The David Pakman Show - 6/26/23: Putin coup fails, Bobby Kennedy gains, Christie explains Trump's weight

Episode Date: June 26, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Russian President Vladimir Putin survives a coup attempt by Yevgeny Prigozhin of the Wagner Group for now, but the question is what happens next -- We discuss whether scientists and doctors should debate antivaxxers in the context of the recent conflict between Joe Rogan, Dr. Peter Hotez, Elon Musk, and others -- A look at the pros and cons of 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, who is obese, explains to the Fox News audience that Donald Trump is also fat -- Donald Trump proposes unconstitutional ideas for screening for Communists during an unhinged and dangerous speech in Washington DC -- Chris Christie's polling is up 150% in the 2024 Republican presidential primary since he announced his candidacy -- Fox News host Maria Bartiromo wildly claims, without any evidence, that the entire Russian coup attempt was fabricated to distract from the Hunter Biden story -- Radical Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says her television turns itself on, presumably to spy on her -- Voicemail caller is worried about David and wonders where his "joy" has gone -- On the Bonus Show: David's California stories, and much more... 👂 MDHearing: Just $149.99 each + free charging case. Use code PAKMAN at https://mdhearing.com ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF a year subscription at https://startmail.com/pakman 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman 💰 Public.com: Start getting a 5% yield on your cash at https://public.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Well, I'm back, everybody. Good to be back. And so much to discuss. We'll start with the situation in Russia, a failed coup attempt, which Vladimir Putin has survived. But to what end and with what long term impact? We just don't know. But let's go through what took place over the weekend. Incredible. The Wagner Group, Wagner Group, everybody has their own way of pronouncing it, launched a coup attempt by sending tanks and troops towards the Russian capital of Moscow, hoping to overthrow Vladimir Putin and put in some kind of puppet leader. Quite frankly, the mercenary group, the Wagner Group, is led by Yevgeny Prokhorin, formerly a close associate of Vladimir Putin's sanctioned by the US for his

role in interfering in the 2016 and 2020 elections. And Prigozhin's alliance with Putin soured when he accused Putin. Rather, he accused the Russian defense minister of incompetence and betrayal, claiming that he had ordered attacks on Wagner's troops in Ukraine and elsewhere. The timeline, as far as we understand it, is that on Friday, June 23rd, Prokofiev threatened rebellion Saturday, June 24th, very early, just hours later, one in the morning on Saturday. Vladimir Putin was briefed about the armed rebellion that was being threatened by 730 a.m. The Wagner Group claimed control over Rostov military facilities and the airport.

Two hours later, the march towards Moscow began 10 a.m. Vladimir Putin addressed Russia on television, calling the acts treasonous. And by that night, 8 p.m., Prokhorin, as far as we currently understood, understand, halted the march on Moscow. The reports are that the coup attempt was foiled by the Belarusian President Lukashenko brokering a deal between Putin and Prokofiev, allowing Prokofiev to escape to Belarus in exchange for some kind of safe haven. Presumably, Prokofiev failed coup attempt also has shown shifting public opinion about him and the Wagner Group and quite frankly, the ethical dilemmas of supporting or opposing

coups based on who it is that is doing them. This is a critical aspect to the story. Prigozhin's coup attempt had mixed reactions among both Russians and the international community. When news broke of this and in fact, I have some Ukrainian friends who with tears in their eyes wrote out, wrote to me and I could tell even though they were texting that they had tears in their eyes, they were happy about this. They welcomed it as a challenge to Vladimir Putin's, of course, authoritarian rule and the idea that maybe there could be democratic change in Russia.

Others condemned the coup attempt, saying it's reckless, it's a violent act. It threatens Russia's stability. Russia. Others condemned the coup attempt, saying it's reckless, it's a violent act that threatens Russia's stability. It's threat threatens Russian security. Even if the coup were to succeed, it's it does not set Russia and the Russian people up for really dramatically improved circumstances. There are those who say a coup is never justified, regardless of the regime that they are targeting, because coups undermine the rule of law. They undermine the will of the regime that they are targeting, because coups undermine the rule of law. They

undermine the will of the people. Others say, well, sometimes the rule of law and the will of the people has been undermined by the strong man who is in power already. And the coup might be the only way to actually get back on track. These are the various opinions that have come forward. One position is that it's OK to support coups if they are against undemocratically elected leaders. Can it be said that Putin was elected democratically? Well, he says he was. There's this ostensible democracy.

But was it Putin won his fourth presidential term with 77 percent of the vote in an election that was widely criticized by domestic and international observers for, to put it lightly, irregularities and violations. So is Putin actually democratically elected? Putin's main opponents were either barred from running or jailed or even worse, Putin's main opponents were either barred from running or jailed or even worse. Putin's critics were excluded from the vote on constitutional reforms, which allowed Putin to reset term limits and run for two more six year terms. That's not democracy. But does that mean we support a coup attempt? And then, of course, the other

part of this is that Progo himself initially seen by some favorably as someone doing a good thing, worthy of the international left's support. And that very quickly came apart. Once more was learned about Proiev and Wagner Group's activities in different theaters around the world. So that is where things stand right now. As far as we know, there is not total transparency about news regarding exactly what is going on. But the broader and more forward looking question to which I just don't think we have an answer.

If you Google what comes next in Russia, what happens next to Putin, you will find several dozen op eds from the last 24 to 48 hours. No two agree about what is coming next. And in particular for Vladimir Putin, the most optimistic sort of blended scenario that I've seen put forth is that now with the threat of the coup, but the coup having failed, Vladimir Putin may realize his days are numbered and will engineer some kind of face saving exit from power to avoid being deposed or what? I just don't know that that's really the most likely scenario here. So that's the latest we have out of Russia. As of this moment, we're going to continue following it. We'll probably

have more for you tomorrow or the next day. Today, I want to talk to you about a topic that has become very controversial in the last few days in the United States. Should doctors and scientists debate anti-vaxxers? This is a question that's been raised by many people in general in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. But in addition to that, more recently, we have seen an argument take place significantly happening on social media between people like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk and folks like Dr. Peter Hotez, who is a doctor and works on vaccines. On the one hand, there's the argument that doctors and scientists should not engage in debates with

anti-vaxxers because when a doctor or a scientist debates an anti-vaxxer, they legitimize and lend their credibility to an anti-vaxxer for a position that doesn't actually deserve legitimacy and credibility. This is the position of Dr. Peter Hotez. He's a doctor, a vaccine expert, professor at the Baylor College of Medicine, and he has frequently been targeted by anti-vax harassment campaigns and even threats. Hotez says debating anti-vaxxers is a losing proposition. They're not interested in facts or evidence. They want to spread fear and doubt. And when you engage with them in a supposed debate, you play into their hands. You give them a platform to reach more people with their dangerous lies and that it shouldn't be done. Dr. Peter Hotez also says that debating anti-vaxxers from a practical standpoint is a waste of time and a waste of resources because there's real work that

can be done, educating the public, explaining the benefits of vaccination. And he says instead of debating anti-vaxxers, what doctors and scientists should do is just focus on communicating with people who are hesitant about vaccines. They're unsure about vaccines. They don't have all of the information, address their concerns with empathy and respect, and that that's a much better use of time and resources than debating anti-vaxxers. OK, that's one side. On the other hand, there are those who say doctors and scientists should debate anti-vaxxers. Now, some of the people saying that are the anti-vaxxers, but even people who accept the science and understand the science of vaccines will sometimes say, no, the doctors and the scientists should debate the

anti-vaxxers because when they do that, they can, assuming the doctors and scientists are correct, they will expose the flaws and the errors of the anti-vaxxers. They will potentially persuade followers of the anti-vaxxers to change their minds and to come to the side of science and reason. And I've heard Joe Rogan make this argument. He's a popular podcast host and comedian. He's been accused by some of spreading anti-vax misinformation. And he says, listen, the anti-vax movement has followers already. There's no downside to debating them. Doctors and scientists who are confident in their arguments and that the facts are on their side can actually do some good when the doctors and scientists ignore or avoid the anti-vaxxers. They miss an opportunity to challenge them and to show why they are wrong. And Joe Rogan also

says that when you debate anti-vaxxers, you're respecting their freedom of speech and expression. You're not participating in censoring or silencing them, which only makes them more defiant or rebellious. If nobody is going to talk to them, it will make them more defiant and rebellious. So instead of dismissing anti-vaxxers as crazy or stupid, try to understand where they're coming from, what motivates them to reject vaccines and meet them head on and convince them with the facts that potentially will win out. Where am I on this issue? I actually don't think there is a simple or definitive answer about whether doctors and scientists should debate anti-vaxxers, and I'll explain why. And I will say one other thing before I delve more deeply into this. in general, when it comes to debates, the person who wins

is most often just like more charismatic or a better communicator. It's not necessarily the person who's factually correct. And I think that that's a really important thing to understand, unless it's opinions, right? We're just like, OK, these are just opinions about what movie is good or what food is good. Different scenario. When we're talking about factual stuff where there is a truth about vaccines. We have to remember that in general with debate, the better communicator, the more articulate or charismatic person often wins. And you might be a scientist with all the facts on your side, but you just might not be good in

a so-called debate format. And that is something that has to be considered as well. OK, if you are talking about debating vaccines in front of an audience that's mostly people already convinced about vaccines or supportive of vaccines, then I don't think it's really worth the time to debate anti-vaxxers because you're basically preaching to the choir. You've got a you've got a pro vaccine audience. You debate an anti-vaxxer. You do great. You haven't convinced anyone. That scenario seems like a waste of time. Instead, I would try to encourage people to spread the word and advocate for vaccination. If you've got an audience of people who are mostly undecided or conflicted about vaccines, then it might make sense to consider debating anti-vaxxers.

And I do think in those situations, doctors and scientists could reach a key group of people who might benefit from hearing both sides of the argument. Assuming you have charismatic and articulate people from from medicine and science, doctors and scientists could appeal to the audience and show them why vaccines are safe and effective. In addition to this, if the format is a structured debate, clear rules and criteria, it benefits those with the facts on their side, which in this case is doctors and scientists and doctors and scientists who might shy away from these insane sort of like kill stream type insane bonkers debates where people just shout over

each other. That doesn't seem like a good idea. If you have a more formal, structured format with a good moderator that also benefits the side with the facts on their hands and you're able to refute anti-vaxxers with facts and data. I think that's good. Chaotic, informal debate without rules and standards. I think it's not a good scenario in which to debate anti-vaxxers. You'd have you'd have you'd be at a disadvantage in that sort of a scenario.

And it's better not to get dragged into that. So the answer to should doctors and scientists debate anti-vaxxers depends on a lot of things. It depends on what is the format, how serious or structured is the debate, who's in the audience, what's the point and what else could those doctors and scientists be doing with their time? As usual, these issues are not black and white. But I want to hear from you. Let me know in a comment. Let me know in an email. What do you think about this core question? Should medicine and science debate anti-vaxxers or does it lend them the credibility

and legitimacy that they should not be given? We'll take a quick break and be back with much more right after this. If you or one of your parents is starting to lose your hearing, you're not alone. About 48 million Americans have hearing loss and only one in five people who would benefit from using a hearing aid are actually using one. Our sponsors, MD Hearing, create FDA registered rechargeable hearing aids that cost a fraction of what you typically pay. For example, MD hearings, new neo model costs less than 10% of what those marked up hearing aids are being sold for at most hearing clinics. And the neo is MD hearings, smallest hearing aid ever.

No one will even know that it's there. I have a close family friend who uses MD hearing and loves it. She said it performs better than any hearing aid that she's used and it's far less noticeable. MD hearing even offers a 45 day risk free trial with a 100 percent money back guarantee. So you can buy with confidence and they have a special deal for my audience. When you buy a pair of hearing aids, you'll get them for just one forty nine ninety nine each. Plus, they'll include a free extra charging case.

Go to MD hearing dot com and use the code Pacman. You can find the link in the podcast notes. Think of your most personal emails. If you're using a free email provider, you should know that they're scanning every email you send and receive even after you delete it. They're usually using the data to build a picture of your life, to show you ads, which many find creepy. Our sponsors start mail never scans or tracks your emails. Privacy is what comes first. And unlike other email services, when you delete an email and start mail, it is gone forever. It also protects your data by blocking tracking pixels in emails, which companies and hackers

can use to track you. You can create unlimited email aliases to protect your identity and cut down on spam. You can encrypt every email you send, even if the recipient isn't using encryption. Start Mail gives you 20 gigs of storage. That's more than you get on Gmail. And it only takes a few clicks to migrate all of your emails and contacts over to start mail. Go to start mail dot com slash Pacman to get 50 percent off your first year. That's only about two bucks a month. That's S.T.A.R.T. mail dot com slash Pacman for 50 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. Let's not forget that we're dealing with independent community media here and we are

primarily supported by folks like you, people who watch some clips on YouTube or listen to the audio podcast or whatever the case may be. We do the show day in and day out for everybody. We give it away for free. All of the content other than the bonus show, of course. But we do this subsidized by somewhere around zero point seven percent of the audience that supports us directly through mechanisms like memberships that join Pacman dot com. You that group zero point seven percent, which maybe we could go to grow to one percent or one and a half percent someday. These are the folks making the show possible for everybody at no cost. And so I encourage you to sign up at join Pacman dot com.

And among other great member benefits, you do get access to The Daily Bonus show, an incredible award winning extra show on which today I will be telling a number of very interesting stories from my trip last week. Join Pacman dot com is the place to sign up. You can use the coupon code indicted again. Let's talk about one of the most controversial candidates in the twenty twenty four primary field, the Democratic presidential primary. I'm talking about Robert F. Kennedy Jr..

Now as a reminder, Bobby Kennedy Jr. is the son of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Now, as a reminder, Bobby Kennedy Jr. is the son of Robert F. Kennedy. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated while running for president. An extraordinarily gifted politician was Robert F. Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy Jr. is also the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, who was, of course, also assassinated while serving as president. So Bobby Kennedy comes from this political dynasty that has impacted American political history for a very long time. Environmental lawyer, activist who has fought for clean water and renewable energy and climate justice has a long record of advocacy for really important issues, poverty, civil rights, health care, democracy, things that he truly inherited from his late father, Robert Kennedy. And he's a super interesting

candidate and a nice guy who I've met. I had dinner with. We have many friends in common. And also he has become a very powerful anti-vaccine voice. He says he's not against vaccines, but simply for tested and safe vaccines. But when we actually look at the disinformation that he has spread, not only about vaccines, but also talking about hydroxychloroquine as if it's proven to work for COVID. I mean, there's a long list of concerning stuff from Bobby Kennedy Jr. He's made concerning comments about Russia and Ukraine taking some sort of strange, softly pro Putin perspectives.

He has talked about he's actually talked about gay frogs. I'm talking about Bobby Kennedy Jr. here, not Alex Jones. And he also I mean, just like as another example, he's made wild, unsubstantiated claims about China. He recently said on Newsmax, of all places, that China is developing a racist bioweapon that targets people based on ethnicity. Listen to this. But what what I worry about is is a WMD like a virus, like a gain of function, something. Do you worry about that?

Because I see that as sort of the next big fight because those viruses don't see any borders and they're relatively cheap to do, there's gain of function. That's what I worry about more than the big hardware. Yeah, you're exactly right. And we know that the Chinese are developing ethnic bioweapons bio weapons that are designed to attack people of certain racial types. And and we're doing the same thing. OK, so does he provide any evidence that that's happening?

He does not. Is there any evidence that I was able to find? No, I was able to find some conjecture about this from last month, also without evidence. But I was not able to find any evidence that that's going on. Is it possible that you could make a racist bioweapon? It might be possible. So so like an ethnic bioweapon, hypothetically, which targets people of specific ethnicities or races or genotypes could conceivably be created. But experts and officials say it's it's not totally clear that you could do it.

You might be able to genetically engineer some pathogen to target DNA markers that are specific to some racial or ethnic group. Maybe like maybe it could be done. Another possibility would be like a gene therapy that creates a virus to target particular DNA sequences. But there are many forget about the ethical challenges. Let's assume the ethics go out the window. There are some insane technical challenges to do this, and one of them is the one that

often comes up in debates about IQ. There is such genetic diversity within ethnic groups that such a technology would be extremely difficult to actually do what I'm not saying it's impossible, but right now, extreme hurdles and no evidence that it's being done. But Bobby Kennedy says, oh, this thing is happening. Another example, Bobby Kennedy Jr. is hosting a so-called health policy roundtable featuring unhinged conspiracy theorist Sherry Tenpenny. Sherry Tenpenny is this person. I don't want to get into the whole osteopathy thing. She's an individual who happens to be an osteopath who has made all sorts of insane claims about

everyone you know is soon going to be dead from the covid vaccine and all of these other things. So how do we what do we make of Bobby Kennedy Jr.? Is he a viable challenger to Joe Biden? Should we support or oppose him? For me, the situation is pretty clear. Bobby Kennedy Jr. is articulate, articulate and smart. He delivers really powerful speeches, even with the struggles of his voice, with spastic dysphonia, he still delivers very powerful speeches. He appeals to emotion and reason in a way that clearly resonates with people. He has a personal story and a family legacy that can be inspirational to voters.

He's right on many issues. When you look at health care and Green New Deal, minimum wage, criminal justice reform, voting rights expansion, ending wars. Bobby Kennedy Jr. is right on many issues. On the other side, he is dangerously unhinged in some areas. The promotion of unproven conspiracy theories, the pseudoscience, this stuff really undermines some of the core structures that go towards public health and national security. He seems disconnected with reality, quite frankly, on some of those issues. He will often attack fellow Democrats who happen to disagree with him on some of these issues. He's supported by a super PAC tied to MAGA. He seems to be gaining support from folks on the right who see him merely as a chaos agent

potentially to derail Joe Biden and put a hardcore right winger in the Oval Office. So. On the one hand, there is much to like about Bobby Kennedy Jr. In some sense, I would love to support the guy, but based on his current positions, I don't think that that's something that I can do. I also don't think he can win the nomination nor the general election with the views that he has. He may be able to he may be able to damage Joe Biden. But I don't believe that he has a path to the Democratic nomination, nor am I convinced at this point that he would have a path to the presidency if he somehow got on the ballot. Let me know your thoughts. I am not just laughing him off. I'm actually giving you a more nuanced

perspective than some are willing to give about Bobby Kennedy Jr. But at this point, it doesn't seem like in its totality it's something that I can support. Let's take a look at the latest between Chris Christie and the failed, twice indicted, twice impeached former president Donald Trump. As you may remember, Donald Trump attacked Chris Christie and the failed, twice indicted, twice impeached former President Donald Trump. As you may remember, Donald Trump attacked Chris Christie for his weight. Listen, Chris Christie is obese. There's no question about it. But as I said at the time several weeks ago, Donald Trump is also obese.

And one of the real signs of a cult leader, as is Donald Trump, is that a cult leader can criticize others for things that they themselves could be criticized for. And their followers don't care about the double standard. They don't care about the person in a glass house throwing stones or the pot calling the kettle black or whatever phrase you want to use. Here is Chris Christie asked on Fox about the fact that Trump goes after him for his weight.

And Chris Christie points out Trump's fat. Trump's also fat. Once Trump started hitting back at you on a number of fronts, he took aim at your weight. What was your reaction to that? Oh, well, like he summoned on us. I mean, please, you know, look, Howie, there are tens of millions of Americans out in your audience watching right now who, like me, have struggled with their weight. True. I continue to struggle. I continue to try to do better. And so do they. And what's that got to do with my competence for office? I ran the governorship of New Jersey for eight years, I think in a very energetic, successful way, responded to Hurricane Sandy, working 20 hours a day for weeks. I don't know what his point is. You know what it is? It's like

a child. It's a bully on the schoolyard who teases you and makes fun of you. But here's my message to him. I don't care what he says about me. I don't care what he thinks about me. And he should take a look in the mirror every once in a while. Maybe he dropped the weight thing off of his list of criticisms. Speaker 1 Yeah. So Chris Christie is completely correct. Of course, you might remember that at one point Donald Trump published this totally corrosive troth to troth central where Trump said, quote, How many times did Chris Christie use the word small? Does he have a psychological problem with size? Actually, his speech was small and not very good. OK, he goes on. He also posted

this photoshopped meme from Chris Christie's campaign opener town hall where it looks like Christie is at a buffet of some kind holding like a massive plate of food. And there's a million other examples of this. Trump's obese. OK, remember that Trump claimed with the help of Dr. Ronny Jackson to weigh 239 and be six foot three inches tall. We know that Trump is not six feet three inches tall. When you see him standing next to Tom Brady, for example, or you see him standing next to Barack Obama, you realize that Trump is very much not 63. Just being shorter than 63 alone would make him obese. Also, nobody believes he weighs 239 somewhere in the 262 70 range seems to make a lot more sense. So Trump is obese. But the

point here is this is what cult leaders get away with. The cult followers allow you to criticize others for things that are also characteristics about you. Chris Christie is right to point out to the Fox News audience. Trump is also fat. Now, sure, Chris Christie is more visibly obese than Trump. There's no doubt about it. But the point I think would be best made here is to turn this into a losing argument instead of saying anything else. OK, yeah, I'm overweight. So's Trump. So are tens of millions of Americans. Is this really the issue that we have facing us now? We'll talk about how Chris Christie's polling has improved and it has improved. But is it really going anywhere viable? We don't really know the answer to that. We'll see what the reaction is to this latest commentary from

Chris Christie. But Chris Christie is right. Trump's obese. When you're using websites and apps, your device sends out data about you into the open, who you are, where you go, things you like that data then gets sold around for advertising purposes, which is why every time I connect to the Internet, I use a VPN to hide my IP address. And our sponsor, Private Internet Access, is the most trustworthy VPN on the market. It's the only VPN that has proven multiple times in court. They don't log your activity. Private Internet access

protects you from the prying eyes of hackers, your Internet service provider, tech companies. Private Internet access is also super fast for streaming and for downloads. You can watch your favorite streaming platforms as if you're in another country like the UK to access cool Thank you so com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. 30 million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the US alone. So toilet paper is a big contributor to deforestation and climate change. Our sponsor, Real Paper, makes toilet paper from bamboo. Bamboo plants keep growing, which means no deforestation. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. on Dotcom slash Pacman and use code Pacman for 30 percent off your first order and free shipping. That's R.E.L.

Paper dot com slash Pacman and then use code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes. It's hard to believe, my friends, but Donald Trump glitching badly at a recent speech in Washington, D.C., suggesting more crimes if he were to be elected president of the United States a second time. This was, again, at some kind of religious event in Washington, Washington, D.C. over the weekend. Here, Donald Trump says if he becomes president, he will deny entry to the United States to

communists and Marxists. Is this potentially legal? I'll tell you in a moment. Listen to what the failed former president, twice indicted, twice impeached, had to say to a disgusting sycophant crowd. Made them competitive. Today, I'm announcing a new plan to protect the integrity of our immigration system. Federal law prohibits the entry of communists and totalitarians into the United States. But my question is, what do we do with the ones that are already here that grew up in it? I think we have to pass a new law for them. Using federal law in section 212F of the Immigration and Nationality Act, I will order my government to deny entry to all communists and all Marxists.

Wow. Wow. What an idea. Those who come to and join our country must love our country. We want them to love our country. We don't want them when they want to destroy our country. Welcome to America. We want to destroy your country. Thank you very much. So we're going to keep foreign Christian hating communists, Marxists and socialists out of America.

All right. So you get the idea. Keep communists, Marxists and socialists out of the United States. Also equating being a socialist to hating America. There's many socialists who like America in the same way that there's many people who think gun laws should be more permissive, who like America just because you want something to be different doesn't mean you hate America. But what Trump is proposing is almost certainly against the law and impossible from a practical perspective. It's against the law because Trump's idea would violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It protects freedom

of speech, religion, press assembly and petition. Communism and Marxism are political ideologies that people have the right to express and they have the right to believe in them as long as they are not advocating for violence or an overthrow of the government. They are allowed to believe those things. It is also against the law because it would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin or other arbitrary criteria. Communism and Marxism and socialism are not inherent traits of any ethnic or racial group. They are movements and they are quite complex movements, by the way, which have followers

from different backgrounds in different countries. It's impossible from a practical perspective to do this because there's no clear or objective way to define who is a communist or a Marxist. There are many different branches and schools and interpretations of communism and Marxism. Some are contradictory, some are incompatible with each other. And there are also many people who just like one aspect of communism or Marxism. Like if, for example, are you a communist if you want to nationalize the airlines? I don't know. You can't come to the US on that basis. Are you a Marxist if you believe in the

labor theory of value? Doesn't make any sense. And that's why it's impossible from a practical perspective. How can you reliably screen or monitor people's political beliefs at the border. And do you think for a second that those who say government's incompetent, everybody's incompetent, they now want to deputize Immigration and Customs Enforcement to quiz individuals about the political beliefs and determine if they are communistic, socialistic or Marxist. It's insane and ridiculous and almost certainly against the law, which makes it a perfect proposal for Donald Trump. Couple other clips from this ridiculous speech.

Trump also said that on day one of his presidency, he will again try to ban trans people from the military. And on day one, I will reinstate the Trump ban on transgenders in the military. Wow. We had a ban because our warriors should be focused on crushing American enemies, on being strong, on having the image of being strong. They have to be powerful. They have to be strong, especially when you see what's happening in the world today. Yeah.

So first of all, as usual, the biggest applause line during Trump's entire speech when what it was, when he said he would ban trans people from the military. Think of how crazy that is, though. Men are allowed in the military. OK, nobody denies that women are allowed in the military. I don't think anyone denies that, even though there are people on the right who don't like that.

So why would you ban trans people if men and women are allowed in the military? Why on earth would you ban trans people? And of course, we have a number of studies about this and it makes no sense to ban trans people from the military. Trump did the entire thing about, yes, I'm a victim, but really this is about you saying he is being invited for them, whatever that means. Every time the radical left Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it a great badge of courage. Right.

OK. I'm being indicted for you. And I believe the you is more than 200 million people that love our country. They're out there. As as usual, we don't know exactly what these numbers mean. Two hundred million people. Trump has said he has hundreds of millions of supporters in the country. He doesn't. Certainly, even if you assume that he has twice as many supporters as the number that voted for him, that still puts it

at 150 million or or under. And I think we all know that the number is actually quite small, much smaller than that. But this is part of the grift, the way he grifts money on indictments, which he's doing. Well, maybe we'll look at some fundraising emails he sent. Maybe we won't. We probably won't. Actually, I'll just tell you, he's sending out grifty fundraising emails. And part of the reason that he's doing it is he has come up with this storyline of they're really going after you when they go after me. It's part of the victimhood complex. And then lastly, here, Trump again again misstating the law about classified documents, claiming he just there's no crime and he could do whatever he wanted with the documents. So he can.

Well, it is true. I mean, it is true. In other words, whatever documents the president decides to take with him, he has the absolute right to take them. Really? He has the absolute right to keep them or he can give them back to Nara if he wants. He talks to them like we were doing and he can do that if he wants. That's the law.

And it couldn't be more clear. OK, so as Democratic Congressman Daniel Goldman explained on Twitter, this is an argument that should be blocked from even being made during Donald Trump's trial because it is a false representation of the law. One of the things you're not allowed to do in a defense is to misstate what the law is. The judge will instruct the jury as to what the law is, and the special counsel prosecutors will likely move to preclude Trump from making this argument in court because it is simply not what the law says.

This is a TV argument that Trump is making. This is a PR argument. This is a grift argument that Trump is making. It is not actually what the law says. So another weekend, another completely unhinged and dangerous speech from the failed former president. Let's now look at what's happening with polling in the 2024 Republican primary. I come to you today to tell you that

Chris Christie's polling is now up one hundred and fifty percent since he announced he was running for president. However, this puts him at two and a half. So listen, percentage wise, things are going in the right direction for Chris Christie, the clearly the most sane and rational person running in the twenty twenty four Republican primary. But is it going to be enough? I don't know. So let's take a look at some data. Chris Christie announced that he was running on June 6th, but we learned that he was running on May 31st, June 1st. So we're going to look at how polling has changed for the Republican candidates, the top ones between June 1st and today. Trump, for example, was at 53 when Christie announced and he is now at 52. So Trump is down 2% since Christie's announcement. DeSantis is totally

flat, absolutely flat, totally not woke at all. DeSantis was at 22 and he's still at 22. So he has not seen any polling change. Mike Pence was at four, but is now at six. Pence has gained 50 percent. Nikki Haley unchanged four and four. Tim Scott was at two percent, now polling four percent. He has gained 100 percent support, doubling it. And then there is Chris Christie, who was polling one percent, announced his candidacy and is now polling two point five percent. That is a gain of one hundred fifty percent percent. Now, am I being serious? Well, I'm being serious, but I'm also going to be honest with you about small numbers. Small numbers in general can be inaccurate or meaningless in exactly these sorts of situations when you're looking at changes, because such small numbers can be affected by rounding. They can be affected by data truncation.

They can be affected by inflation, context, sample size. So, for example, if someone goes from one to two percent in polling, it's technically an increase of 100 percent. You've gone from one to two. It's mostly meaningless because these numbers are so small that they really may not reflect the preferences of the population. And these small changes can easily be influenced by random error, measurement, uncertainty, sampling bias, et cetera. So you do get rid of a little bit of this

by using averages of polls, which we are doing. Is Chris Christie gaining? I believe Chris Christie is gaining. But to say that he has really gained one hundred and fifty percent support since his announcement maybe is a bit further than we can go. What we are starting to get a picture of, and this is really important, is that it may not be so simple to significantly shift massive amounts of support in the Republican primary. Trump's now been indicted twice. DeSantis went from a potential candidate to a real candidate. Trump's basically twice. DeSantis went from a potential candidate to a real candidate. Trump's basically flat. DeSantis is basically flat. Nobody else is polling any more than six percent. So if there's any real takeaway right now, forget about, oh, they were at one. Now they're at three

or whatever the case may be. The big takeaway for me is that it is proving difficult to see significant moves in Republican voters. The next milestone, of course, becomes, well, number one, does Trump get indicted between July and September in Georgia? And number two, in late August, the first Republican primary debate will take place on Fox News. Brett Baier will be hosting it. Does Trump show up to that debate?

And does the debate performance actually shift the numbers in any serious way? We have plenty of time to think about that. This is where the polling is today. We're going to take the quickest break. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube at YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman show. And the show will simply continue in a moment. If you've been getting crushed in the markets lately, like many people have, you were probably happy to hear that Treasury yields have been surging right now.

You can get a 5 percent yield on Treasury bills, which is higher than most high yield savings accounts I've seen. And unlike a high yield savings account, Treasury bills are a fixed rate asset. So you know what you're getting at the time of purchase. But buying U.S. treasuries can be very complicated, or at least it was because our sponsor, public dot com, lets you buy Treasury bills in seconds right from your phone and put your cash to work. Keep in mind that Treasury bills are government backed securities considered one of the safest investments around.

When you buy them on public, they are securely stored at the Bank of New York Mellon, the world's largest custodian bank and security services company. Plus there are no minimum hold periods or settlement delays. You can access funds any time. the David Pakman Show That's public dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Last week, our a great guest host who filled in for me did a great job covering the plea agreement that Hunter Biden has reached with the Justice Department. I don't really have much to add other than my position has always been. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong, investigate him. If it points to charges, charge him and then either try him or strike a plea deal. Do don't

do anything special for the guy because he is the son of President Joe Biden. OK, so that happened. And now the right is starting to cook up all sorts of additional conspiracy theories. Of course, many on the right are saying, well, he was able he was allowed to get a plea deal that avoids prison time because he's the son of Joe Biden. There's no evidence of that. The evidence is that his his plea deal was very much in line with what many would see if they are represented by competent counsel in such a situation. So that line isn't going very well for the right. So the new one is this is just so, so amazing over the weekend as attention went to this failed coup attempt in Russia, which we talked about at the top of the

show over on Fox News. Maria Bartiromo yesterday came up with the conspiracy theory that the entire coup attempt might have been fabricated to take attention away from Hunter Biden. If you can believe that now you might say, David, that doesn't make any sense. There's no evidence for that. Of course, of course. But we're operating or they are operating in a different world. Listen to this. Oh, we have a glitched clip.

I'm glitching almost as badly as Trump. Hold on. Here we go. So does it break through and become a real problem? The White House wanted to give the media something else to cover. This is the M.O. This is exactly the way they do things. In fact, the White House wanted to give the media something else to cover. And this is the MO. This is exactly the way they do things. In fact, on the White House

wanted to give the media something else to cover. OK. Friday, I said, wow, what a blockbuster. What's that message? I'm sure there will be an enormous story over the weekend that the White House is going to be pushing to take this story off of the front page. And sure enough, we've got the State Department drumming up all the drama that took place over the weekend in Russia. So I don't know if it's going to break through. The mainstream media has has an excuse again not to cover it. They're covering everything about Russia and the Wagner Group. Yeah, it's true. As if it really matters to the US right now. Yeah. By the way, you mentioned. As if it matters to the US whether the authoritarian leader of one of the three global superpowers of which the US is one, as if it matters whether they are deposed in a coup.

And it doesn't really matter. And it's distracting from the Hunter Biden story. What on earth is wrong with these people? And it's important to remember that, according to them, the first Trump arrest was meant to distract from something. And now I actually don't remember. I don't remember if it was inflation. Does anybody in the audience remember what the first Trump arrest was meant to distract from? Was it something about Biden, Biden tripping or something like that?

Anyway, the first Trump arrest was meant to be a distraction from that. The second Trump arrest was meant to be a distraction from the explosive claims of a whistleblower about Joe Biden, a whistleblower they can't find whose recordings may not exist. That was that was the second the reason for the second Trump arrest. And then now the entire Russian coup attempt is to distract from Hunter Biden, a potential coup that would destabilize an adversarial superpower that also happens to have gobs of nuclear weapons. Not really a story. What matters much more is Hunter Biden using drugs and his WhatsApp text messages or something like that. Once again, the details Hunter Biden has pleaded guilty or will plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and he struck a deal to also resolve a gun charge. According to the Justice Department,

he failed to pay at least 100K in taxes in 2017 and 2018 by their deadlines. He has since fully repaid those taxes as well as the fines. And he unlawfully possessed a gun for eleven days in twenty eighteen. He knew he wasn't supposed to have a gun and that that's what happened. So he has struck a deal. And the good news is that now that we see that Hunter Biden did have to face consequences, we can all rest easy knowing that it's not only Trump who is going to have to be adjudicated for the things he allegedly did.

Right. Are we ready to say that the two tiered justice system of Republicans and Democrats isn't actually a thing? No, we're not. Because the new argument is Hunter got a sweetheart deal because he's a Democrat and the son of Joe Biden. This is a reminder. I told you guys this a year ago. If they ever do go after Hunter Biden, the right isn't going to let up. They will simply say he wasn't charged seriously enough or he was given a light sentence or a slap on the wrist or whatever

because of Joe Biden. And that is exactly what they are now saying. Radical and repugnant Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is now claiming that her television turns itself on to spy on her. No, she's not crazy. No, she's not taking any medications, as she proudly has announced, although maybe she should be. As The Daily Beast reports, Green posted a bizarre thread Sunday morning in which she insinuated she's being spied on via her television. Yeah. Her first tweet says last night in my D.C. residence, the television turned on by itself and the screen showed someone's laptop trying to connect to the TV. Just for the record, I'm very happy.

I'm also very healthy and eat well and exercise a lot. I don't smoke and never have. I don't take any medications. I'm not vaccinated. So I'm not concerned about blood clots, heart conditions, strokes or anything else, nor do I have anything to hide. I just love my country and the people and know how much they've been screwed over by the corrupt people in our government. And I'm not willing to be quiet about it or willing to go along with it. Now, it is actually funny to see how the supposed we don't care about our feelings. We only care about our fax crowd immediately accepted this and said, yes, the most likely scenario is indeed that someone probably leftists or Antifa are trying to spy on Green through

her television. That's almost certainly what is going on. Of course, at some point it might be nice to apply a sort of colloquial version of Occam's razor. Is there a simpler explanation here? And of course, there almost certainly is. Did this not really happen? And is she lying? That's a possibility more likely than the one she is outlining. Did she sit on the remote? That is a possibility. Is it a smart TV with some kind of learning function that maybe has

figured out a schedule where it believes Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to be watching TV? Sure. Is it her boyfriend, Brian Glenn, the guy from Right Side Broadcasting, who hooked up his laptop to the TV and it turned on and went right to the last input that was selected? Like any single one of these explanations would make more sense. But then but then Marjorie Taylor Greene posts an article from CBS News. Your smart TV might be spying on you. Now, of course, what that warning means by spying is that without your consent, it's conceivable that the microphone function on the TV might be listening to words or phrases that would then be used to target advertising towards you or that a camera could be gathering data

about when you're sitting in front of the TV versus when that's that's the type of spying we're talking about. We're not talking about leftists remotely turning on Marjorie's TV in order to be able to listen, I guess, to whatever the hell it is she's talking about politically. OK, so Marjorie Taylor Greene insisting she's not on any medications, but maybe she should be. That would be something to look at. We have a voicemail number.

That number is two one nine two. David P. Here is a caller who is worried about me. And I always appreciate concern from people in the audience. Hey, David, it's James. I was watching some of your earlier videos from Vegas, not super earlier, but these are always appreciate concern from people in the audience. Hey, David, it's James. I was watching some of your earlier videos from Vegas, not super earlier, but these are from a couple of years ago. One in particular stands out.

I believe it was called Collar Needs Help with Jewish Person. And you seem like you're in a much better place. You're in much higher spirits at the time. You're more joyful you you have recently. I was wondering, are you all right? Did something happen? You seem kind of down in the dumps recently. Well, I appreciate the concern.

Nothing in particular has happened. Certainly the state of affairs in the United States is quite sad. That is true. So I think it would be logical as someone who's steeped in how things are going to be sort of concerned. But at the same time, the video that the caller is referring to, I believe, happened while Trump was president, which was certainly a dark time in American history. So, no, I appreciate the concern. Nothing in particular is wrong. I mean, listen, let's be honest. Chasing around a baby is exhausting. So if

anything could be blamed for tiredness or whatever, certainly it would be it would be that. But no, everything is fine. Thanks for asking. On the bonus show today, folks. We have a fantastic bonus show today. I just got back from a wedding in California. I am going to talk about elements that took place on the flight. Some unfortunate confrontations that took place. Not good. I'm going to talk about running into some really nice folks who watched the show while I was in the Bay Area of California, met some great people just by chance. There was in the Bay Area of California, met some great people just by chance. There was no event or anything, just ran into some great people.

I am going to talk about what else am I going to talk about? I have stories. I have stories from California. We are also going to talk about an investigation into the cause of the implosion of that Titanic submersible. We're going to discuss that. And also, Japan has a plan to boost birth rates. We've talked about the plan before. Is it a viable plan? We're starting to gather data. One city has reason to hope that this is a good plan for Japan to raise birth rates, where birth rates are getting dangerously low from a political standpoint. All of those stories and more

will be in none other than today's bonus show. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Yeah. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. And of course, after being back for one day, I will be off for the next three weeks. No, I'm kidding. We're back. We're back for a while before before the next break. It's not even really a break anymore. You don't let by the way, let's just talk a little bit about the guest hosts. Every time we have guest hosts, I get emails. All right. I'm going to tell everybody right now. I know that not everybody likes the guest hosts. I know it because every guest host we have, no matter what we get emails from people saying I couldn't bear to watch it.

Some people liked Luke, but they didn't like Pat. Some people like Pat, but they didn't like Luke. Some people didn't like either. Some people said both were fine, but it wasn't that good. So I'm just going to put it out there. We used to have no shows when I would be away. It wasn't really. Robust, one of the things I've wanted to do is have a more robust show that can continue when I'm gone. We now have multiple people who can do the producer role. We have a rotating cast of guest hosts. I understand. And I'm flattered that when I'm gone. Some people say, David,

I'd rather have you here. And that makes sense because you're watching this show or listening to this show rather than some other show. So I get that and I love that and I'm flattered by it. But you don't have to email me that you don't like the guest hosts or all of the guest hosts, because I know that not everybody likes them. Viewership goes down when we have a guest host. But my opinion is and people in the audience seem to agree, it's better to have a guest host rather than no show or a repeat show, because if it's part of your routine to listen to a podcast on the way to work, on the way to the gym, whatever, and you don't necessarily want to find something else,

we have something there. And I think viewership is usually down about 30 percent when we have guest hosts, which isn't really that bad, I have to tell you. All right. So you you can always email for any reason. But if you're just emailing in to say, hey, I didn't like the guest host, we know we see that in the data and we're going to continue working to have a great rotating slate of hosts that will hold down the fort until I get back. All right. More about my trip on the bonus show. We'll be back tomorrow. We have a very strong week of program.