The David Pakman Show - 5/4/23: Republicans accuse Biden of bribery, Putin says US droned Kremlin

Episode Date: May 4, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Russia claims that the United States is behind the failed drone "attack" on the Kremlin, and says it will retaliate -- Republicans wildly accuse President Joe Biden of bribery, even calling for his impeachment, but present absolutely no evidence -- Florida Republicans have passed a disgusting, and arguably unenforceable, "pronoun" bill -- Will they target LGBT teachers next? -- Caller talks about how people are more aligned on politics than they think -- Caller wants to see primary debates in the 2024 election cycle -- Donald Trump is confronted by Nigel Farage during an interview, who says Trump should stop talking about the 2020 election being "rigged" if he wants to win in 2024 -- A judge throws out Donald Trump's lawsuit against the New York Times, ordering him to pay legal fees -- A reporter in Ireland asks Trump why he is there rather than at his rape trial in New York -- Voicemail caller is upset that David is "rude" to Donald Trump during coverage of his rallies -- On the Bonus Show: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has yet another entanglement with billionaire Harlan Crow, Republicans furious about Biden sending troops to the border, Utah law requiring age verification on adult sites takes effect, much more... 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman 🌳 Use code PAKMAN for 20% off HoldOn plant-based bags at https://holdonbags.com/pakman 📖 Shortform: Try it for free and get 25% off at https://shortform.com/pakman 🚲 Lectric eBikes! Shop for your new electric bike at https://lectricebikes.com 💪 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)-2DAVIDPApril 20, 2023

Speaker 1 Let's start today with Vladimir Putin and Russia. We know that Russian casualties are mounting. We know that Russia is being drastically affected by sanctions, even if they are undertaking a public relations campaign to try to make the case that they're fine and everything's fine. And the latest in this seemingly interminable fiasco is Putin and Russia claiming that the United States is actually behind an alleged Ukrainian drone attack, which I guess damaged a flagpole and did nothing else. Whereas intelligence analysts are saying it is far more likely that this is a Russian false flag than it is something with American involvement, particularly

because it failed so badly if indeed the goal was to hurt somebody. And it's just blatantly pathetic in terms of the video that has been released. So let's go through this in pieces. NBC News report. Russia claims the U.S. is behind the alleged Ukrainian drone attack on the Kremlin. Both Kiev and Washington strongly denied involvement in what Moscow said without citing evidence was an attempt to assassinate President Vladimir Putin. Russia claimed Thursday the U.S. was behind the alleged drone attack on the Kremlin and said it was a Ukrainian attempt to kill Putin. This accusation was made without citing any evidence. Less than 24 hours after Moscow said that it foiled an overnight drone

strike on a building that is the heart of the country's government and Putin's residents. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, quite a node of disinformation, claimed Thursday that Washington mastermind and masterminded the incident. The U.S. swiftly rejected the accusation, saying it had nothing to do with it, as did Ukraine. Now, there is another very interesting piece, a CNBC slash NBC report. Analysts say Russia, quote, likely staged Kremlin drone attack. It blamed on Ukraine and the West. Speculation is mounting that Russia staged the drone attack on the Kremlin that it blamed on Ukraine, with political analysts saying there are a number of reasons why the alleged strike, which Russia called a planned terrorist

attack, just doesn't add up. Russia accused Ukraine of attempting to attack the Kremlin, saying the government in Kiev tried to strike at the heart of Russia's government. Russian President Putin wasn't injured in what it characterized as an assassination attempt. In fact, Putin had not been in the Kremlin at the time of the alleged incident, but provided no evidence, Ukraine carried it out. Ukraine denied involvement. Russia has often been accused of plotting false flag attacks that it can blame on Ukraine and used to justify or escalate its own military aggression against the country as the war drags on into its 15 months.

So what do we actually know? I mean, we know that there was something on video that looks like a drone. It appears as though it hit a flagpole. Moscow claims it was Ukraine trying to kill Putin, masterminded by the United States. There's no evidence of that. Ukraine denies it. The U.S. denies it. Analysts say it was likely staged. Now, let's believe it for a second. And what I mean by that is let's believe for a second that this really was an attempt by Ukraine masterminded by the United States to kill Putin. Couple different things. One, we have to believe that an attack masterminded by the

United States and carried out by Ukraine hit a flagpole. OK, not the most predictable outcome that we would imagine. And or secondly, we have to believe that Russia is admitting that their air defense system is so poor that enemy drones now just fly over the Capitol and hit a flagpole at the Kremlin. Both of these scenarios certainly taken together. Aren't super easy to believe. And what we do know is that there's a very long history with Vladimir Putin of false flag type events of this kind used to justify whatever. And you can go all the way back to Putin's ascension to power with examples of that, probably a topic for another day. What we know is that Russia

continues to have huge losses. Russia believed this would be super easy when it started last year, 15 months ago. And it's probably not easy to keep the Russian public patriotic and happy as family members and friends and loved ones, et cetera, are being killed as a result of what was supposed to be a very easy takeover of Ukraine. So from a PR perspective, it would be extraordinarily useful to be able to credibly claim that the Ukraine with a masterminded by the United States, Ukraine carried out such an attack or attempted attack. And the key line in all of this is that Russia says it will respond. What does a response mean? What will that response look like? Well, we don't know yet, but that often is the name of the game. Create a pretext, a surface, a pretext to then justify

further escalations and maybe have a PR impact to get more people on the side of this completely harebrained incursion by Putin and Ukraine. When you ask me, how will it end? I still have absolutely no idea. But it's looking like it's going to be relatively ugly. Republicans are now accusing President Joe Biden of bribery with absolutely zero evidence. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Sean Hannity, Chuck Grassley, senators, members of Congress, right wing media. They're all saying we might even be getting to impeachment of Biden now. Oh, what exactly did he do? Well, we don't know. What's the evidence? Well, we don't have any yet. Let me explain to you the backstory of what's going on. Joe Biden accused by whistleblower of bribery scheme with foreign national. This is reported by Newsweek and many others.

A pair of top Republicans in Congress. This is the base of the story. A pair of top Republicans in Congress issued a subpoena for records. They say might and the word might is doing a lot of work here, might detail a criminal scheme involving then Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national. The White House says it's unfounded and that the claims are motivated by political bias. When you look at who's at the center of this, it's Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Kentucky Republican Representative James Comer. James Comer for months now, probably years, in fact, has been saying Biden's guilty of what? Well, we don't know yet, but he's guilty.

And now they've got something. They have an alleged whistleblower making a claim that as of yet is completely unsubstantiated. Now they're going to they've issued a subpoena. They're going to look for evidence. And as I've said before, I'm going to speak very clearly and slowly here. If there is evidence, investigate. If the investigate points to crimes, prosecute. And if there is a conviction sentence that applies to Joe Biden, it applies to Hunter Biden. It applies to Hillary Obama, Trump. That is my perspective on all of this. But we have to at some point say, do we have any evidence whatsoever for what is right now an allegation from a whistleblower, the answer is no. But that doesn't stop all sorts of the usual clowns from coming out and saying it's time.

We're going to impeach him. Now, you might say, David, there really aren't credible news outlets taking this seriously right now. And that's right, because there is no evidence at this point in time. So let's start with Marjorie Taylor Greene. She appeared on Lindell TV's Frank speech war room. Yeah, I don't know. She says we're we're getting close to impeachment now. Well, this is where we are finding true proof, linking Joe Biden, exchanging money to make real policy decisions on behalf of the United States. It's pay to play. This is a true crime. And this was Joe Biden when he was vice president of the United States.

Let Joe Biden took a money payment from a foreign national in exchange for policy decisions while understand there's no evidence for any of this. He was vice president of the United States. This means that Joe Biden will be impeached. And that's the evidence that we've we have cut. We have now understand there's no evidence. There's just an alleged whistleblower. That's all there is out. Out undercover in only a few months, a few months time, we were able to do this. They've undercover.

It's not even a question of uncovering it. They've undercover. It's not even a question of uncovering it. They've undercover to God for the American people that voted to put Republicans in the majority and give us the gavel so that we could have subpoena power to go after the Biden crime family and everything they have done to sell out this country. Now, remember that Marjorie Taylor Greene was drafting articles for impeaching Joe Biden before any of this stuff came out to begin with. And now they have something to latch on to. Ted Cruz, of course, a bastion of sanity, sober reasoning and moral being an upstanding moral citizen. Ted Cruz appeared on Sean Hannity's

propaganda program on Fox News. And they are also talking about impeaching Biden without having any evidence or substance whatsoever from Grassley and Comer. And they're saying that they believe the DOJ and the FBI possess an unclassified FD 1023 that describes an alleged criminal scheme involved. They're not, by the way, alleged is doing a lot of work here. They're not even all they're saying is they have a whistleblower claiming it. That's all. Then Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for a policy decision.

That would be a high crime and misdemeanor, Senator. It absolutely would. In fact, it doesn't have to be a high crime or misdemeanor because the Constitution specifies that impeachment lies for treason, bribery or other high crimes. Bribery is explicitly noted in the Constitution. And I got to say the evidence, not only against Hunter Biden, but the evidence against Joe Biden being complicit and profiting from this corruption is growing and growing and growing every week on my podcast. I've verdict with Ted Cruz.

I've walked listeners through. Yeah, that's a hell of a podcast, by the way. So they're talking about impeachment. They've seen no evidence either. Pastor Joe. I'm sorry, Senator Josh Hawley, not Pastor Josh Hawley. Senator Josh Hawley admits he hasn't actually seen any of the evidence, but it should still be up to Democrats to prove Biden is innocent, which isn't exactly the way I remember.

Burden of proof working in the United States. You know, Senator, who do we think the other country is? We knew the Chinese connection and all that. But this is this is something new. Do you have any information on that? No, I do not. Isn't that the best? And the funny thing is, that's the answer for all of these guys.

I actually don't have any information, but we definitely need to impeach Biden. Information on what the whistleblowers has alleged in terms of the specific substantive allegations. Right. Other than that, there is documentation that the FBI has. And I just say again to those Democrats out there screaming about how Joe Biden is innocent. Joe Biden hasn't done anything. Well, fine. Then show us what you know. Show us what the evidence is in the allegations. Don't be afraid of what the facts are. There you go. So Josh Hawley making the case that he doesn't have anything, but it's up to Democrats to demonstrate innocence.

Then Chuck Grassley did also appear on Fox News. Chuck Grassley is one of the main people here. Chuck Grassley and James Comer issuing the subpoena here to the alleged whistleblower for the allegations that they are making. OK, he is pressed about evidence and he says, well, we have to wait. We're wondering exactly what this is all about. According to a press release that was sent out by James Comer's offices, as the information provided by a whistleblower raises concerns, the then Vice President Biden allegedly engaged

in a bribery scheme with a foreign national. He goes on to say the American people need to know if President Biden sold out the United States to make money for himself. Senator Grassley and I will seek the truth to ensure accountability for the American people. Well, that really whets our appetite as to exactly what this is all about. Does this have to do with Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings in Ukraine or China, or is it something else? Well, I guess basically we've got to wait to see what the document exactly says. Right. But I'm convinced that we've got to get this detail. And at this time, the FBI needs to explain whether it's accurate or not. Yeah.

Did they learn nothing from the Dominion lawsuit and the seven hundred eighty seven point five million dollar settlement over on Fox News? And then we have one from Newsmax as well. Newsmax is very, very concerned about this, as I'm sure you can imagine. Wait, it says specifically the release today that the vice president may have altered policy for money, a primary scheme. He may have actually changed policy. Have you narrowed it down to what policies or can you at least tell me if you have what area, if you can't say specifically, what do you know about it, sir? Congressman Fallon. Greg, that'll all come out, I think, and it'll come out very soon. Very soon. Just like it's going to come out with Trump's health care plan, I guess.

Bottom line is, let's ask another question. Very simple one. What business, what product or service did the Bidens ever provide? There you go. That's a real serious question. So listen, as I've said before, do you have actual evidence against Joe Biden, Hunter Biden? Investigate. Turns out there were crimes. It was legitimate. Charge Biden. Charge Hunter Biden. Charge Joe Biden. I don't care. I don't care about defending anybody. I don't care about cults of personality around any of these folks. If Bernie committed a crime, charge Bernie. OK, it's been years of this stuff. And the evidence is just on the tip of our tongues, just beyond the reach of our hands. And yet it doesn't happen. So I'm reminded of when I think of this whistleblower, I'm reminded of

remember that I believe the guy's name was Tony Bobulinski or something like that, who was just going to deliver this hammer blow of evidence against. I don't even remember who it was. It was going to clear Trump and all. And then he was interviewed like twice on Fox. And then you never heard from him again because it was all completely bogus. If you've got the evidence, let's see it. But are they really going to do this for the rest of Joe a bowl of cereal sometimes as an adult, check out our sponsor, Magic Spoon. Magic Spoon is the breakfast cereal with the crunchy, sweet goodness you love, but with zero grams of sugar, more protein and only four to five net

carbs. So it's perfect if you're doing low carb, if you're doing keto, if you're like me and you just don't want to eat a bunch of sugar. Magic Spoon has delicious flavors to choose from. Cocoa, fruity, frosted peanut butter, honey nut, cinnamon roll, birthday cake. My favorite is maple waffle. And right now they have limited edition spring flavors, strawberry milkshake and peaches and cream. Sometimes you just feel like sitting down with a bowl of cereal when the mood strikes, go for something with plenty of protein without all the sugar. If you don't love magic spoon as much as I do and our team does, magic spoon will refund all of your money. No questions asked. Go to magic spoon dot com slash

Pacman. Create a custom bundle. Use the code Pacman for five dollars off. That's magic spoon dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Plastic. It's everywhere we look and not enough is being done about it. One hundred billion plastic bags are used and thrown away every year. Here's something super simple you can do to reduce plastic and help the planet a little bit. Our sponsor, Hold On Bags, is the company making plastic free trash bags and zip seal kitchen bags. They're just as strong and high quality as the plastic bags you're used to. Hold on bags are 100 percent plant based and home compostable, meaning they break down in just weeks, not decades. Their zip seal kitchen bags come in sandwich or gallon size to fit all of your needs, whether

it's carrots or crayons. At home, I put all of my food waste in a hold on trash bag, throw it in the compost pile. And when I throw a hold on trash bag in my dumpster, I love knowing it's not filling our landfills and oceans with plastic. Single use plastics harm the planet at every stage. Production disposal, decomposition. Join the growing movement away from single use plastic. These products are really great. Thank you 20 percent. The info is in the podcast notes. Florida Republicans have passed a disgusting and I would argue completely unenforceable

pronoun bill pronoun bill, as well as a ban on diversity programs. Now, I'm going to give you the details and I'll tell you why this doesn't make any sense. But if you zoom out just a little bit, remember, we've been talking about this Florida fiasco for months now. And aside from being completely morally bankrupt and substantively vapid, it also seems to be the wrong strategic approach politically for Florida Republicans to focus so much on Disney's bad and woke is bad and trans is bad because they don't really have the voters on their side to a great degree with these issues. But OK, this is what they've decided to do. So what have they done?

The Associated Press reports Florida Republicans pass a bill on pronoun usage at school, ban on diversity programs. And you would be saying, have they banned a part of speech completely? No, they're talking about gender pronouns that differ from biological sex. And I'll tell you the exact wording in a moment. Florida Republicans on Wednesday approved bills to ban diversity programs in colleges and prevent students and teachers from being required to use pronouns that don't correspond to someone's sex.

Built on top priorities of Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. The two proposals were given final passage by the Republican supermajority. DeSantis is expected to sign it. OK, so what does it do? The Senate Wednesday voted to expand the law. Critics called Don't Say Gay, a major calling card of DeSantis, with a sweeping bill that prevents school staffers or students from being required to refer to people by pronouns that don't respond to the correspond to the person's sex. It also bans classroom instruction on gender identity

and sexual orientation up to the eighth grade, legally reinforcing the dissent is moved to prohibit such lessons in all grades. It also strengthens the system in which people can lodge challenges against school books. Another dissent demonious, dissent demonious initiative. All right. So there is a problem here. OK, and I know many of you already identify it. The only way to know whether you were using the pronouns that correspond to biological birth sex is to know what genitals

someone has. How on earth would teachers ascertain that? And so when you say, well, you just can't force the teachers to use pronouns that don't correspond to the genitalia of the individual. And I guess they're saying the birth genitalia. Right. This is another story when you talk about gender affirming surgery. But let's not even delve into that right now. You're saying you can't require them.

Well, how is anyone to know whether what is being asked of them with regard to pronouns matches the genitals without taking a look at the genitals or what requiring a birth certificate? So obviously, this is a provision that's discriminatory to the trans community. It's harmful to the trans community. It's also completely impractical in every single way, because you're telling teachers in order to know. About whether the pronouns you're using are the right ones, you, I guess, have to ascertain biological sex by looking at people. Are they supposed to ask students for medical records before addressing them by the correct pronouns? So this is not only a ridiculous virtue signal against trans people for the anti trans community to look and say, oh, we like what you're doing. It is a logistical and practical

nightmare for educators, and it's not feasible to enforce. And of course, it goes against the very principles of inclusivity and acceptance that we should promoting and be promoting in our schools. This doesn't mean, by the way, this doesn't mean or it doesn't even relate in any way to whether someone born biologically male who identifies as a woman should be allowed to be on the girls wrestling team. That's a totally separate question. It has nothing to do with this. Now, I also briefly want to talk about the ban on diversity programs, because that's also a part of this, even though it's less cartoonish, although still destructive. It's equally

concerning. Diversity programs are designed to promote inclusivity and to promote understanding among different cultures and communities. The right loves to say that those programs actually suppress speech, bully people, etc. To the extent that you give me an example of that, I am on your side and I will be against it. You all know if you've been listening to this program for a while that I don't go for that stuff when the left goes too far, as the right loves to say. I'll just tell you, yeah, I don't agree with this. This is not in the spirit of progressivism. This is not in the spirit of libertarian progressivism of the style that I and so many other progressive support. Those instances are relatively rare. And when you say no diversity

programs whatsoever, you're banning programs that actually provide significant value and they promote understanding among different groups in a way that is completely not it's not only harmless, it's a positive thing. This is what Florida Republicans are now focused on. I believe that not only is it wrong morally, but it's also a strategic mistake and that they're overplaying their hand. That second part, it will take some time for us to get an answer. Are they overplaying their hand? We will soon see. But one of the next questions,

which was raised by someone in our audience, is what follows this? And one possibility is that they go after LGBT teachers. I want to talk about that next. All right. Very interesting post to the David Pakman show subreddit yesterday by a user named S Dega. And S Dega asks the question, will conservatives go after LGBTQ plus teachers next? All the rhetoric about keeping kids, quote, safe from LGBT people is ridiculous. I worry they might actually start targeting folks whose job it is to work with children. Parents want to screen curriculum. Their child is presented is screening of their child's teacher. Next, the school I recently retired from had about 75 professional staff. Several identify

as gay or bi. One is a trans man. One teacher is married to a trans man. LGBT people are in all our communities. I think that it is almost a certainty that we are going to start seeing this at least anecdotally around the country. It's probably already happening anecdotally to some degree. Think about it. OK, the transition. Think about the things they're already saying. Dis discussions of LGBT people, sexual orientation, transgender, et cetera. That's already bad. It's off the table. It's dangerous. OK, drag shows, drag time, story hour, all of these different things. Very, very bad. Can't do it. Can't do it using the pronouns that a student wants to go by. Shouldn't do it. It's very bad. Should always use pronouns that match biological sex at birth. I guess they mean at birth.

The natural next thing would be to say not only is it dangerous to kids to hear discussion of LGBT topics and the fact that LGBT people exist, it must be so irresistible for LGBT teachers to talk about it that we have to be worried about the mere presence of LGBT teachers in the classroom. Seems perfectly logical if you follow the deranged Republican logic, they will use the same tired arguments that we've heard for many years. They'll say, well, listen, children at age eight shouldn't be around any sexualization or indoctrination. And when I see my kids, gay teacher or trans teacher, it is highly sexual and it is an indoctrination.

So we've got to get rid of them. Now, of course, they just want to silence and punish teachers who are openly LGBT. Many of them probably believe if my kid's teacher is LGBT, it might convince or brainwash my kid into being LGBT or whatever the case may be. And it's really important to understand that they already are using the framing of danger to children and parents rights. And so they are simply going to adapt that existing terminology to LGBT teachers. Listen, I don't want my kid recruited. I don't want my kids development stifled in any way. I don't want this ideology pushed on them. I don't want any of it. Now, these arguments are, of course, baseless,

but they are so deeply harmful to people who are either openly part of the LGBT community or not yet openly part of it. They are discriminatory in, I believe, at this point, every state it would be. And it's really important to understand that these attacks on teachers who identify as LGBT will just be the latest attempt to do the things that they've wanted to do all along. We should stigmatize LGBT status. We should marginalize those individuals. And they've already passed bills and laws of all sorts to do that, including don't say gay. So to the question, are they going to go after the LGBT teachers next? I'm not a betting man, but I would bet that at least at the local level on some small scale, we're going to see it, if not through legislation

more broadly. Let me know what you think. One of our sponsors is short form. Short form makes the Thank you. ideas to what you've read to retain more. The guide to each book also includes intellectual insights, comparing and contrasting the book to other prominent books about the same topic so that you can contextualize the book and understand the controversies and the disagreements. They also have books across every nonfiction genre from economics and politics to science and health. I was recently checking out James Clear's Atomic Habits on short form. Of course, they have the guide, but they also have highlights. They also include other similar books about habits and developing a routine with differences and similarities. Super, super useful and a lot more than just a summary of the book. There are new

guides and articles released every week. And short form is giving my audience a free trial useful. dot com slash Pacman. You can find the link in the podcast notes. I love my car, which is electric. I love my bicycle. And I have to say that the perfect medium in between is my electric bike by electric. If you're looking to spend about eight hundred dollars or so on an e-bike, electric is where you want to go. I've tried e-bikes that cost seven thousand dollars and electric delivers the same performance and specs, but at a much more reasonable price point. I take my electric e-bike everywhere these days. I've almost completely ditched my regular bike for now. E-bikes are, of course, better for the environment than taking a car. The e-bike gives you more flexibility and range than a

regular bicycle. You can go further. You can see more. My e-bike is just my favorite form of cardio at this point. It comes fully assembled to your door. It includes a bright LCD display, seven speed gearing, five levels of pedal assist and a powerful battery that's removable so you can bring it indoors for charging. It's also fully foldable so I can put it in the back of my car and they The David Pakman Show. Bikes dot com. The link is in the podcast notes. Well, as many of you know, every two or three months we have a last minute cancellation or a no show or a problem with a guest. And it's unfortunate, but it is impossible to prevent 100 percent when that happens. I say let's hear from a few people in the audience.

So let's do that now. Of course, we take calls via discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Let's start with Mitchell from Ohio. Mitchell, what's on your mind today? What can I do for you? Hi, David. I've been thinking a lot recently about how most people on opposite sides of the political spectrum have more in common with each other than they will ever have with people who have a vast amount of influence and power in

this country. True. And I just can't seem to wrap my head around how we get people to understand that their interests are more aligned than they think. I don't know the answer to that either. And you know what? The first time that this was like very evident to me was that in a movement I covered closely, it was the 2010 that the growth of the Tea Party movement and Jonathan Haidt has written a lot about this, where a lot of it has to do with you're not thinking in terms of what is actually best for me and the vast majority of people, including people who supposedly are on the opposite political side. You're thinking in terms of my team, you're thinking in terms of the people who I sort of take direction from. What are they telling me to do? What are they saying is best? And I genuinely don't know. A lot of this has very deep psychology written into it, as Jonathan Haidt has written about.

And I don't because you're absolutely right on so many issues, particularly economic issues. Even if we put aside social issue differences, the vast majority of Americans actually have the same interests and would benefit from the same policies. And yet they are split between two political parties. I'd have to agree with you. And if you ask anyone from either party or either side of the aisle, I feel like most people just want to be able to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's wage, come home to their family and do it again the next day and put a little money aside.

But do you think that there's truth to that? There is an artificial culture war being started by, you know, people like Rhonda Santis to try and stop people from seeing the economic issues that they actually have in common. That's one way to put it. I the way and I don't think you're wrong. The way I've said it is a little different, which is the country keeps moving left on policy, particularly economic policy. So what the right has done is abandoned policy, particularly economic policy, and do the culture

war. So I don't know that it's overtly to prevent people from realizing that's an interesting perspective. But I think it's basically if it was just about policy, Republicans would have a even tougher time winning elections. So they make it about something else instead. But it's basically the same thing you're saying. Yeah, it's all it's all very interesting. I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for taking my call. All right. Mitchell from Ohio. Very important and well said. I appreciate that. Let's go to David from Florida. David from Florida. What's going on? I may be making my triumphant return to Florida very soon.

Speaker 4 Oh, thanks. Where are you headed? Speaker 1 Usually the Miami area. Speaker 4 Oh, OK. It's a little too crowded for my face. I just had two questions for you. One, your opinion on the fact that it seems neither of the parties are going to be participating in debates, at least the Republican conference did say that they would have one, it's just Trump may not be participating. But the fact that Biden doesn't even want to talk to Marianne or Kennedy kind of seems a little messed up to me. Speaker 1 Yeah. I mean, listen, I would like to see debates on both sides. I think Trump not showing up is pathetic. And I think that the DNC should organize debates. But I'm also not naive. Obviously, why, if you are if you have an incumbent president and you have as a priority making the incumbent president president for four more years, why would you take the risk? And I know people say, well, if it were Obama, there would be less risk because Obama's better at public speaking than Biden, whatever. Why would

you create a situation with the risk that your eventual nominee ends up hurting themselves with a bad debate performance? It's sort of like, obviously, I'm always for debate and more conversation, but it's also so obvious that it would be a completely unforced risk for the DNC to try to force Biden to debate. Right. And given his age and the fact that he has seemingly more difficulty to speak, not that he doesn't get anything done, he does. It's just it's a little bit more public appearances, you know, not doing as good as he

used to. Yeah, but it's not it's not because I mean, when you have an incumbent running for reelection, you don't do the big. Yeah, if he does go to the debate and he gets he gets, you know, trounced, it just makes him, you know, look even worse as the incumbent. So people will be more likely to vote otherwise. I completely understand what you're saying. Yeah. All right. My second thing was about the Florida Senate bill 70 50, where they slipped in the fact that you can now run for other office if you're running for the presidency. Speaker 1 I actually did not see that, but I know that there was a discussion of changing that.

And of course, it's specifically for for Ron DeSantis. Yeah, I didn't I actually didn't see that that passed. Yeah. Farron Cousins actually just did a video about it. It was last Friday, I believe, that they put it through, of course, behind closed doors saying that, you know, if you were to run for office in other, you know, other offices, like that would, you know, you'd have to resign first, resigned to run. Um, and then they put in, if you're going for the presidency now, that's totally cool.

Go for it. Speaker 1 Yeah. Well, I mean, listen, we all know the whole point of that. I still don't know 100% whether DeSantis is or isn't going to announce. I mean, I think he probably will, but I think it's possible he'll get talked out of it. But it's very clear that they're setting the stage for him to run if he wants to. Speaker 2 Well, you can only hope that he does it might pull away a little bit of some Republican votes, but we'll see what happens in 24.

Thanks for taking my call. All right. David from Florida. There he goes. Let's go next to L.J. from Las Vegas. L.J. from Las Vegas. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind? Hey, David, how you been doing? Well, good. I have a kind of a rough cut on something, so it's not 100 percent thought through, but I just kind of want to get your thought on it, if that's cool. Sure. So I know that we always talk about like every single year, the black community being a very big part of the Democratic Party and like one of the most reliable voting blocks for, you know, Democrats in a sense. Yes. I kind of wondered what some of the things that we can do because I'm Hispanic myself, right. To activate more Hispanic people, more Mexicans, more Cubans, more just the block

in general to kind of create more, you know, discussion around like, you know, opening the border for people who are good, you know. And again, this is, again, a a rough cut of an idea. So I just kind of want to get your point of view on that. Speaker 1 Well, here's the thing. One of the things that I try to resist is assuming that in order to get a certain group involved, you need to cater or pander with particular issues above and beyond the general idea that there are all sorts of different reasons why they should be engaged with politics. Now, obviously, we can't ignore that different groups have different priorities. So if a population that is more likely to have family in Central and South America is

almost certainly going to be more motivated by certain issues than people that don't. And that might relate to everything from so-called chain migration to DACA, permanent status, all these different things. But one of the things I think is really important is if we identify not necessarily a group, but people who aren't engaging politically. First, we should be having a general conversation about why aren't you engaged? Why aren't you voting? Whatever the case may be before automatically jumping to like, for example, if there were a bunch of, say, gay men who weren't voting, I wouldn't necessarily go straight in on LGBT rights. For example, I would first just want to

know why aren't you why aren't you engaged? Because the reason they're not engaged may actually not be related specifically to issues of LGBT rights. And obviously, it's important to say, hey, it might be of particular importance for you to get involved, because right now, one party actually wants to strip right specifically from folks based on an identity that you share. But I would start with the more general reasons to be involved politically. Definitely. It's just it's interesting because as someone who grew up here in Vegas, right,

in Nevada, it's 20 percent of the population is Hispanic. Right. And within Nevada state, according to the Census Bureau. So, you know, I don't know how accurate that is, but that's at least the numbers that I can record. Yeah, I don't have them in front of me. I'll take your word for it. Yeah, but in that sense, right, I do feel like there's always this assumption that the Hispanic vote, or at least in my personal view, that people don't think it's as important or as valued as, let's say, the black vote or mothers in suburban neighborhoods. Right. And my thought is, why couldn't there be a discussion more to include Hispanic families? Nevada or at least Las Vegas has one of the best unions in the entire country, right? The Culinary Workers Union. Yes. And I feel like as Hispanics, that's a very big thing that we should be focusing on is increasing the size that you need and using Nevada as a template for why unions should work across the country. I agree 100 percent. And I as you know, I was born in Argentina, moved to the U.S.,

Hispanic immigrant, et cetera. I agree with you 100 percent that it is a group that I think should be. It's not a question of targeting, but understood more. And I completely agree with everything you're saying. Cool. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right.

LJ from Las Vegas. There he goes. Let's go to. Oh, I don't know. How about how about Chris from Texas? Chris, what's going on today? You hear me? Yes, I can. David. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. OK, OK. So I guess one thing I was having

a question about was what are your thoughts on the Jordan Neely death? You know, I saw that Eric Adams. So this is the death of this was a man who was killed. Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris. This is a man who was killed on a New York City subway, basically put in a choke hold for like 10 minutes or something like that after 15, 15 minutes, you know, and I want to be careful here after maybe acting sort of aggressively, but it's like not really totally clear. Right. I mean, I think that this is kind of what there's debate over. And I saw Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, put out a statement that was

kind of quite weird, just very generically condemning tragedy. But talking about mental illness and things that are not not even totally clear. I don't I'm kind of reserving judgment because I just want to learn more about it. I read a couple of stories about it and I saw some statements, but I don't want to say anything wrong until I know more. Yeah, I guess for me, it just makes me kind of a little worried just because I guess for me, I'm black and autistic as well. And I feel like I a lot of the times when it comes to mental health, our country doesn't really do much service for people that are in need of mental health treatment or who are in poverty as well. And I kind of feel like some of the policies that Eric Adams has done when it comes to increasing police funding while cutting social services for education and

healthcare and housing is kind of probably exacerbated the problem, in my opinion. Speaker 1 Well, listen, what I don't want to do is to start characterizing the incident as anything other than than what it is. It has the potential to basically be a sort of vigilantism that we should be extremely concerned about. It it has the possibility of being a mental illness story as well. I just I just want to know more. It is a tragedy without a doubt. But I want to know more details before I kind of like give what might be a more definitive take about it. But from what I've read and seen so far, extraordinarily concerning. Speaker 4 Yeah, I guess also regarding vigilante vigilante ism, how can we probably address like like like with laws to prevent more vigilante justice?

Because I feel like it's been getting out of hand, like especially I remember there is this one kid who was shot from a from a white old white guy and from some other state as well. Speaker 1 Yeah. The issue with vigilantism is that it it directly relates to how self-defense laws are written and enforced. And that can include stand your ground, Castle Doctrine, etc. So it really comes down to state law on a lot of those issues. And you deal with people. People's willingness to participate in vigilantism is going to directly relate to their understanding

of self-defense law in their state. And so that's the context in which it needs to be thought through. So probably we'll need to do something more along the lines of trying to educate people better in terms of how self-defense laws work and also trying to maybe change the voting, the laws regarding self-defense as well in the country. Potentially, potentially. And it depends on state to state. Yeah.

Chris, thank you for bringing it up. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you for the call, David. All right. There goes Chris from Texas. Thanks for calling in today. We're going to take a quick break and the Thursday show

is going to continue. you need, but half of Americans don't. And it can really impact how you feel. Our sponsor, Athletic Greens, makes it super easy. I mix one scoop of AG1 from Athletic Greens into water. It tastes great. I get all of the high quality vitamins and minerals I need from whole food sourced ingredients. I don't have to fumble around with bottles, capsules, individual vitamins and things like that. I just don't have the time. around with bottles, capsules, individual vitamins and things like that. I just don't have the time. You should see what's going on at my house. AG1 simplifies everything. I'm covering my nutritional bases for the entire day. Super easy, easy to stick to as well and dramatically more cost effective than getting all of these different vitamin supplements. Go to athletic greens dot com slash Pacman for a free Speaker 1 This is super interesting.

One of the most interesting interviews I've seen in a while. Nigel Farage was a member of the British Parliament under the UKIP party. That's the UK Independence Party. It's a right wing populist rhetoric type party that has a lot of overlap with MAGA Trump ism as disturbing and hilarious as that is. Nigel Farage for a while has been saying, I don't think Trump should keep talking about how 2020 was rigged, whether it was or wasn't rigged.

Trump shouldn't keep talking about it. It's not going to help Trump win in 2024. Nigel Farage interviewed Trump and actually said to him, I wouldn't keep talking about that. And Trump kind of gets defensive and says, well, I wouldn't keep talking about that. And Trump kind of gets defensive and says, well, listen, I'm talking about it because you brought it up. But then later says, but it was rigged. OK, let's dove into this interview. Fascinating. Take a look at this. My point to you is if you're going to win this next year in November 2024, you're not going to win it. Talking about what happened last time, but You brought it up. How do you go to set a positive message?

A hundred percent. You brought this up to me. I didn't bring it up. I said, look, it was real. And I say that I'll always say that it doesn't mean that out of a one hour speech, I'm going to devote half of it to this. I might. Except he kind of does. Ten seconds to it. But the election was rigged. It was a rigged election. It was a very dishonest election. I don't know that Nigel Farage is correct. And what I mean by that is when you survey MAGA voters, they overwhelmingly believe that it was rigged. When you survey Republican voters in general, they also to a lesser degree than the hardcore mega types, but they also have fallen for this idea that 2020 was rigged. So I don't have the answer empirically as to whether in a general election on balance, the message that 2020 was rigged as part of a 2024 election brings

voters in or pushes voters away. It's not obvious to me one way or the other, I think is the point that I'm trying to make. Trump continuing with the election was rigged stuff even during this interview. The election was rigged and Rupert Murdoch should have talked about it. But Rupert Murdoch doesn't believe he can win a court case on that. But Rupert Murdoch's wrong. And whoever settled this case for that much money. And I think it was an insult, not only to Fox, it was an insult to all the people that work there. It was an insult to everybody that knows what happened during that election. Number one, they didn't use the legislation.

Number two, if you just look into modern times, just look over the last couple of months. The FBI dealt with Twitter. They call it Twitter files. Understand, none of this, it's not. Understand none of this. It's not only that none of this proves it was rigged. None of this even relates to the election in a direct way. That was cheating. Look at look at the 51 different. I have no doubt. Look at the 51 different intelligence agents, so-called intelligence agents. They all lied. 100%.

They lied. All of this stuff is cheating. And then you look at truth to vote where hundreds of thousands of ballots were stuffed in the ballot boxes. They were stuffed with usually we do like a ham and Gruyere, but they might have stuffed them with something different. So Trump's legal advice. Remember his brilliant legal advice from the guy who lost 60 something court cases related to the 2020 election. His legal advice to Fox News was prove that Trump really won. And then by definition, it wouldn't have been defamation where that that that ultimately Fox's lawyers did not go that way. And they agreed to pay seven hundred eighty seven and a half million dollars to Dominion Voting Systems. Other items from

this interview that are certainly interesting. Trump insisting that he will end the Russian incursion into Ukraine within 24 hours, maybe in that wacky town hall that's scheduled for next week. Caitlin Collins can ask exactly how would he do that? I will end that war on one day. It'll take 24 hours. I know Zelensky. Well, I know Putin. Well, I would get that ended in a period of you can break that deal 100 percent. It would be easy. That deal would be easy. A lot of it has to do with the money.

A lot of it has to do with the military. You know, Trump would wrap it up quickly. He would go, listen, Ukraine goes to Putin. It's now part of Russia. Let's end this entire thing. In all seriousness, I would love for Trump to be pressed just once on exactly how he would end that conflict in 24 hours. The topic of the coronation of the new British king came up and Trump says he was extraordinarily

surprised that Biden would not be attending. Mr. Biden is not coming. What does that say about his relationship with the UK? We get the feeling here. Yeah, he's very, very pro Ireland. He completely ignores the fact that Biden is, in fact, an English name. He's got English relatives. He doesn't seem to like us very much. I don't think he can do it physically, actually. I think that it's hard for him to do it physically. I think getting over here for him, he's got a lot of things going and a lot of strange things happen. But certainly he should be here as a representative of our country. I was surprised when I heard that he wasn't coming.

You would think he would be here. He'll be in Delaware where he spends a lot of time. He spent a lot of time there during the election in the bunker. So I don't know. But it is bunker. So listen, there's a long held tradition that American presidents don't go to British coronations. Jill Biden is going and that's fine. But there's actually nothing particularly unusual about that. But again, it's this is an alternate universe sticking with the subject of royal

elements, the topics related to the royal family. Donald Trump said that Meghan Markle treated the queen very disrespectfully, which I mean, guy, this this is I think is going to be a great day. And I think that they will do a great job. Yeah. And he loves the country. Really, I got to know him quite well. And he loves the country, really loves the country. And he loved his mother. And that's why I thought it was she was treated so disrespectfully by Meghan and just no reason to do that. I was actually surprised that Harry was invited, to be honest. There you go. Very, very surprising. And of course, Trump's the guy who truly disrespected the former queen. He was late and kept her waiting and then he gracelessly stepped in front of her.

I mean, just everything is backwards. Everything is the opposite of what this guy says. And then lastly, Nigel Farage asking Trump, so are you going to win next year? And Trump's response, not exactly projecting huge confidence. Final thought. Are you going to win next year? I think we have a very good chance. The economy is not good.

I'll make it good. Everyone knows, you know, everyone knows. Even Democrats, they say, well, we agree that Putin would have never gone in. He wouldn't. I told you not going in. So going into a word salad that's unrelated after saying, I think we've got a shot. Putin would have never gone into Ukraine. President Xi of China would never even be talking about Taiwan.

We had that conversation strongly. I stopped North Korea from doing some really bad things. And my relationship. All right. So he goes and talks about other stuff. Trump does something that is often seen. I know that this is going to sound so pejorative, but I'm not I'm being totally serious. I'm not saying Trump is wildly mentally ill or anything like that, like he might be.

But I'm just not saying it here. There is an observation that is often done when someone is evaluated psychiatrically about whether they have this sort of like tangential thinking. And Trump has it to an incredible degree where he simply asked, are you going to win next year? And he talks about his relationship with Kim Jong Un. And it's really I mean, you call it a feature or a bug of Trump's speech, but it is there very strongly. So famous last words. I think we who's the we. I think we have a good chance at winning in 2024. Bizarre interview and all coming around the same time that Trump got some very bad legal news. Let's talk about that next. A judge has thrown out Donald Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times and his own niece,

Mary Trump. This one I know many of you have been following and some of you may have forgotten about. This was the big lawsuit where Trump was going to really take them to task. A judge has thrown the lawsuit out and is ordering Trump to pay everybody else's legal fees. Isn't this the best? The Daily Beast reporting judge tosses Trump's lawsuit against New York Times, orders him to pay all legal fees. Trump sued the paper along with his niece, Mary, alleging an insidious plot to grab his tax records and publish them in a Pulitzer winning report. The judge has tossed out the lawsuit and ordered him to pay attorneys fees, legal expenses and associated costs. This does

go back to 2021 when Trump filed the lawsuit, saying that The New York Times, three of its reporters and his own niece, Mary Trump, engaged in an insidious plot to obtain his private records for a Pulitzer winning story about his tax issues. When the court tossed out Trump's claims against the newspaper and its reporters, the claims while the court tossed out those claims, the claims against the ex-president's niece have yet to be ruled upon. This is Justice New York Supreme Court Justice Robert Reed, who said that the defendants fail as a matter of constitutional law and added that Trump has failed to demonstrate any tortious interference with the Times when the Times provided his niece with a burner phone to communicate about the records.

So another instance of major winning by Trump, as you can see, Trump's history with lawsuits is really, really tough. Trump paid twenty five million dollars for his scam. Trump University, you may recall that Trump had to pay back two million dollars for misusing. I call it stealing from from charity, but misusing charity money. Trump had to pay a 10 million dollar fine for laundering money for an extended period of time through his Trump Taj Mahal casino that went bankrupt. And so his history with lawsuits is not very good as far as paying the legal fees here. We all know what the most likely attack will be from Trump or the tactic better said he won't pay the fees. He will then get sued over unpaid fees. He'll end up owing more than if he had just paid the fees

to begin with. But if and when he ultimately does pay the fees, it won't be with his money. It'll once again will be with donated money or whatever the case may be. And then the entire thing will cycle once again. We've become very accustomed to this. I don't expect it to change anytime soon. All right. Very quickly. This is just funny. Trump during his Ireland and I guess Scotland trip that this trip is happening while Trump's civil trial for rape and defamation is happening in New York City involving E. Jean Carroll. This is just really funny. Trump walks through a room in Ireland yesterday and a reporter essentially says, why are you

in Ireland instead of at your own rape trial? And Trump says, well, we agreed to come here. Mr. Trump, why are you here instead of in New York for your civil case, please? Because we have a long standing agreement to come here. We've had a tremendous reception, a beautiful reception. The people of Ireland have been great and we have a tremendous success. And I hear we're doing very well. I hear we are doing very well in your. Sir, why are you here instead of at the rape trial defending yourself? Well, they just rolled out the red carpet for us here and it's been such a nice reception. I just absolutely love it. A bunch of interest. It's sort of like beyond the type

of stuff we normally cover on the show. But a bunch of really funny stories from this current trip to Ireland and Scotland that Trump is on of people flipping Trump the bird and, you know, funny little protests that have been following Donald Trump absolutely everywhere. And so even this idea that he's gotten a very warm reception there, as with most of the things that Donald Trump says, not exactly true, not exactly true. We have a voicemail number. You can call that number any time of day. It runs 24 seven and you can really say anything you want. Now, a few

things I will mention. The maximum voicemail length is three minutes. We never play three minute voicemails on the show. So if you find that you're getting cut off by the beep because you've used the full amount of time, you're probably talking at least three times longer than you should. If you swear, it probably won't be used because then we have to bleep it, et cetera. And if you're going to criticize me, please criticize me for things that I have actually done or said rather than things that I haven't. OK, here is someone who tuned in to one of our streams, I guess, of a Trump speech and didn't like how I was treating the president. The sorry, the former.

They call him the president, the the failed former president. Of course, I was watching on your show the Trump speech. Now, irregardless of any political affiliation, you were very immature and very rude. OK, I guess that's it. There's nothing else. Yeah. You know, there I often will get emails will cover some Trump event and folks will search around YouTube for a live stream and sometimes they'll come across my live stream during

which I comment. I give my opinion and my opinion of Trump is quite low. I don't think he deserves too much praise. And as a result, people will email me and say, how dare you disrespect the office of the presidency? And we shouldn't talk about any president. You can't be negative. You've got to be.

But what are you talking about? What are you talking about? This is this. This is the United States of America. We if if you want to talk about decorum and tone, your real concern should be the way in which Trump's lack of decorum completely debased the office of the presidency for four years. Folks are worried. I mean to Trump, yet they weren't worried about Trump mimicking a disabled reporter and the thousands of things that he did. Give me a break, guys.

We have a fantastic bonus show for you today. It's really a good one. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Today's bonus show. We're actually not going to make money on, but we are going to discuss. It turns out that that billionaire, Harlan Crow, Clarence Thomas's friend, paid school tuition for some kid that wasn't isn't Clarence Thomas's son, but that Clarence Thomas sort of was like bothering.

It's a it's yet another really weird story involving Clarence Thomas. Number two, Republicans are furious that Joe Biden is sending troops to the border, even though it's what they wanted. Now they're mad that it's happening. OK. And we will discuss the new Utah law that has now gone into effect, requiring all sorts of verification to browse pornography websites. It's wacky what is going on socially in Utah. It's one of the most backward states socially in the country. And we're going to talk about that and much, much more. All of those stories on today's bonus show, which you can access by signing up at join

Pacman dot com. Full price is a great deal, but you can use the coupon code. Twenty four starts now. Two four starts now. All one word. No spaces. Uppercase, lower Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com.

The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com.

The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com.

The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com.