden, knowing that it could work to the advantage of Donald Trump. And look, my view is if you and I agree on only 1% of the issues,

we should collaborate 1% of the time. Obviously, if we agree on 99% of the issues, we should collaborate 99% of the time. But it's no longer that simple. I worry that politics has become religiosity without religion you know there are people who think if you disagree with me that you're not merely wrong but you're evil and you should in other words there's a dogma and these sort of litmus tests there's a dogmatism yeah so. So and so dogmatism, even on one percent of the issues

could actually prevent us from collaborating on ninety nine percent of the remaining issues. That's the concern that I have. That really gets to my main concern with the attacks on Biden over Israel, Gaza, which is that we risk. Either I mean, depending on whether you believe Robert F. Kennedy does or doesn't have a chance, I don't think he does, but even if we grant that, maybe he does. Both Kennedy and Trump, by the standards being imposed on Biden by these folks, would be worse. And it seems to me like a classic missing the forest for the trees or throwing the baby out with the bath water. Speaker 2 missing the forest for the trees or throwing the baby out with the bathwater i feel like there's a need for pragmatism and you know we're playing russian roulette like oh look i i'm optimistic

about the house but it's more competitive than people think yeah there's a much greater risk of complete republican control of the federal government than people realize and we have to stop playing russian roulette we have to coalesalesce around Biden and do everything we can to defeat Trump, to hold on to the Senate and to win the House, which could be our last hope for preventing complete Republican control of the federal government. Congressman, can you give us a sense of the conversation that's happening in the House right now? Because as you say, the next Congress is not guaranteed to be a Democratic in the House. We just don't know that right now. We saw a wing of the Republican Party kick out Kevin McCarthy. We now see some of your colleagues on the Republican side increasingly upset with MAGA Mike Johnson,

although he went down to Mar-a-Lago and there's sort of this show being made about everybody super united. But it's not obvious to me that they are to the extent that you can tell us about some of the conversations that are happening. Is it possible that they're going to get rid of the current speaker of the House as well? It's certainly possible. I mean, I mean, the House Republicans, they key to their own speaker for the first time in American history. You know, if the House Republican conference were a country, it would be a failed state. You have all the elements of a failed state. You have dysfunction and competence and extremism.

You have a coup d'etat. You have a civil war. I mean, I've seen a level of dysfunction that I never thought I could imagine. I mean, in my in my, you know, in my first term, you know, if someone had said to me, Richie, you're going to went from the longest speaker vote in more than 150 years to a near default on the nation's debt to a near shutdown of the government. And it's just been nothing to the first ever vacate of a speaker. It's been nothing but dysfunction. So, you know, Mike Johnson feels he's in danger of losing his speakership, especially if he brings the national security supplemental to the floor. You've spoken about your struggles with mental health over the years, and this is an important issue to me, not just because so much of my family works in mental health, but because it is an area that has a stigma attached to it. It's an area that I don't believe is properly dealt with by

the insurance plans, health insurance plans that most people have in different ways and for different reasons. And also because to the extent that some in the Republican Party pay lip service to the idea of this as an issue, whether it's as it conveniently relates to firearms or in other ways, there doesn't seem to be a big enthusiasm from your Republican colleagues to really do what needs to be done in terms of funding and destigmatizing what's going on with with mental health. So can you talk a little bit about it can be broader, it can be narrow, the sorts of things you'd like to see done on the issue of mental health. Why is it that Republicans only seem to bring up mental health in an attempt to distract away from the epidemic of gun violence. For me,

mental health is core to who I am. You know, more than 15 years ago, I actually was at the lowest point in my life. I had dropped out of college, found myself struggling with depression, abusing substances. I even attempted suicide and underwent hospitalization because I felt as if the world around me had collapsed. And seven years later, you know, I rebuilt my life and became the youngest elected official in New York City, in America's largest city. And today I'm a United States congressman. And I often tell people, you know, I would not be in Congress. I would not be alive were it not for the power of mental health care and the impact it had in saving my life. And so I'm a huge proponent of expanding access to mental health care.

You know, in the Bronx, I secured about $8 million to expand the largest network of school-based health centers in the United States. Because I had asked, you know, when I was in high school beginning to struggle with depression, I had no vocabulary for what I was experiencing. I thought I was experiencing a failure of willpower. Right. I thought the problem was me. And, you know, I went to a chronically under- access to a school based mental health center to

on site psychologists and psychiatrists, then maybe all the crises that followed would have been prevented. There's the kind of resource and funding and access side. I'm also curious your thoughts on the cultural side to this, because there's a lot of cultural stuff wrapped up in the idea of mental health struggles being indicative of a sort of constitutional weakness that a broken arm maybe does not have attached to it in some jobs or professions. Seeking out that type of care comes with the question of can you really handle this job in a way that a sprained ankle or diabetes doesn't? So what do

you think needs to happen culturally? Look, I have set out to change the culture surrounding mental health in America. You know, I tell my story in the hopes of breaking the silence and shame and stigma that often surrounds the subject of mental health. And I tell people that mental illness like depression is not a failure of character or willpower. It is a disease that has to be managed with treatment, with care, with a combination of medication management and psychotherapy. Blaming someone for depression is like blaming someone for the inability to generate insulin. And so I do feel like there's growing awareness that is breaking the stigma of mental health.

Yes. A few months ago, I was one of four members of Congress who participated in an interview at ABC. We were all sharing our struggles with mental health. And I said, you know, the fact that all of us are speaking so openly is a sign of how far we've come. But the fact that it's only four members of Congress out of 535, it shows that we have a distance to travel before achieving a society that truly embraces mental health. And it's more important than ever, because I feel that the isolation of COVID-19 and social media have been complete catastrophes for the mental health of the next generation.

Yeah. And statistically, there's more than just three of your colleagues that are have struggled with this stuff. I mean, it just no question about it. We've been speaking with Democratic Congressman Richie Torres representing New York's 15th congressional district. Congressman, I really appreciate your time today and keep up the great work. Absolutely. Take care. It's important to me that any supplement I take is of the highest quality and freshness,

and that's why I've been turning to AG one for years. Unlike other vitamin brands, AG one conducts relentless testing for purity and potency. It's tested for nine hundred and fifty contaminants and banned substances, while the industry standard is usually to test for only 10. AG1 is NSF certified for sport, one of the most rigorous independent quality and safety certifications out there. And the whole reason I drink AG1 is it just is simple. It simplifies everything. It's a scoop a day. I get my vitamins and my minerals and that's all I need. And the probiotics in AG one are something I'm particularly glad is there. So AG one just replaces the vitamin bottles, the digestive aids, all of the things that you might otherwise be taking individually. It's quicker. It's more cost effective than buying everything individually.

You can go to drink a G1 dot com slash Pacman to get a free year supply of vitamin D and K plus five free age one travel packs. That's drink a G the number one dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. All right. Let's look now at the successful deprogramming of a MAGA Trump is through the show. And then my completely failed attempt to actually have a substantive discussion with a MAGA guy on Instagram. Two very different outcomes here. Outcomes here. Let's start with an email I received from George. George wrote to me and said, David, my father is about the most hardcore conservative Republican you can imagine.

He has said over the years he would sooner die than vote for a Democrat. I sent him your video about Sarah Matthews saying she will vote for Biden. That's the former Trump aide, Matthews. My father just called me. He watched the video and he said he's going to vote for Biden. That's the former Trump aide, Matthews. My father just called me. He watched the video and he said he's going to vote for Biden. I am beyond shocked. I have tried for years to convince him how dangerous Trump is, but with no success. He has said previously Trump lost him after January 6th, but no explanation as to whether that made any material difference in how he would vote. But now he's saying he will vote for Biden. He's in Arizona, no less.

I am over the moon on this. On this, he did say, I'm prohibited from telling my mom, thanks for all you do. It's having an impact, says George. Listen, I think that this is fantastic and we got a vote in Arizona that we did not previously have Arizona, a critical state for this election. At the same time, sending people my videos and hoping some small portion of them end up changing their mind and not voting for Trump. It's not a good strategy for winning elections.

And so this is the perfect prototypical example of what I've been saying for a long time, which is at a retail level, if there are individual loved ones you are in touch with, if there is a rift in a relationship with a parent or a child or a cousin or a coworker, engage in whatever sort of retail one on one politics may be useful to you or makes you feel like you're attempting to influence change. And this is a great example. Hey, Dad, listen, here's a video. Even Trump Trump staffers are saying we've got to vote for Biden.

We don't have a choice. And it happened to work at the mass level. It is not a great strategy for winning elections. And what this election is going to come down to fundamentally is do enough sensible and sane people go out and decide to vote? And if they do, then Joe Biden is in all likelihood going to be reelected if they don't. And if somehow the enthusiasm ends up not behind the president who's had a successful four years, but rather the guy

sitting in court going from criminal court to criminal court. Somehow the energy could end up behind that guy and we end up with four more years of Trump in the Oval Office, which would be a very scary proposition. So what we really need to do is, again, I'm not saying ignore the states that will be very one sided, but there is not going to be a big return on investment from focusing in on California. Biden's going to easily win California. There's not going to be a big return in focusing in on Texas, although there is a movement to turn Texas blue, make Texas purple, et cetera. I don't think there's any way Biden wins Texas in 2024. The victory is going to come from ensuring that these razor thin margins, 10, 12, 15,

50,000 votes, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin. Maybe there's a scenario in which New Hampshire could be a difference maker. It's not the most common scenario. Finding the folks who realize Trump's nuts, but just don't really care that much about voting, convincing them you've got to come out. We just need to prevent him from getting these four more years in the Oval Office disconnected from that first term. He'll come back as a dictator. He said it. We've got to prevent it. Motivating them to vote is going to be the way to

do it. So great stuff, George. We got one in Arizona. Let's now talk about another conversation with a MAGA that did not go particularly well. All right. So listen to this. Last week when I was in Vegas or was it the week before? I guess it's been I guess it's been two weeks now. Yes, it's been two weeks. Two Yes, it's been two weeks. Two weeks ago when I was in Vegas, I appeared on the iced coffee hour, the iced coffee hour with Graham and Jack. It was great to do it. Super interesting. My perspective was they sort of seemed kind of like center right pro business Republicans. But that's me giving my opinion. And they started clipping my appearance.

If you haven't seen the entire thing, check out the iced coffee hour on YouTube. They clipped my appearance and they put up on their Instagram a clip called What is a MAGA Republican? They asked me, David, sir, what is a MAGA Republican? And I described it. I paid close attention to these posts on their Instagram because I was interested in seeing what the reaction would be. It turns out their audience is pretty right wing. And there were many, many, many MAGA Potamians in their comment section. And I decided to engage with a couple of people. And unfortunately, as soon as the rubber met the

road and I started asking for specifics, they disappeared. So let's take a look at this exchange. Tell me if this is interesting. I don't know. And again, this is all public, so I'm not publishing. I'm not doxing anyone. Everything that you're seeing here is public. It's all public. OK, so a user who goes by the credit Shifu responded and said many people like myself also vote for Trump just because the policies are good. Smiley face. His tax policies were great, really helped my grow my business. Also, since I am a legal immigrant to the US, I like Trump's focus on legal immigration and keeping the border secure. None of that is really extreme. It's just common sense stuff.

It's important to separate policies from personality. So I decided to jump in and I said, which of his tax policies helped you grow your business? Now, I'll admit I didn't expect any reply, but I got one. OK, I said, which tax policy specifically? And the credit chief who came back to me and said the 20 percent pass through business deduction from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered our taxes. And we use that money to put towards hiring our first full time employee, which then helped us grow the business even more. Now, this got my BS radar up a little bit because salaries are always tax deductible.

So why would you wait for a reduction to your personal income tax to hire an employee whose salary would be tax deductible anyway, didn't make a lot of sense. But let's take it one step at a time. I responded first. You lost salt deductions in exchange for QBID. QBID is the qualified business income deduction that he's referring to. But second, you hired an employee based on a tax cut rather than business demand. Now, I'm going to have to explain a little bit here. One of the things that Trump's tax plan did is it capped state and local tax deductions at ten thousand dollars a year. And then it also created this new deduction called Qubit, the qualified business income

deduction. So for some people, it was six of one half dozen of the other wasn't really a big gain without knowing how much this guy's business makes and lots of other things. I don't know whether he's lying, but his response was New York state income tax ranges from four to ten point nine percent. Yet the qualified business deduction is 20 percent. So that's obviously better. Standard deduction was also increased from 16 to 24000 for couples and the tax rates were lowered. By the way, they weren't actually they weren't necessarily lowered. A lot of this stuff is like we'd need to know this guy's tax

situation. At that time, I didn't own property, so I had no property taxes. Right now, property taxes are eight thousand. So about the amount standard deduction was increased by for a married couple. Property taxes on my rental property are still deductible. From what I can see, it mostly affects rich people who own a big primary residence. But then shouldn't they pay their fair share anyway? So unfortunately, a lot of the math here doesn't check out. And I tried to explain it to this guy. And by the way, if this conversation had continued, this would have been really useful. But the guy bailed. So I responded. You're not understanding the math. The qualified business income deduction is a deduction of 20 percent of the portion of business income that qualifies

saving you 20 percent of your tax rate, not a flat 20 percent. And I apologize that it's getting technical, but like the devil really is in the details here. But here's the most important takeaway. And I pointed out, regardless, employee salaries are already tax deductible business expenses. It makes no logical sense to hire someone because of a cut to your pass through tax rate when salaries and benefits were deductible all along. If you had the demand for an additional employee, a full deduction of their salary was available to you all along. Sad that people don't get this.

Never heard back from the guy. He just bailed. Now, this is a really common thing that these right wingers don't seem to understand. They insist when a business gets a tax cut, they hire more people. I'm a business owner. OK, doesn't make any sense. If I get a tax cut, why would I go and hire more people unless I have the demand for it? And as a counterpoint, if I have the demand for an additional employee, the biggest tax cut I get is by hiring them.

No matter what the tax rates are. I'll give you an example. Imagine a business that brings in five hundred thousand dollars a year and I have demand for an additional hundred thousand dollars worth of product. But I just don't have the employees to manufacture that product. If I go and hire an employee for 50 grand so that they can produce the additional products that I have demand for their $50,000 salary is immediately tax deductible. I immediately can deduct their full salary from my, uh, profit from my net income and I don't pay tax on that.

Why do I need to wait for Trump to create a qualified business income deduction to lower my pass through income to then go and hire an employee I may not even need. I hire based on demand. As an example, imagine that someone came to me and said, David, we want to hire you to produce an additional hour of content a week just for us right now. I wouldn't have the staffing for that. So if they came to me and said, we are we are demanding another hour of content and we will pay you, I would immediately go and hire an additional producer editor to handle that project. Their salary is tax deductible. That's why I would hire them rather than getting a tax cut and saying, I don't know, let me hire someone to do some work that I didn't already need them to do.

So anyway, the point is, this is a common trope with these right wingers. We're going to hire people if we get a personal tax cut. Why? Sounds really dumb. You should be hiring people when you have the demand and the revenue to support it. Anyway, the guy bailed. So tell me if that's interesting to see. I wish the conversation would have continued.

We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Here is a caller who, because of genocide, you should not vote for Republican Joe Biden. You should vote for Marianne Williamson. Please make sure David Patman gets his message. I'm a Democrat. He keeps endorsing Republican Joe Biden.

Republican Joe Biden is supporting the genocide of Palestinian children. He needs to be endorsing Democrat Marianne Williamson because literally Republican Joe Biden is supporting the genocide of Palestinian children. OK, so first of all, I have never, ever, ever heard Joe Biden say or imply that he endorses or supports the, quote, murder of Palestinian children. Not a once. Secondly, the other people who have a shot at winning this thing are really just Trump. And if you believe RFK Junior's math, RFK Junior, both RFK and

Trump both would have policies on Israel and Gaza that this caller would despise even more than Biden's. And Marianne Williamson quite literally cannot win. By the way, I don't even know if she's running. I know she canceled her campaign and then restarted it, but I don't know if it's suspended again. So that's a perspective. I present it to you, evaluate it. Let me know what you think. But I have decided to vote for Joe Biden because any other choice, staying home or voting for someone else makes it more likely that Trump becomes president. And I don't want that.

I couldn't live with myself if I acted in a way that helps Trump. We've got a great bonus show for you today. On today's bonus show, we are going to talk about Rudy Giuliani losing his bid to dismiss that hundred and forty eight million dollar defamation judgment against all the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Correct. Missouri saw motorcycle deaths rise after repealing their helmet law. Turns out those laws did work. And we will finally get the results of the audit of the nineteen thousand dollar lectern for Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Yes, the story is still going and it seems as though we are getting to the end of it. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join pacman dot com.