The David Pakman Show - 5/22/24: They're coming for birth control next, another Trump lawyer arrested

Episode Date: May 22, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Our deep dive into a missing piece of political strategy for the Biden campaign: Appealing to anti-Trump moderate Republicans -- One million military veterans have had claims granted over toxic exposure thanks to a President Biden law -- Christina Bobb, one of Donald Trump's former lawyers, has been arrested, mugshotted, and slaps a reporter's camera at the courthouse -- Judge cuts off Rudy Giuliani during his arraignment for his alleged role in the Arizona fake electors scheme -- Failed former President Donald Trump admits he's "looking at" whether to restrict access to birth control during an unhinged interview -- A mush-mouthed Trump speaks on his way into court for his first of four criminal trials, making no sense and struggling for speech -- On his way out of court, Donald Trump goes fully and openly racist against Colombian-born Judge Juan Merchan -- Patrick Bet-David says that David Pakman should be a moderator for a "digital" Presidential debate -- Voicemail caller suggests the real screening at the Trump/Biden debate should be not for drugs, but for electronic earpieces -- On the Bonus Show: Trump's wild promises to oil CEO's, Target to lower prices on 5,000 basic goods, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett moves to trademark "bleach blonde bad built butch body," much more... 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep: Get up to 30% OFF + 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: https://davidpakman.com/membership/ -- Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow

Speaker 1 Hey, everybody, welcome. One of the things I try to do on the program is to keep you up to speed as to the things that our elected officials are doing. And with the Biden administration, it's quite a lengthy list of things that have been done over the last three plus years. And we have something else to add that is not only a really great thing on its merits, not only are the facts of it very good and important, going to help a lot of veterans, but it's also a contrast to what the alternative candidate has been doing, which is going from courtroom to rally to courtroom to Mar-a-Lago complaining and saying he's the most unfairly treated person in the world. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden is getting things done. Over 100 million claims. I'm sorry, 100 million over

over one million. Listen, compared to 100 million now, it doesn't sound so good. But one million veterans claims related to toxic toxic exposure in part of their duties for the military have been granted under a Biden era law. This is a really big deal. And it's also a near and dear issue to President Joe Biden. President Biden has said he believes that his late son, Beau Biden's brain cancer, which ultimately took his life, may have been linked to these toxic exposures to burn pits during his military service. So this is another great thing that took place. The Associated Press reports that President Biden in raw numbers has now announced more than one million claims have been granted to veterans since Biden signed

the PACT Act in August of 2022. That is about eight hundred and eighty eight thousand veterans and survivors in 50 states who have already started to receive disability benefits under this law. Close to six billion dollars in benefits to veterans and survivors. So that's where we get over one million. It's eight hundred and eighty thousand veterans. But in some cases, the veterans have passed away. And in those cases, the benefits go to the survivors. And this is a really, really great thing. It includes the exposure of veterans to burn pits. This is one of the most significant expansions of benefits and services to toxic exposed veterans in over 30 years. And it's expected that this is going to impact more

than five million veterans overall and allow them to get services and benefits and to get them in a more timely manner. This also extends the period for post 9-11 combat veterans to enroll in VA health care from five years post being discharged to 10 years. That's another great thing. It's another way we're going to be able to take care of and provide benefits and services to veterans. And it also includes a one year open enrollment period for veterans who miss that window. If you're 11 years out, even though they've expanded it from five to 10 years. If you're 11 years out, even though they've expanded it from five to 10 years, if you're 11 years out, you've already missed that window. It opens a one year window during which you can apply and enroll anyway. So there are 23 specific conditions

involved here. This includes a variety of cancers, a variety of respiratory illnesses. You no longer need to prove that the illness is service connected to receive benefits that can be medically tough to do. And the point here is, even though we may understand that in all likelihood, some of these conditions are service related by the definitions, it can be hard to demonstrate it. The law says you no longer need to do that. So here is President Joe Biden talking about this. And then I want to say a little more about it. Since then, we've launched the biggest outreach campaign in VA history to make sure veterans

in every every state, territory and area know what the law does first. It expands eligibility for VA health care. Today, toxically exposed veterans serve during any conflict, not just the war in Iraq and Afghanistan can enroll. Over 145,000 veterans are now getting care as a result of that one change. The law also provides regular toxic exposure screenings to catch problems early when they can be dealt with. It expands access to disability benefits, including monthly payments for folks who have fallen sick. We've made those benefits effective immediately. Not wait, immediately.

The law is... Look, the bottom line is people not being sure we'd get it done without a lot of complication. The law invests in new facilities, new research, more health care workers at VA hospitals. All right. So you get the point here. Now, if you really support the troops, which Republicans claim to do, what about fulfilling our commitment to the troops? And this is yet another way. I mean, this this is long overdue. First of all,

there is a promise made to veterans who choose to join a volunteer army. Now, I am not a war hawk who loves sending the military all over the world to do all sorts of different things that that's my view is we should be extraordinarily judicious with saying, hey, we're going to send you into harm's way. We're going to expand our military footprint. I I'm against that in so many cases. I'm against many of the missions we have sent our troops on the duration that we stayed in Afghanistan, the entire Iraq war. But that's not what this is about. This is about we have a volunteer military that makes it so that I didn't have to go and be conscripted, which I would not have wanted to do. I wanted to do what I did not go and join the military. And part of this is if you do choose to join and you many of them risk their lives, not everybody's in combat situations, obviously,

but many of them risk their lives. They, in many cases, postpone the eventual career that they will have as many members of the military or not career military until they retire. And then it's Republicans who say, hey, we support the troops. We're actually the ones who support the troops. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. And what we have seen since I've been closely following politics, which I would say is basically a year or two before the Iraq war is when I started closely following American politics. The right has claimed a monopoly on patriotism, which includes supporting the troops. But really what they've meant by that usually until Trump is and we're now it means something different. But

up until Trump is and what Republicans meant by support the troops is when we send our military off on some mission, you blindly support the mission. You don't question the mission. And we saw a lot of this during the Iraq war. To me, what it means to support the troops is we hold in such high esteem the commitment and sacrifice that they're making, that we make damn sure that when we put troops in harm's way, that it actually makes sense. That's not the way Republicans have operated.

And then when they come back, we take care of them and we work to prevent them from getting service related illnesses and conditions. There have been so many failures on those fronts. So the systemic neglect that veterans have faced for decades, we're not going to deal with it overnight. This is one of those issues that Joe Biden genuinely seems to care about and he's doing something about it. And that's a really great thing. It is a really dangerous thing to be a lawyer for the failed former President Donald Trump. I think you're going to like this. Donald Trump's former lawyer, Christina Bob, has been arrested and she is not pleased. First and foremost, the mugshot. She tried to go with

the defiant and principled, serious look that Trump also attempted to adopt in his mugshot. We have the mugshot up on the screen. I don't think it really worked for Christina Bob. But think of how absurd and ironic it is in the worst sense of the word that the lawyer leading the voter integrity project for the Republican Party in Arizona has been indicted in Arizona for election interference and her alleged involvement in this fake electors scheme. So she was indicted. We talked about that two weeks ago. She has now surrendered. She has been arrested and mugshot. It really didn't go very well for her. Here is video of Alina Bob. It got testy after lawyer Alina, a lawyer, Christina Bob, not Alina Haba, Christina Bob

surrendered. She got wrapped up in a bit of a tangle with a local news reporter from Fox 10 Phoenix, and she ends up taking a swipe at his camera. Not exactly respect for the free press, not exactly law and order, not exactly any of the things that these people claim to subscribe to. Check this out. And there's a visual component. I think you'll hear a noise when she slaps the camera. I don't know that it will be totally obvious what's going on, but she is knocking the camera and it's pretty wild stuff. Hey, back off. Just like you.

I'm in a public place. You're in a public place assaulting my client. Get out of the way. Get out of my face. Oh, talking about assault. Drink. Oh, boy. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. You don't want to be touched.

Don't touch me. Back up if you want a shot. I'm letting everybody take a shot. Back up. Get out of my face. Christina, how do you think this was so funny? Open up. All right. So theatrics aside, imagine for a second for everybody downplaying this from the Republican Party, half of right wing media isn't even talking about the fact that the woman supposedly in charge of election integrity has been indicted and arrested for her role in trying to defraud an election for everybody downplaying it. Half of the right wing media won't talk about it. Half are downplaying it.

Imagine for a second what the environment on media would be like right now if the person running election integrity for the Democratic Party was arrested for election fraud. Think for one second, the twenty four seven breathless apoplectic coverage that we'd be seeing on Fox News and hearing on right wing radio and all over the place. It would be endless. But when it is a Republican, they go, ah, it's all political. It's all biased.

There's nothing there. This is, in a sense, quite literally the notion of election integrity on trial and to any sane and normal person, which I believe most people in my audience are. When you see the Republican claims of we are working towards elections that have integrity, they didn't in 2020, but we are trying to do it. And then all of a sudden, the people claiming to have election integrity on their side get arrested for election fraud and manipulation. It should put into question every single one of these supposed election integrity efforts.

The fact that they want more poll watchers, which, of course, are just attempts to intimidate voters, all of their manipulation of where can you vote early and where can't you in trying to strategically make it more limited for those who are statistically more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans, the polling monitors, the culling and purging of voter rolls, all of these things. If we weren't already endlessly skeptical of those initiatives, we should really be skeptical now. And there is a very stark contrast between the supposed role of Christina Bob as a guardian of election integrity and her own legal troubles, which go directly to her interference and fraudulent involvement in elections.

There's a direct conflict there, and it exemplifies the hypocrisy within Trump's inner inner circle. More generally, those that they tell us are going to be working to uphold the law. Are often the ones accused of breaking it. Those who shout loudly about we are for law and order and it is Democrats who don't care about law and order and due process and doing the right thing. They are the ones that ultimately are getting accused of breaking the law and not wanting due process and wanting to circumvent it. So the Christina Bob case, the Giuliani indictment, we'll talk about the others.

This is an unraveling of the coordinated effort to undermine the democratic process in the country. These people deserve to never have any kind of power again. They might get power back in November, depending on what we do. So that's Christina Bob. Let's not now talk about the Rudy Giuliani component. It is not just Trump's former lawyer, Christina Bob, who has been arrested and indicted for her role in the Arizona fake electors scheme.

It is also Rudy Giuliani. Just off of his 80th birthday, at which party he was served the indictment, Rudy Giuliani joined his arraignment via Zoom. Now, there were some reports that Rudy urinated during the arraignment and there's dozens of articles. But the source audio of the urination is suspiciously gone. And so I don't know if it turns out he wasn't urinating or I don't know. But regardless, urination aside, this was still a completely farcical arraignment during which Rudy Giuliani tried to rant about politics and the judge ended up cutting him off. So the Associated Press reports ex New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani pleads not guilty to felony

charges in the Arizona election interference case. Here is audio from this. And you will see that they muted Rudy's mic. And if you're wondering about the importance of being able to mute mics during the upcoming presidential debates, I guess this is sort of a reminder of that. Here is Rudy being muted because he tries to go on an endless political rant. And the judge says that is enough from you, sir. I've been indicted in Georgia. I've appeared on every occasion. By the way, I love how he says Georgia. He was indicted in Georgia. I've appeared on every occasion. By the way, I love how he says Georgia. He was indicted in Georgia. That's a classic.

I've been indicted in Georgia. I've appeared on every occasion. I've been sued and I've been sued about 20 to 25 times by a very, very similar movement to this one, which is the let's see what we can do to destroy Donald Trump. OK, give me just a moment. OK, so I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one.

I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next let's see what we can do to destroy Donald Trump.

Okay, give me just a moment. I do consider this, I've been a complete embarrassment to the American legal system, but I've shown no tendency not to comply. I show up for every court appearance, and there must have been about 20 to 30 of them. There is no history right side being which is the day or

thank you so i think it would be a little bit and it's it's it's completely political case that comes very very late what you're going to do and it's I don't want to mute you, but I need to move on. Give me just a moment. I understand what your position is.

All right. So Rudy ultimately muted, muted there. You know, it really does seem that there are risks to being a lawyer for Donald Trump, either in a political context, criminal context, television spokesperson context. There is a cost of loyalty to Donald Trump. Rudy's unwavering loyalty to Trump really has led to some pretty severe personal and legal consequences for the guy. And the broader implications here, of course, for Trump allies in general, are that they are required, in a sense,

to pledge this blind loyalty and allegiance to Donald Trump. They go along with obviously false claims about the election. They go along with obviously false claims about the election. They go along with obviously false claims about so many things because they are loyal to Trump. And then they have a fall from grace. Trump all but abandons them. They end up on Zoom being muted by a judge after getting indicted. Now, that's the broad story with being Trump's lawyer. As I've said before, Rudy Giuliani's specific story is arguably even more tragic. Not that I'm going around saying, oh, my goodness, I feel so bad for Rudy. But there it's a very dramatic fall. It's a very dramatic change of turn of events going from America's mayor

to standing trial for felony charges. And Rudy Giuliani's involvement with the Trump campaign and the eventual Trump presidency and subsequently the Trump legal team to try to overturn the results. It all really symbolizes the broader legal troubles that are plaguing Donald Trump's allies. And Giuliani's plea here, you could argue, is a step towards a reckoning for those who tried to subvert the 2020 election results. Now, I don't know what ultimately will happen with the individual defendants here, Christina, Bob or Rudy or the electors themselves. But accountability is important. We actually do believe in the rule of law here. We believe in due process. I believe in safeguarding democracy. I think Joe Biden does.

Joe Biden believes the candidate who wins gets to be president. Sort of radical notion when half the country at one point seemingly didn't believe that. So couldn't happen to nicer people. Christina Bob, Rudy Giuliani. Hopefully the wheels of justice will now start slowly grinding forward. Monday is Memorial Day. This is one of my one of my last reminders. We're doing a one day membership special on Monday, Memorial Day. We're trying to fight back against the algorithmic limitations that are plaguing our content on TikTok, on Instagram, on Facebook, on so many platforms. So on Monday, we're going to send out an email to everybody on our newsletter telling you how to take advantage of this one day membership special, hoping to make it the most successful single day membership drive in David Pakman show history or just for the year. Either way would be good. Go to David Pakman dot com. Get on my newsletter. You'll get an email Monday morning. The weather is starting to warm up, which I love. But the downside of the warmer

weather, as many of the guys know, is the sweating and the sticking that comes with traditional underwear. It's not pleasant. But our sponsor, Sheath, designs ergonomic underwear. They've solved the problem. Instead of letting everything mash together and chafe, Sheath Underwear has separate compartments in the front, keeping everything separate. You stay dry and comfortable all day. Once you finally feel the air being able to flow in between everything and the unique comfort that it provides, you'll know why everybody loves sheath. So many people were skeptical about sheath at the beginning, myself included, only to find it is something you never knew you needed. They have a ton of different colors and

styles, something for everyone, for the ladies in the audience. Or if you're shopping for a wife or girlfriend, check out the line of women's underwear, which also provides superior comfort once and for all. Put an end to the sticking and the readjusting experience underwear comfort like you've never felt before. Give sheath a try. Go to sheath underwear dot com slash Pacman and get 20 percent off with the code Pacman. That's S.H.E.A.T.H. underwear dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman to save 20 percent. The info is in the podcast notes. Hey, remember that we are funded by our audience. If you want to get the full experience of the show every day with the extra bonus show

and support the work we do, you can sign up at join Pacman dot com. We told you when Roe v. Wade went that contraception was next. And some of you wrote in and said, David, you're fear mongering. David, it's a slippery slope fallacy. No, it's never going to happen. Oh, wait a second. Trump now says he's looking at restricting birth control. And by the way, this isn't me patting myself on the back.

It was obvious that this was the direction it was going. It's really important not to fall for a slippery slope fallacy when it is a fallacy. But we know that they don't plan to stop at Roe v. Wade. Here is Donald Trump being interviewed yesterday. Do you support any restrictions on a person's right to contraception? The right answer, the clear answer would be, of course, not abortion is one thing, but contraception is something else altogether. Instead, when Trump is asked, do you support any restrictions on contraception?

He says it is indeed something he is looking at. So related to this is the whole issue of contraceptives. Do you support any restrictions on a person's right to contraception? Well, we're looking at that and I'm going to have a policy on that very shortly. And I think it's something that you'll find interesting. And it's another issue that's very interesting. But you will you will find it, I think, very smart. I think it's a smart decision, but we'll be releasing it very soon. So this might be like Trump's health care plan that was going to be out two weeks from August of 2020, which still hasn't come out. He may never release a proposal about contraception,

but anything other than no, no, no contraception, of course, of course, that's going to remain available. There is a real slippery slope here. And Trump's admission confirms that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was just the beginning of this attack on reproductive rights. And there is the danger here of setting a precedent where everything is on the table. It's all on the table. And we could be looking at rolling back. We've been saying decades. We could

be getting close to we would we would say we're rolling back almost 100 years of progress on women's health, autonomy and and contraceptive access. And this is part of the bigger war on women's health. And this stance aligns with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. We're talking health consequences. We're talking societal consequences. And if ever there were any doubt as to the critical importance of vigilantly protecting reproductive rights at every level of government, federal, state, local, whatever, it is this it is this. And the people who said that they're never going to do that. Well, here is Trump saying maybe they will do it. He's certainly not ruling it out. Trump then, by the way. Right. I mean, it's like obviously he also refuses to rule out

signing a national abortion ban. So if Congress passes a 15 week bill, you'd veto it. I don't think there'd be any reason for it. I don't think there'd be any reason for it rather than, oh, I would never sign a national abortion ban. And then just as a bonus from this bonkers interview, Trump is sort of like confronted about some of his nonsense 2020 election theories. And Trump just says, ah, the courts threw everything out. The courts did the wrong thing.

You see what happened. Two thousand mules. Take a look at two thousand mules. You see what happened. They dropped ballots into boxes, the box, the ballots. Many of them weren't even signed. We had cases, many cases where you had more ballots than you had voters. Wrong. It's a very primitive system. It's a very, very third world system. And not in all states,

but in many of the swing states, which are very important for this, very terrible things go on. Well, not very terrible. But the courts didn't agree with any of the claims. Say it again. I'm sorry. The courts in Pennsylvania did not seem to agree. By the way, there's a crazy delay where we're hearing it twice through a speaker in Trump's room. It's wild with any of the claims of anything going wrong in the 2020 election. Didn't have the courage to do what they had to do. The courts were very disappointing.

They didn't have the courage. Yeah. So Trump says every single court decision that was made contradicting his wild claims about 2020, the courts just lacked courage and they were they were disappointing. So the big takeaway here. Everybody who has said Roe v. Wade is not the end of the line was absolutely correct. They're going to push for more. It's dangerous and we can deny it to them. Vote them out of control of the House. Keep them away from controlling the Senate. And let's really make sure Trump doesn't get four more years.

All right. Trump's behavior outside the courtroom of his first of four criminal trials continues to degrade and debase. Here is Trump struggling to find the right words and saying that the judge is complicated. Trump doesn't mean to say complicated. He means to say conflicted. This is arguably another one of the phonemic paraphasias that doctors John Gartner and Harry Siegel told us about. But here is Trump with a pumpkin colored tie on one of the final days of the trial. The judge is extremely, let's say, complicated, but let's also say conflicted. He's complicated and conflicted.

And it's very strange situation. Nobody's ever seen anything quite like it. So there is Trump relying on those catchphrases. No one's ever seen anything like it. He often uses those as a linguistic crutch when he loses his own train of thought and doesn't know what he's saying. Also the word complicated came out of his mouth. He clearly didn't mean to say that.

Trump also with a word salad about how they are going to be resting and he never gets to rest. Now, he's referring to the defense resting, but he says he never gets rest. Of course, he slept through the trial. He quite literally rested during most of the trial by sleeping in the courtroom. Here I am. I will be doing something in the morning and then probably coming back in the afternoon and will be resting pretty quickly.

Resting me, resting the case. I won't be resting. I don't rest. I like to rest sometimes, but I don't get to rest. There you go. And Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanch, not super entertained by this routine. But I mean, when you when you sleep every day in court to say you never get a chance to rest sounds weird.

Trump also bemoaning that he would like to say things to you, but he can't say them because he's gagged. Now, he says, I would love at some point to get an opportunity to say things about this trial, which, of course, he could have done if he simply testified the way he claimed he was going to. But he didn't. And you see what's happened there. We've got to remember, I'm gagged. I'm not allowed to say what I'd like to really say. He's gagged, guys. Why can't you understand that? Because you'd be very depressed. But I'm gagged. So why would I take the chance? We do want to defend our Constitution. So at some point, maybe I will take the chance. Yeah. And the chance to do all of the right things and tell the story would have been just to get up there and testify the way you said you were going to do. Trump was asked, why did you

decide not to testify? And he just ignores the question and walks away. This is really the one main question about all of this. You can rebut the lies being told about you, supposedly by testifying. You can get out of being gagged by testifying. But no, he doesn't testify and he doesn't tell us why. We have an incompetent president and we have to win. And as I've said, November 5th, the most important day in the history of our country. Thank you very much. And no answer to the one question that really is the one that deserves to be answered. Why didn't you testify? And of course, we know the answer. It would be a disaster. He would perjure himself. They have no coherent alternative explanation for what took place.

Final clip from this tirade. Trump says that it's cold. It's just it's too cold in the courtroom. Every single scallop says there's been no crime. He's done nothing wrong. And I'm fighting for 300 million people. I mean, I have no choice. It's not that I like doing this city in a nice box all day for seven, eight, nine hours. And it's a very cold room. I will tell you that. But I'm doing this because our country needs it.

Our Constitution is under threat. Yeah. And the the temperature in that courtroom, really a major, major, major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat.

And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. And the the temperature in that courtroom is really a major threat. Speaker 1 Yeah. And the the temperature in that courtroom, really a major, major, major part of the problem. If you are trying to be seen as the candidate with vigor, energy and effervescence, complaining

that it's chilly in court and sleeping every day during the trial is not exactly the way that you necessarily communicate that, as it seems to me. So this trial is finally winding down. I believe the schedule is for closing arguments. They may be pushing them to next week. I guess the judge didn't want deliberations to start right before a three day weekend with Memorial Day. So the judge, I think, is pushing it all off until next week or at least the deliberations won't start until next week. So this will start coming to a close. But then we will get to the next criminal trial. We're really up against it. This is going to be going on for some time. Let's take a very quick break and then we are going to address the following question. Should Joe Biden be courting anti-Trump Republicans for November?

And if the answer is yes, how should he be doing it? We'll deal with that after this short break. I used to get a ton of spam calls and text messages and email spam, and I hate wasting time screening that stuff. But here's a little secret that has cut way down on spam. Our sponsor Incogni Incogni sends a notice to all major data brokers demanding your personal information be removed from their databases. And Incogni will even follow up with each data broker to make sure your information is gone and will keep you updated at every step. Data brokers are legally required to comply. If no one is sending the requests on your behalf, your personal info just stays online. It's not just your name, phone number and email. It can

include addresses, Internet browsing history, and anyone can access it. Scammers, stalkers, your ex, your employer, even the government, NSA, FBI who buy data in bulk and can keep tabs on the websites that people visit. I can tell you it's liberating not getting so many random calls and messages anymore and knowing the government and potentially wacky people no longer have access to my sensitive data. My audience gets 60 percent off. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman.

Use the code Pacman. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman. Get 60 percent off with code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes. A couple of weeks ago, I published an editorial in our weekend newsletter that generated a lot of controversy and quite a bit of anger. Even it was called Joe Biden should call Chris Christie courting young voters and the far left may be a lost cause. Now I want to clarify my position and respond to some of the criticisms I received. But first, let me give you an overview of what I actually said and the point I was making

in the article. Last month, Chris Christie revealed Biden has not reached out to him since Christie dropped out of the Republican primary. And I thought this was sort of surprising because Christie is the avatar of the anti Trump Republican. His entire candidacy was predicated on attacking Trump. The person I am talking about who is obsessed with the mirror, who never admits a mistake, who never admits a fault and who always finds someone else and something else to blame for whatever goes wrong, but finds every reason to take credit for anything that goes right

is Donald Trump. He was the only Republican wannabe that was directly willing to just attack Trump head on. You had sycophants like Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott and Ron DeSantis who always went out of their way to defend and praise Trump even when they were supposed to be running against them. But Christie consistently called them out and laid out a vision for a true post-Trump Republican Party and was crystal clear about the threat to democracy that Trump represented. We've had these three acting as if the race is between the four of us.

The fifth guy who doesn't have the guts to show up and stand here, he's the one who, as you just put it, is way ahead in the polls. And yet, I've got these three guys who are all seemingly to compete with, you know, Voldemort. He shall not be named. They don't want to talk about it. The fact is that when you go and you say the truth about somebody who is a dictator, a bully, who has taken shots at everybody, whether they've given him great service or not over time, who dares to disagree with him, then I understand why the thieves three are timid to say anything about it. Maybe it's because they have future aspirations. Maybe those future aspirations are now or maybe they're four years from now. But the fact of the matter is the truth

needs to be told. And it isn't just Chris Christie. Jonathan Martin wrote for Politico that, quote, I reached out to every Republican lawmaker who has refused to commit to Trump in the general election. Senator Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Todd Young, Bill Cassidy and Lisa Murkowski all said the same. They've not heard from Biden. If this is true, this is a problem. Chris Christie and Nikki Haley represent a piece of the electorate that could be critically important for Joe Biden and for

defeating Trump in 2024, which is disaffected anti-Trump Republicans. Joe Biden shouldn't count on young people and the far left to vote for him. I think most young voters who do vote ultimately will support Biden. But if what people are writing to me is true, that these voters are so furious. And according to Pew Research, from April of twenty four, only 28 percent of voters, 18 to twenty nine approve of Joe Biden's performance as president. Sixty nine percent disapprove. Thirty nine percent strongly disapprove. Thirty nine percent strongly disapprove. If that's all true, if you are all right about that, then Joe Biden should

be figuring out how to grow the number of people who are going to vote for him. A recent CNN poll found that 81 percent of voters, 18 to 34, disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling the war between Israel and Hamas. This sentiment has been reflected in the high turnout of that uncommitted campaign, which does represent a protest vote against Biden's support for Israel, even though the issue of Israel, Gaza and foreign policy broadly ranks very low on the list of voting priorities, even for young voters. This is still something I wouldn't ignore. But when an election will likely come down to just a few hundred thousand votes in a

handful of swing states electorally, no issue or sign of potential trouble should be ignored. Also, in some polls, it doesn't rank quite as low. Like there's a recent Harvard Youth Poll where it's listed as a priority among 37 percent of Democratic voters. As I've said before, when it comes down to few votes, any issue could make a difference. Now, speaking of swing states, the numbers don't look awesome for Biden, especially considering he's the incumbent. There's a New York Times Siena poll which finds Trump is leading in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Michigan, Biden's leading by only one. At this point, Biden is not going to fully appease the anti-war left without alienating

people who already support him. So from a strategic perspective, Biden should operate under the assumption that he has lost some of that support. Now, I think in practice, he almost certainly has only lost a slice of it. But still, Biden should focus efforts on making up for that deficit, excite the centrist liberals, attract new support from anti-Trump Republicans. Now, here's where I got into some trouble with some people. I want to be super clear. This doesn't mean Joe Biden should become a conservative, nor that he is a right winger. What this means is Biden understands coalitions and he understands the Electoral College and he wants a plan to win and deny Trump four more years, which would be disastrous.

We've already seen this attitude kind of take root among some of the Democratic Party's most prominent strategists and advisers. Hillary Clinton, who was named a key figure in Biden's 2024 campaign strategy, said undecided voters who are upset with Biden's handling of Gaza should, quote, get over yourself. It's Biden versus Trump. We know that. It is. It is.

What do you what do you say to voters who are upset that those are the two choices? Get over yourself. Those are the two choices. Yeah, I love that. And she recently dismissed the campus protesters as being people who, quote, don't know very much at all about the history of the Middle East. I have had many conversations, as you have had with a lot of young people over the last many months now. And you're right. They don't know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or,

frankly, about history. James Carville, who's a longtime Democratic consultant, was less ambiguous. You you don't feel like the election's important to me to not address the issues that I care about. Get off your mother ass and go vote because you should vote like your entire future and the entire future of this United States depends on it, because quite frankly, it does. I don't think that these are necessarily the right tones. But the point here that they seem to be making is they recognize some of that electorate may be lost. The majority of Bernie supporters did vote Biden in 2020, but those who didn't vote Biden in 2020 likely fall under this umbrella of the uncommitted voter.

And then you've got your moderate Republicans who also have an uncommitted vote of their own, which is Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley dropped out of the primary in March, and yet a significant portion of Republicans are still showing up to vote for her in Pennsylvania. Haley won almost 17 percent of the vote in Indiana. Haley won almost 22 percent of the vote in Maryland. She got about 20 percent of the vote. Nebraska, 18, West Virginia, nine. Trump still overwhelmingly dominates. And there's no question that Trump is the de facto leader of the Republican Party and

will almost certainly be the nominee. But the fact that such a large chunk of the Republican Party and will almost certainly be the nominee. But the fact that such a large chunk of the Republican electorate would even bother to go out and vote for Nikki Haley when her campaign was inactive for months still shows that there is a moderate Republican electorate that wants an alternative to Trump. The obvious alternative electorally should be Joe Biden. We did a poll, David Pakman show poll, not scientific, informal, which showed that Biden is more likely to win over anti-Trump Republicans than he is to win over the anti-Israeli Gaza war Democrats. But Joe Biden is less likely to be that alternative as long as he is campaigning with people like Bernie and AOC who are seen as radical socialists by Republicans.

Wrongly, by the way, wrongly seen that way. So again, to be crystal clear, my argument is not that Biden is actually more politically aligned with Chris Christie and Mitt Romney than he is with Bernie and AOC. Biden is clearly more aligned politically with Bernie and AOC. But the idea here is Biden probably has almost all he's going to get in terms of votes from the AOC Bernie alliances, whereas there are votes to be gained, especially in swing states, from getting some of these anti Trump Republican endorsements on policy. Biden's presidency has been the most progressive in decades. Understanding election math doesn't change that reality. Biden needs to make anti-Trump Nikki Haley voters and supporters of Republicans like Chris Christie and Mitt Romney comfortable enough

to vote for him. And a great way to do it would be getting people like Christian Romney to vote for Biden and to publicly say they are voting for Biden. Now, in addition to Christian Haley, Joe Biden should also reach out to other moderate Republicans, Paul Ryan, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Arnold Schwarzenegger, maybe and see, is there anything he can do to win their public endorsement? If any of these Republicans are willing to attend a rally with Biden, it may help with that swing state moderate vote even more. Now, we know that voters who have reservations about voting for Trump and who are concerned

with protecting American democracy are gettable. And we've seen that because we've interviewed some of them. There are many voters like Kyle and Nathan, who I spoke to, who recognize Trump is an existential threat to democracy running as a safeguard against fascism may not be enough for Biden to comfortably win a second term, although in a sane world it should be. And therefore, Biden should pick up the phone and provide. I mean, is it a safe space of sorts for Republicans like Chris Christie, Nikki Haley and others and their followers to be able to say, hey, you know what? I am ready to put country over party and I am ready to deny Donald Trump this presidency. And then if and when Biden wins, we go back to policy disagreements and they those Republicans

work on getting a more sane nominee for 2028. This makes sense to do. It doesn't jeopardize Biden's credentials as having one of the most progressive presidential terms, certainly in 100 years. I think Biden should do it. Let me know what you think in the comments. 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 support and durability. All of their mattresses ship right to your door, totally free. They come with a 10 or 15 year warranty and you get 100 nights to decide if you like it right now for a limited time. Helix is offering up to 30 percent off all mattress orders and two free pillows. It's the biggest discount they've ever offered.

Go to Helix sleep dot com slash Pacman. That's H.E.L.I.X. sleep dot com slash Pacman for up to 30 percent off and two free pillows. The link is in the podcast notes. After criminal court yesterday, Donald Trump went full racist against the Hispanic judge in his case, Juan Merchan. Now we have to be cognizant of the fact that there is a large swath of the American public that any time you say, hey, that was racist, they go, no, you're the racist.

This is just racism. OK, the sometimes it's true. Claims of racism may be exaggerated. Sometimes we may be reading things in. Trump says you have to look at where the judge comes from to understand why he's so hostile to Donald Trump. And the judge comes from to understand why he's so hostile to Donald Trump. And the judge comes from the country of Colombia. Here is Donald Trump after court yesterday going fully racist. Take a look at him. I'm so surprised. And so does Merchant Lose me. The judge hates Donald Trump.

Just take a look. Take a look at him. Take a look at where he comes from. This is open racism and xenophobia. It will barely be reported because people are used to it or they don't want to talk about it if they are defenders of Trump. And it is true that the judge is from Bogota, as it is said in English or Bogota, as we say in the native Spanish. In reality, he's an American. He came here at age six, much like I came here at age five. And in reality, I believe the judge moved to New York City. So when Trump says, look at where he came from, he can't possibly mean where he grew up because it's the same place Trump grew up.

So he, of course, means look at where the judge came from. Now, Trump has done this before. You'll remember the other case where there was a Mexican-American judge and Trump talked about that as a problem. So this is just overt and total xenophobia. Whatever you believe about Trump's personal feelings about Hispanic people. Oh, but David Trump employs Hispanic people at Mar-a-Lago. So obviously he's not xenophobic. Being willing to employ people of a certain background in subservient roles to you and your business doesn't really

say anything one way or the other about your underlying beliefs. It's sort of like Trump's views on on Jews. But David Trump's, you know, Ivanka converted to Judaism and Jared Kushner, his son in law is Jewish and Trump's grandkids are Jewish. OK, that's fine. Doesn't mean he has to have any kind of personal issue with them, but he can still coalesce or create a welcoming environment for foment from a political standpoint, anti-Semitism. And in many ways, Trump has absolutely done that. So just despicable stuff. It's kind of par for the course at this point. So I'd be surprised if it gets too, too much

coverage. Trump insisting that President Joe Biden has no way of winning fair and square and says that Biden is a fascist, which seems like projection to me, given that it's not clear Trump can win fair and square. He couldn't win fair and square in 2020. At least it remains to be seen what happens in November. And it is Trump who has the fascistic illusions and aspirations. It's all about campaign. So he's trying to injure his opponent. They're trying to hurt the opponent because they can't win it fair and square. It's all fair.

There are a lot of terms for it. It's a third world country way of campaigning. Such a disgrace. So sad to see what's happening. And I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great thing.

I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great thing. I think it's a great. There are a lot of terms for it. It's a third world country way of campaigning. Such a disgrace. It's so sad to see what's happened to our country. Our country's going to hell under Biden. But look at the person. Why don't you look at the person that argued their case, almost the entire case? Look at the person. Where did he come from? Unbelievable. He came from Biden. And I don't know if it's Biden because I don't think Biden has any idea what the hell's happening. But it's from the fascists that circle in the Oval Office. They circle the resolute desk, the beautiful, resolute desk. The closest we have gotten to fascism, the closest we have gotten to fascism, the closest we have gotten to

fascism in recent years have been the things Trump wanted to do and most of which he was not actually able to do. Trump then focusing his ire on Jews, which is a popular thing that Trump is doing now as well. Speaking of which, right, as we were just discussing Trump again, insisting that any Jewish person who votes Biden is mentally ill and should have their heads examined. Then he says, thanks very much, and then walks away. And Jewish people that go for Biden and the Democrats, they should have their head examined. Thank you very much. So, as you know, if you've been watching this show, Donald Trump has insistently been making

the case that any Jewish person who votes Biden should have a some kind of psyche, valor, mental health evaluation. big, big projection, because that's what we want Trump to have. Of course, he has also suggested that an old Jewish man named George Soros has actually controlled and orchestrated and contrived the prosecution of Donald Trump in four different venues for very different crimes. And so one way or another, it seems to always get back to these underlying beliefs of Trump. And in this particular case, it is that Jewish folks really are doing things he doesn't like. They're voting for Democrats. They are orchestrating supposed supposedly orchestrating prosecutions against Trump.

A lot of focus on Jewish Americans. And then finally, Trump makes the claim after weeks of saying it's Fort Knox outside the courthouse and no one is allowed even close. Of course, the point of arguing that was Trump wants you to believe if it weren't for security restrictions outside the courthouse, there would be tens of tens of thousands of his supporters supporting him. There, of course, is no real Fort Knox outside the courthouse. But Trump now shifting from its Fort Knox outside the courthouse and nobody can get close to people that are being mugged and killed right outside the courthouse. Speaker 4 People from his office, people are being mugged and killed outside.

Never saw anything like it in my life. Nobody has. I would love proof that there are people being mugged and killed outside the courthouse. So I don't know about you. I'm ready for this trial to be over. And maybe just maybe there will be a more effective limited gag order on Trump in future criminal trials. Although, quite frankly, I don't know that he really cares. Hey, here's an idea. What if I moderated a digital presidential debate? Never going to happen, David. Well, no, you're you're probably right. But here's something interesting. There was a discussion yesterday on the PBD podcast hosted by Patrick Bet-David. I was on this show some time ago. When was it? I guess it was about a year ago. And here is Patrick Bet-David suggesting what about a digital debate where maybe Anna Kasparian would would moderate or even like if it really

came down to it, if we really got to the bottom of the barrel, maybe even someone like a David Pakman could be involved. I like this. Let's take a listen to this. Well, and CNN was. So what I would recommend, because I know that they all these major legacy outlets listen to Peabody podcast, I would recommend that the ABC know that all these major legacy outlets listen to PBD podcasts, I would recommend that the ABC hosts have a Republican and a Democrat and keep it fair.

That's what America wants to see, fair. Let me tell you what would be even better if they did do that. Please. What would be even better is if they brought somebody from the digital side to ask questions. What if they did the first digital panel? And by the way, what if they did it this way? What if it's a Anna Kasparian?

What if it's a Candace Owens? What if it's a, I don't know, pick another person. PBD? I don't know, maybe that guy. Or Musk or Tucker or any. What if it's what if it's names like that from the digital side?

And by the way, you know who else I would put on that from the left side? I bring a bring a bring a a Pacman who's all a jank. No, no, no, no. It's got to be somebody. He is. He is angry. Yeah, I think, you know. He's also running for president, I think.

Yeah, but take a panel of those guys and put them together. PBD. First digital debate with an audience and allow that to happen. Now, for that to take place, you know who has to call the shot on that? The president. The president. And that's not going to happen. So can I give you credit?

Speaker 1 So I think the one thing PBD maybe is wrong about and I love how it's like, listen, get Anna Kasparian, get Candace Owens. If if you have to, maybe someone like a Pacman. The one thing I think PBD is wrong about and we're joking. I'm glad that he's thinking of me. The the one thing I think he's wrong about is I don't know that if Biden goes, yeah, let's have a digital panel from from the online space. I don't know that Trump goes for it. You know, I don't know. It's just not clear, especially with that group crew. Right. I mean, from what I understand, Trump and Candace Owens are a little bit on the outs. And so why would Trump say we'll get a right winger who I don't really love and then left wingers like Anna or Dave? I just I just don't think it'll happen. I agree. It would bring a

different dynamic. It might be engaging in a different way. It would certainly be a break from the traditional media establishment. It could bring crucial issues to the forefront. And honestly, as flattered as I am by being considered for something like this, I actually think that it's less about the moderators, but more about the format to a great degree. As I've said before, the format of these debates lends itself to superficial sound bites and absolutely no policy depth. I believe policy depth would benefit Joe Biden if there were 20 minutes on one topic with an open format without talking over each other, if they could do it right. Hypothetically,

Trump can only do 30 or 60 seconds on most topics. Biden actually has some deep knowledge about so many of these issues. Now, whether he can get it out in a way that's engaging is a different different question. But to me, I'll participate in any debate, obviously, if I'm considered. But we need a format that will allow for deeper dives into policy specifics. This would allow candidates, if they are able to articulate positions comprehensively, give viewers a clearer understanding of their platforms and what they would actually do policy wise. And Trump couldn't struggle through that format the way he can't with a typical format. And it'll really separate the wheat from the chaff. I hope that's not become a verboten phrase at this point. Someone told me that you can't. Well, I don't even want to get into that. I hope that wheat

from the chaff is still allowed in your typical debate format. It's you trade a couple of barbs and then the moderators say we have too much to get to. We've got to move on to the next thing. The other aspect to this is I believe there should be real time fact checking within the debate and hold candidates accountable. Now, oftentimes nobody wants that because of fear that they will be fact checked in a way that is disadvantageous to them. Recently, there's been a lot of, you know, Sean Hannity types and others on the right who say there should be nothing allowed on the screen other than the candidates names, because the concern is the fact checking starts. It's a slippery slope to bias. I think that there should be real time fact checking. Trump definitely doesn't want it. I think it could be done in a way that we all say,

hey, no, this is this is fair. This is a fair way of doing it. So format change, real time fact checking. I think that's big. Different moderators. Sure. But it's the format that is really holding us back. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Here's a caller who says it's not a drug test that we need before the debates. It's something else. Take a listen to this. Hi, I'm I'm worried that Trump might but will most likely have some sort of a bug in his ear, you know, for electronic communication from outside of the debate venue, whereby it would be somebody else telling him what to say. And he could just hear it, you know, in a tiny, tiny little, you know, bug in his ear. I'm hoping that they will screen for for such things.

Yeah, listen, I you know, Trump says we need a drug test before the debates. And the reason Trump wants a drug test is he's pushing this narrative that the only way Joe Biden can stay awake during such a debate and speak coherently is if he is drugged up with drugs that they never name. The counterpoint here from the caller is what we need to do is screen for electronic devices to see whether the candidates are getting help through some kind of earpiece. And I actually would be fine with that. I think, listen, if they want to submit to a drug test, it seems sort of silly.

I don't know that I really care about the drug test, but if they were to agree, no electronic in ear listening devices for assistance and to being screened for that, I would maybe concede on the drug test. I do think it's an interesting suggestion. Of course, we have no evidence whatsoever that Trump nor Biden have used such earpieces, but check it. That's fine. I have no problem with it. We have a great bonus show for you today. We are going to talk about Target, the retailer lowering prices on about 5000 basic goods, hoping to provide relief from inflation, which although inflation is down, it's still positive. And if inflation is more than zero, prices are still going up. We're also going to look at Jasmine Crockett looking to trademark the phrase bleach blonde, bad built, butch body. And I will also talk about some of the negative feedback I got about my

coverage of that story and so much more on today's bonus show. Two options. Option number one, sign up today. You go to join Pacman dot com. You get the bonus show. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Option two, Speaker 1 and Speaker 2.