The David Pakman Show - 7/28/23: More Trump indictments, Rudy admits to lying

Episode Date: July 28, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Donald Trump is expected to soon be indicted over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the January 6th Capitol riots -- Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy debunks his co-hosts over alleged Biden corruption -- Rudy Giuliani admits to making false statements about 2020 election workers in Georgia -- Caller talks about impeaching Supreme Court justices -- Caller discusses ranked choice voting -- Caller delves into Toaster Strudel fundraising -- Caller suspects kids aren't learning cursive and basic math anymore -- Caller points out Republican hypocrisy on law and order -- Caller had a conversation with a "race realist" -- Caller wonders what would happen if the 2024 election is a four-way race between Trump, DeSantis, Biden, and Manchin -- The Friday Feedback segment 🌎 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription (rules & restrictions may apply): https://babbel.com/pakman 📕 Pick up your copy of “EPP Method” at https://mpcauthor.com/ 🧴 Thanks to our sponsor Geologie! Use code PAKMAN70 for 70% off at https://davidpakman.com/skin 👍 Use code PAKMAN for 10% off the Füm Journey Pack at https://tryfum.com/PAKMAN 🛡️ The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off of Incogni at http://incogni.com/pakman -- On the Bonus Show: Trump facing new charges in classified documents case, congressional stock trading ban proposed, and much more... -- 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

. Although Donald Trump is continuing to deny it, it does appear as though his third criminal indictment, this one for interfering with the 2020 election, may be imminent. It was admitted by Donald Trump on his platform, Truth Social, that, quote, My attorneys had a productive meeting with the DOJ this morning explaining in detail that I did nothing wrong, was advised by many lawyers and that an indictment of me would only further destroy our capital C country.

I did everything right and they indicted me. No indication of notice was given during the meeting. Do not trust the fake news on anything. So Donald Trump making two or maybe three sorts of statements here, number one, saying his lawyers did meet with the DOJ. That is part of it. And that actually suggests an indictment is indeed imminent. Secondly, Trump insists that the subject matter of the meeting was his lawyers explaining

he did nothing wrong. Of course, at this late stage in the game, typically when there has been such an extensive investigation, the defendants lawyers coming in or the targets lawyers, he's not a defendant yet, but the targets lawyers coming in and saying our client did nothing wrong, sirs, our client did nothing wrong. It's usually not super compelling. And then lastly, Trump saying that because notice of a forthcoming indictment wasn't communicated to his lawyers during that meeting, that indeed it is unlikely that such an indictment will be taking place. But again, that is not what the legal experts seem to be

saying. There's an AP article that summarizes the situation called Trump says his lawyers have met with prosecutors ahead of possible 2020 election indictment. Trump himself confirmed it on Truth Social. I already read that to you. And this particular investigation, as the Associated Press reports, has focused on the turbulent two month period after the November 2020 election, where Trump refused to accept his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and spread lies that victory was stolen from him.

This of course resulted in the January six riots at the Capitol, where Trump loyalists violently broke into the building, attacked police officers and disrupted the congressional counting of electoral votes. More than a thousand people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol riot. Subsequently or not subsequently. Additionally, between the election and riot, Trump was urging local election officials to undo the results. Yada, yada, yada. You know the story by now. Do I believe an indictment is coming here? Yes. Do I believe it is relevant that Trump's lawyers were

not told that the indictment was coming? No. From the legal experts whose opinions I've read, that's not completely unheard of. And in fact, Trump already received a letter saying he's a target. So he doesn't really need to be told that an indictment is likely coming. But in Trump's defense. It is apparently true that his lawyers weren't told brace for the indictment. We may learn through leaks before we learn from Trump about this third indictment. The Georgia indictment could be coming any day.

Could be a very bad couple of weeks for Donald Trump starting next Monday. We are again going to look at some examples of Fox News host Steve Doocy going off script and trying to add some truth and common sense and connection to reality to these Fox and Friends broadcasts. He's been doing this for a little while. We don't know what's going on with Steve Doocy. Is this a character he's playing to create the impression of balance on Fox News? Is this Steve Doocy's frustration with the lack of truth or truth on Fox News bubbling up? We don't know. But here is a very interesting clip where they are talking about these 1023 forms

related to the Biden supposed stuff that's going on. OK. And Steve Doocy mentions the fact that the 1023 wasn't released is not really suspicious. He talks about the 1023 form and he talks about Ray not handing over this letter until he found out that Chuck Grassley had already seen the letter. So I'm interested to see how this is going to play out, but it is

something that Christopher Ray was so protective of this certain document, and Congress had to threaten him by saying, not just because they have oversight, but saying, you know, Christopher Wright, I already know the contents of this letter. You better release it or I'm going to haul you over. Right.

But historically, the 1023 is never released because it's just a work product of the agent or agents who took the thing. Usually it's another form that winds up in the public venue. So you understand that with that one statement, Steve Doocy totally rejects the entire conspiratorial use of the lack of 1023 being made public. The argument that Ducey's co-hosts and many right wingers have been making is with regard to this alleged whistleblower and the Bridencrime family and all these different things. It's suspicious.

Christopher Wray has been working to hide the 1023 and then they refuse to release it. And Steve Ducey goes, yeah, that's an internal document. They're almost never released. It instantly debunks the whole story. And one line instantly debunking the whole story is quite common on Fox News. Here's another good one from the same episode. In this one, Steve Ducey mentions, by the way, everything that Republicans are considering impeaching Joe Biden for is completely unverified.

Oh, well, that kind of defeats the whole point of the impeachment, doesn't it? Kevin McCarthy has brought up the the I word impeachment question and he's calling it an inquiry. This is what he had to say and the reasons why they're considering this. Watch. Yeah. You've got IRS. OK, so then they play the entire Kevin McCarthy statement, which we have already talked about

before. OK, and then they go back to the hosts. So it's not an impeachment. It is to get all the information. Then we're going to inquire. Is there is this an impeachable offense? Grace, we've seen this movie a couple of times before. First step, impeachment inquiry.

Almost always it leads to an impeachment. I've heard from members of Congress on the Republican side. They are going to they're going to do the I word of Joe Biden. That guy right there doesn't look too happy in that picture. And they're going to use the 1023 form as the basis for everything. Here's the problem. And we'll talk to Miranda Devine about this here in about a half an hour is the 1023 form makes a damning case against the Bidens, but it's completely unverified.

And in fact, there are certain critical parts of the story that have been refuted by the people in the story. So it's problematic. But yeah, that's an understatement. And so that's why Kim McCarthy says we need other stuff. So again, Steve Doocy saying, you know, there's a little bit of a problem with this entire impeaching Biden thing. They're using a form as the justification for building this impeachment case. Everything in it is unverified. And in fact, certain parts have been directly contradicted by the people mentioned in the

1023. So it's a little bit problematic. Steve Doocy says the understatement of the century. I don't know what is driving this with him, but it is interesting to watch some other recent examples. And remember that the decoding Fox News account on both Twitter and threads covers this Ducey. I don't know, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde sort of thing or whatever it is. Here is Steve Ducey mentioning, hey, you know, a lot of the things that they're accusing Biden of, even if true,

it's not actually clear that their crimes is unclear what the joint venture is or was. And if it was just for Biden corruption, then why did they have other entities like they had? They mentioned Hudson and some other partners as well. If it was just to influence a former vice president, which I don't know if that's illegal. Why exactly were there so many other moving parts? And what the Republicans don't do here yet is they don't say if any laws were broken

and if anything was illegal. Well, right. It's just a little bit of a problem when they talk about locking up Joe Biden, that even the things they're alleging he was involved in, never mind the fact that they haven't proven he's involved in them. They haven't even demonstrated that were he involved in them, they are actually crimes. That is a problem. That is a problem for the story that they are trying to build.

And here's one last one. Here is Steve Doocy mentioning, you know, these economic numbers are actually good. All of the talk about the disastrous economy economy is doing pretty well under Biden. And you have just touched on the problem for the White House, and that is they've got some pretty good numbers going on. The jobs number is expected to come out a little later on today. It's expected to be about 250, 225 thousand. Unemployment is expected to drop down to 3.6 percent. Yesterday,

there was a blowout number. ADP said that about a half a million jobs were added in June. The construction sector itself added 97,000 jobs in June. That's the biggest increase month over month in a decade. So they got these pretty good numbers. But the White House is stuck with a couple of people who are having a problem selling it because people don't feel like things are very good. OK, so I don't know what's going on with Steve Doocy. I like it. I don't know how much it really does to influence the audience of Fox News. But if you pay attention during these clips, it visibly annoys his co-host Brian Kilmeade, who's like, oh, God, Ducey's doing it again. We don't know the orange oranges of this. We don't know the point of it. We don't know the

motivation. But I love it, especially if you're talking about the summertime, as Don Jr. once said, especially in the summer. I absolutely love it. Rudy Giuliani has now admitted that he did lie about Georgia election workers, but he admits this as part of or in service to making the assertion that he did not actually defame them. Yes, he said things that are untrue, but that's only one element of proving defamation. Let's discuss Newsweek reports. Rudy Giuliani admits false statements about Georgia election workers. Former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has admitted to making false statements regarding election workers.

The former president claimed had tampered with ballots in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia in a court filing Tuesday. The former mayor of New York conceded that he made the statements and had published them to third parties. Both are elements of defamation, but said such an admission would not change his argument that they were constitutionally protected and had not adversely affected the workers concerned. Giuliani did not contest that, quote, to the extent that the statements were statements

of fact and otherwise actionable, such actionable, factual statements were made. This all relates to the defamation lawsuit brought forward by Ruby Freeman and Wondra Moss, who said they were harassed after Giuliani and Trump claimed they counted extra votes. This relates to the story of the suitcases full of ballots from underneath tables. You remember this is one of the many stories told by Trump and people around him after the 2020 election. So I think the most important or useful thing to discuss about this is just like, what are we talking about when we talk about defamation?

Argument here is even though what even though Giuliani said the stuff he said, it's not defamation. What are the required elements to prove defamation? Number one, the defendant made a false statement of fact about the plaintiff. Giuliani says they were statements of fact, meaning things they weren't opinions. It wasn't I think you're mean, right? That would not be a statement of fact. They counted ballots, extra ballots, fraudulent ballots, whatever. That is a statement of fact. And Rudy Giuliani is admitting to one aspect of this, which is they were statements of fact they were false. It must be objectively untrue and presented as a fact rather than an opinion to be defamation. Secondly, it must be communicated to a third party.

If you go and tell Ruby Freeman privately, you counted ballots that were fraudulent, not defamation because your assertion was not communicated to a third party. In this case, Giuliani did communicate it to a third party. He admits that. Then you get into other aspects here relating to the fault of the defendant. Either the defendant must have acted with negligence or malice, depending on the circumstances. You could be indifferent to the law or to the truth, which would be a form of negligence. You could be deliberately lying in order to harm. That would be malice, et cetera. And also the important aspect here is that the the plaintiff must have been damaged by the false statements that were made. So this is why, you know. If I were to tell a lie about,

I don't know, Tom Cruise, there would be a very high standard for showing that it's defamation, because how am I, by making a false statement about Tom Cruise going to damage his reputation? Now, I have said negative things about Cruise with regard to his involvement in Scientology. They were all true, by the way. But even if they were untrue to prove defamation, he would have to say, well, I actually hurt his reputation. It affected his ability to get jobs or whatever the case may be. This came up in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial. And that is part of what Rudy Giuliani is saying is not the case. The plaintiffs are saying, no, we were harassed after Rudy Giuliani and others made these false claims. That's where we are. Giuliani making the false statements, admitting it, but says it is still not defamation. new words and remember them and use them in the right way in context. Maybe you just need to change your learning approach.

I am a non-native English speaker. I learned English very young. But when I moved to the United States from Argentina at the time, speaking only Spanish and the right approach to learning new words is really useful for communicating in any context. You should look into a book by Michael Cavallaro called The EPP Method, Three Super Simple Steps to Build and Retain Essential Vocabulary for Adults. They're sponsoring today's show and you can find it at MPC author dot com. This book will help you

improve your English vocabulary tremendously, even potentially improve verbal scores on standardized tests. It's full of retention exercises, words arranged by themes, examples in context, antonyms, synonyms. My favorite chapter is called An Exploration of Death, which has words like lurid, martyred, macabre. It's how you learn new words quickly, but also retain them for longer. And the book is fantastic.

Even if you are a native English speaker, start growing your vocabulary by picking up a copy of the EPP method. Go to MPC author dot com. That's Amazon, Mary Piaz and Paul Ciaz and Charles author dot com. That's Amazon, Mary Pia's and Paul Cia's and Charles author dot com. The link is in the podcast notes. When it comes to taking care of my skin and hair, I never really knew how to have a daily routine. I definitely don't buy into the bogus miracle creams and stuff that's out there. That's where our partner geology changed the game for me. Geology is a 23 time award winning skin, hair and body care company that just gives you simple, effective

skin care and hair care routines customized to you with the basic ingredients that dermatologists recommend because they're the few ingredients that actually work from their affordable skin revitalizing serum with vitamin C and E and ferulic acid. Their awesome line of deodorant, body wash and shampoo for a healthy scalp, which I've been loving. Geology has you covered. Geology has been featured in places like Men's Health and Esquire. You can read the glowing reviews online.

And right now, for a limited time, geology is hooking you up with an amazing offer. You'll get 70 percent off their award winning skin care trial set, plus 30 percent off any add on products of your choice. Go to David Pakman dot com slash skin and use code Pakman 70 at checkout. That's coupon code Pakman seven zero to get 70 percent off the skin care trial set and 30 percent off any add on products. The info is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show is a community and audience supported program. And I would love to have your support. I'm really talking about you. You can sign up at join Pakman dot com and become a member. We've got a bunch of great perks for our members, including that we do an extra show every day

giving the people what they want called the bonus show. You will also get a commercial free audio and video stream of the show every single weekday, as well as invitations to our members only town hall events, the sound board now available to our members and lots Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6 Speaker 7 Speaker 8 Speaker 9 Speaker 10 Speaker 11 Speaker 12 Speaker 13 Speaker 14 Speaker 15 Speaker 16 Speaker 17 Speaker 18 Speaker 19 Speaker 20 Speaker 21

Speaker 22 Speaker 23 Speaker 24 Speaker 25 Speaker 26 Speaker 27 Speaker 28 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 33 Speaker 34 Speaker 35 Speaker 34 Speaker 35 Speaker 36 Speaker

36 Speaker 37 Speaker 38 Speaker 39 Speaker 40 Speaker 41 Speaker 42 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 44 Speaker 45 Speaker slash discord. Believe it or not, we will start with Luna from Pittsburgh. Luna from Pittsburgh. Welcome to the program. What is on your mind today?

Hey, David, can you hear me OK? Yes, I can. OK, I just had a quick question for you. I called into the voicemail. I didn't know if you had that you had heard it. I don't know if you had heard about that story about DeSantis trying to pick congresspeople for university, for public university positions as president. No, I didn't hear that. So yeah, they were trying to pick these presidents for the university. I'm a Florida Atlantic grad, and they were trying to pick a... DeSantis was pushing for a Republican House of Reps member. And when the university didn't end up selecting them, DeSantis actually called off the called off the hiring process and cited an improper hiring process because he alleged that the the university was asking the applicants about their gender identity and pronouns.

I did not see that, but I will investigate. It sounds wild. Oh, yeah, it is. I just didn't know if you had seen it before. I think you should look into it. I will do. Thank you so much for the suggestion. Yeah.

All right. There goes Luna from Pittsburgh. Let's go next to Justin from Georgia. Justin from Georgia. Welcome to The David Pakman Show. Hey, thanks so much for having me on. My pleasure. My question.

My question is about the Supreme Court. court. Do you think that impeaching judges like might be possible at some point in the future if Democrats like somehow took control of the other branches of government or is the way to, I guess, clean that up, only adding more judges. Now, I think the simplest way to clean it up is by electing a Democrat in 2024 who will likely get one or two selections and then electing a Democrat again in 2028. I mean, we're just the timing. So here's the thing. You can I don't believe even if Democrats had the House and Senate that they would impeach and remove a Supreme Court

justice. I don't even think it's worth having the conversation about could they are going through how it works and House of Representatives brings articles and then there's a trial and then the Senate votes. We all know how it works. I just don't think they're going to do it. I don't think it's it's a pragmatic discussion to have here. Yes. If you want to be an activist and call your senator and your member of Congress and say, impeach Clarence Thomas and then convict and remove by all means, do it.

But I'm trying to kind of get to what we what we can do most quickly. And I don't think that the Democrats will impeach a Supreme Court justice. So then we get to the idea of expanding the court, packing the court, some would would say. I'm not against this in principle, but the problem is if Democrats start adding justices to the court, then Republicans will take do it when they have the opportunity. And it just kind of seems like a race to the bottom. It's not clear to me that that's really a solution. So we we knew exactly in 2016 what was going to happen. If Hillary wins, we will get reasonable Supreme Court justices. If Trump wins, we will get crazy Supreme Court justices who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump won. We got crazy

Supreme Court justices. They overturned Roe v. Wade. Nothing that happened was a surprise in any way. So we now have another scenario in 15 months or so. We'll get a chance to vote. And it's it's likely that between now and the end of the next presidential term, there will be two replacements to the Supreme Court. A Democratic president choosing who those individuals are will move the court into a much more reasonable place than where it is now. That's what we really need to do right now. Obviously, I am an advocate for term limits on the Supreme Court, so it would take the question mark out of when, when and what number will there

be for any particular president? We would know in advance. But I think that winning the next election is the best thing we can do for the Supreme Court. OK, thank you. And it just. It feels almost untouchable, the Supreme Court. I mean, of course, it would be nice to add term limits, but I think that would need like a much greater majority because I mean, I'm not 100 percent, but I think it would require an adjustment to the Constitution. Yeah, I actually recently looked at this. You would need to amend the Constitution as outlined in Article five. So that is a very high, high threshold to achieve for sure. Yeah. And I suppose I guess packing in that case would be. I mean, besides just waiting for justices to die or resign,

hacking would be the would require the least majority. I agree with that. I agree with that. And listen, if Joe Biden did it, I'm not going to sit here and go, no, don't confirm his selections. I just don't think it's the long term solution. OK, Justin from Georgia, thank you so much for the call. I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. So goes Justin from Georgia. Very powerful declarations. Let's go to Mel Wood from Oregon. Mel or Mel Wood. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Melwood, you're on the air, but you must correctly configure your audio device, please. And last chance for Mel Wood. Yes, now I can hear you.

Speaker 4 Sorry about that, David. Thanks for taking my call. Speaker 1 Yes, now I can hear you. Speaker 4 Sorry about that, David. Thanks for taking my call. Speaker 1 My pleasure. My first time using discord, so. Well, anyways, anything is better than a fail. And we made it. We made the connection work. Speaker 1 Yay.

Really curious if you have anything, an opinion on ranked choice voting. They're talking about it a lot here in Oregon and mainly like in the Portland there. They're pushing it through. And I was just wondering what your opinion on that is. Yeah, I have probably 20 clips on my YouTube channel, including interviews with experts on ranked choice and transit and transferable vote systems. So we've talked about this extensively. To summarize it, I believe that one of the major three reforms that we need in the United States is a move away from first past the post voting for the presidential election to some kind of ranked or transferable system. Now, there are some ranked choice voting systems which would potentially put in power someone who was not the first choice of almost any voter. So that's that's

like an attack on ranked choice voting that you will sometimes hear. However, this has been resolved. And we've talked in detail about transferable vote systems where you rank the candidates and those rankings are tabulated in a way where where that can't happen. And I believe that that in addition to getting away from the electoral college, as well as campaign finance reform, are three extraordinarily important reforms that should be made. So I am in favor of going to some type of transferable or ranked system. OK, great.

I really appreciate your opinion on that, and I will go back and look at some of your other videos that I haven't seen then. All right. Thank you so much for the call. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. There goes Mel Wood Slash Slash Mel.

Just a reminder to everybody in the waiting room for talking to me. You must have your name and location or location and name in your nickname that displays. Otherwise you're ineligible to be called on. I see people in there who have who are not meeting that requirement, even the same people every single week raising their hand. And that's why you're not getting called on. Just just so people know why. Let's go next to. Oh, I don't know. How about Sean from California? Sean from California. Welcome to the program. What is on your mind today?

David, longtime caller, first time listener. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. Listen, I use toaster strudels as my barometer of how bad the United States infrastructure is at. And really years it's been box tops for education. Scan your receipt, earn cash for schools because teachers don't

make enough. But now they've added a new one this week. It's Operation Homefront. Help military families in need with code on side of pack. Sean, what are you talking about? Are you talking about fundraisers on the side of toaster strudel boxes? Is that what you're talking about? Yes, sir. It seems like the worst things get in the United States, the more corporations try to provide services for their customers on the side of these boxes. And for years it's been box tops for education. Right.

And now it's Operation Homefront help for military families in need. And I was wondering your opinion on when they can just make the boxes big enough to help the housing crisis, too. In other words, someone could live in the toaster strudel box. No, that's clever. Listen, I think that it is absolutely insane that in a country with a volunteer army, I mean, listen, in any country, but in a country with a volunteer military, I should say that there are folks who aren't paid well enough that they don't need help, additional help from people through fundraisers, et cetera. I think it's absolutely nuts. And this is not an argument to raise the military budget. What we should do is dramatically scale down the military.

But for everybody who is there, let's pay them appropriately. This is not really a crazy idea. But, you know, I would get away from the toaster strudels myself just as a nutrition sort of discussion, Sean. You know what? There's a reason why I listened to you for years. And I think today that I've once again remembered. Thank you, David. I'll get off of these as soon as possible. Which flavor do you go with? You know, today I went with the apple cinnamon. Yeah, because you can't taste it anyway when you're working, you know, so that's a classic whatever makes you go down. Have you ever had it basically melt in the toaster and destroy a toaster? No. And I've tried. Trust me, I've tried. You've tried to do that. All right,

Sean, thank you for the call. Thank you Thank you, sir. I'll keep doing. You're doing a good job. Speaker 1 Thank you. I appreciate that. There is Sean serious technical issues there for sure. Let's go to Christina. Christina, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today?

Speaker 4 Can you hear me? Speaker 1 Yes, I can. Christina, you're on the air. Speaker 4 Can you hear me? Speaker 1 Yes, I can. Speaker 4 OK, so I spoke to you before I worked at a, I told you how I worked at a sports bar. Yeah. Yeah. The MAGA dudes weren't tipping you. Yeah. Well, actually I actually have a different question this time. Okay. So, um, I'm the youngest of 15 children. No way. Yeah. So I'm now I

have nieces and nephews that are becoming old enough to be in school and stuff like that. Do you have any nieces and nephews that are older than you? I have four nieces that are older than me, two nephews that are older than me. Wow. And six nieces that are the same age as me and like six months apart. So in other words, someone who's older than you refers to you as Aunt Christina. Yeah, that's wild. And can I ask, what is the age spread amongst you and your siblings? Forty five to twenty three. Forty five to twenty three Speaker 1 45 to 23.

OK, very interesting. And this is this is all the same two parents. Speaker 5 No, my both of my parents adopted 11 of us. Speaker 1 Oh, OK. OK, that's still can I ask, was this like a kind of Christian adoption thing? Speaker 5 Yes and no. My, my mom had a breast cancer. Like, so my parents are in their 80s. So my mom got like breast cancer after her fourth child and she wanted more kids. I see. So her and my dad was just like, well, we can adopt them. Wow. So that is a that is an incredible

thing to do. Adopting 11 kids after having four. Yeah. And then she was actually retired when it and she didn't plan on having any more like adopting any more kids. And they like called her and said, we have a kid that needs that's in foster care that that's going to need a family. And my mom was like, we'll take her. And it was me. That was you. Oh, my goodness. And how old were you at that point?

I was 18 months old. So at 18 months old, you enter a family with 14 other siblings. Yes. That's unbelievable. The sibling closest to me in age is about 10 years older than me. So you're the youngest by a lot. OK, wow. Well, I's unbelievable. They're the closest to me in ages about 10 years older than me. So you're the youngest by a lot. OK, wow. Well, I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to derail, but I'm trying to understand the context. So now I do. So you can go on with your with your question. So like I grew up obviously like very different than most kids my age would have. We'll just keep it at that. Yeah, because my parents were very old school about everything. Like so they taught me how to do multiplication tables and cursive and all that. And so like I'll write things and then my nieces and nephews will be like, what is that? Is there a reason why they just don't teach that stuff in school anymore?

Well, now that's interesting. I'm aware that there's been a move away from teaching cursive in school because it's like not nearly as useful as it used to be. But I thought that it was in people who were like currently in high school. I didn't know if you're if you're the youngest, you're talking about people who are thirty three plus don't know how to read cursive. No, my younger nieces and nephews. Oh, I'm sorry. The younger ones. OK, that does make sense. But multiple you're talking about just like eight times seven. They don't know that in their head. No, that's weird because everybody knows it's 144, you know? Yeah, no, that is strange. Listen, I know that there are some

different approaches to teaching math now, but I didn't know that just your basic multiplication tables up to nine or 10 were not being taught. That's that's surprising to me. Yeah, like so, like I was helping my nephew with his homework and he's all now let's just put this this way. My nephew's 13 now, so he should already know how this one should already know how to do his multiplication tables. He's an advanced algebra two. And I'm like. He's like, what's six times seven?

I was like, so, Christina, let me see. And I know that people are going to write in to me, Christina, and they're going to say, David, what whatever Christina is talking about in much of the country, they're learning their multiplication tables. But it's interesting nonetheless. So you're basically saying that at 13, your nephew, if they're working out some algebra problem and they get to I need to do six times seven, they would need to pull out a calculator to do six times seven. Yes, that is really shocking to me. I remember that by third grade we knew our multiplications tables. Listen, I can't weigh in.

I don't know. I don't know what's going on exactly. Like eventually my daughter will be in school and then maybe I can try to figure it out. But I'm pretty shocked by what you're telling me. Speaker 5 Yeah, like it's just weird because like everything or my parents also worked with me, like I know my sister worked with my nephew like every single day when he was born. Like. Yeah. Like it's not like she's failed to not teach him it, but like he was saying that, like the school doesn't teach that stuff to him and that they have

they get told, figure it out for yourself or use a calculator in front of you. And what state is this all happening in? PA, Pennsylvania. All right. Well, listen, Christina, let me investigate it. But I appreciate you sharing what's going on. All right. Thank you. All right.

Thanks. There's Christina. Wow. That is people. Please let me know what's happening with these multiplication tables. OK, let's take a quick break. We'll take more calls right after this. Stay with us. not a vape. I don't advertise vape stuff. There's no nicotine. There's no electronics. Fume is a small cylindrical wooden device that just delivers plant flavored air. It comes in a variety of

flavors that people love. Crisp mint, maple pepper, white cranberry. They've got new flavors, sparkling grapefruit, orange vanilla. Importantly, it just gives your hand something to do. It's a device that feels good in your hand or in your pocket. You can take it anywhere and it satiates that hand to mouth fixation that if you're trying to break a bad habit can be very useful. It's also fun to fidget with, which is important, too. It has an adjustable airflow dial, a magnetic end cap. It gives your fingers something to do, even if it's in your pocket. Check out the reviews online. You'll see so many people have been skeptical at first about fume. They try it and they are very pleasantly surprised. Go to try fume dot com and use the code Pacman to save 10 percent when you get the journey pack, which comes with the device and several flavors to try. That's try FUM dot com. Then use code Pacman for 10 percent off

the journey pack. The info is in the podcast notes. Let's get back to discord and hear from some more people. How about Sean in Miami, Florida or Miami, Ohio? I don't know. Sean, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hello, Miami, Florida, Miami, Florida. How is it down there? Super hot these days. It's a sauna down here. I love going to Miami in like February, you know. That's yeah, that's probably a good time because from June to August. Oh, I'm with you. I'm with you. What's going on? I want to ask. I don't know if you've done a segment on your show recently on the situation with Israel and the judicial overhaul.

We've talked about it to some degree, but not not in the last couple of days. Oh, OK. Because I saw that it recently, like the first part of it just went through. Yep. Apparently, you know, the opposition in the Congress, like, what is it, boycotted the vote? Yep. So it went through unopposed. And I was just wondering, you know, your thoughts on it and if you think it's going to have international repercussions. I am unsure whether it will have international repercussions beyond just some posturing, but I am against the judicial reform. There's an interesting activist who is called both a pro Israeli shill and an anti Israeli

shill. Her name is Noah Tishby, and that's an O.A., the Israeli name, not not the male name Noah. And she was actually let go as a special envoy because she came out against the judicial reform. I'm also against the judicial reform. I do think that it gives authorities too much power. I'm against it for a number of reasons that kind of go beyond the scope of this discussion. But as far as international repercussions, I think we will hear some statements made, but I don't know that in terms of any practical changes, anything will change. That's my view right now with regard to other countries

relationships to Israel. OK, because I do know that Biden, you know, he came out saying that he thinks Netanyahu shouldn't go through with it. But if that's going to be followed up with any, you know, change in aid or anything like that, I don't know. I believe that it will not. That's my prediction, but I could be wrong. I appreciate your your answer. All right. Thanks, Sean. Sean from Miami. Great to hear from you. Let's go next to Jamie from South Dakota. Jamie from South Dakota. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Oh, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. I just had a question about right wing

candidates like worldwide and law and order or one auto, as many people like to say. Sure. But so I was wondering, it's I was just wondering what you think about, for example, like Netanyahu or Trump. These right wing candidates worldwide seem to be like pro law and order until the case gets to them. And I was just wondering what you think about that. What's interesting is I'm I'm an opponent of Benjamin Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is not a Trump like figure as our other European right wing candidates with regard to the use of populist rhetoric. If you listen to Netanyahu, he's really in another category altogether. Now, I'm I'm not a Netanyahu fan.

I'm an opponent of a Netanyahu fan. I'm an opponent of Benjamin Netanyahu. But I do think it's important to say that Trump and or Bonn and you know, we've seen this in France, Italy and other places. We are seeing the right rise of the of the nationalist right on the wings of populist sounding rhetoric. And that's a totally different thing from Netanyahu. So I don't know. You know, what I make of it is that populist rhetoric is rhetoric and it is not policy. And so, as I've said many times before, Bernie Sanders uses populist rhetoric and Tucker Carlson uses populist rhetoric. But if you put one or the other in power, their policy solutions, to the extent that

their solutions are very, very different. And it that this is why I am very skeptical of populist rhetoric. Yeah, people, a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle seem to be falling into the populism trap, it seems like. Yeah, but thank you for taking my call, David. I hope you have a good day. My pleasure. Great to hear from you.

There is Jamie from South Dakota. Let's go to JP from Georgia because we endorsed JP Wright, JD Mandel. JP, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Welcome. Welcome to the program. So I had a little bit more of just a comment today, and it's fantastic news, David. In the wild, I've come across the rare, the the legendary, the fabled caucus sword.

Is that right? Yes, absolutely. And what what exactly was it? Speaker 1 So really what I mean is there was a guy yesterday in in my work who actually brought up, you know, there's only three races, Negroid, caucus or caucus, Lloyd and Mongoloid. Yeah. Speaker 1 And what did you say it was? Okay. And so what?

Speaker 2 Thank you so much. Well, when he mentioned that there were only, that there were only three races, my girlfriend was there and she just said, well, you have to tell me more about this. Yeah. And he went on to explain and we kind of just let it go. But his point was that he and his family who had come to America 100 years before, right, is the same is the same as a Native American who came to America 15000 years ago. Oh, oh, that's interesting. So let me see if I understand. Yes, there are those who say that

Europeans stole what is now American land from Native Americans and that it is rightly that of the Native Americans. And one counterpoint to that would be if you can rest your argument on there are only the three races, Mongoloid, Caucasus and Negroid, then by definition, it seems, I guess, as though the Europeans and the Native Americans are all Caucasoid and therefore there was really no theft of the land. It's just all Caucasoid or something. Is this the argument that they're trying to make?

I'm not quite sure, but when pressed on any of his issues, he didn't seem to quite have good footing. He also gave me such great information as they didn't cast Puerto Ricans in the initial or the original West Side Story movie because of their lack of ability to dance, which we all know Puerto Ricans can't dance, right? I have no idea. Is that right? Is that a thing? I'm not sure. No, they're no, no, no. I'm sorry. They're they are very, you know, are Latin Americans are normally very good dancers from what I are. Puerto Ricans, Latin American is a question.

I honestly don't even know the answers. I mean, all these categories. OK, well, either one. So that's it's not my intention to categorize anybody incorrectly. What I'm seeing is Puerto Ricans are considered Latin America because of cultural, historical and linguistic ties to the region. That's perfectly fine. I'm glad to welcome Puerto Ricans into Latin America. Listen, JP, let me look into it, but it sounds like quite a conversation. All right. Fantastic. Thank you, David. All right. There goes JP from

Georgia. Wow. That's some wild, wild stuff. Let's go to Nevin from Maine, who is also a member at David Pakman dot com. Nevin, really appreciate your support on the website. What's on your mind today? Nevin, please unmute yourself. Nobody can hear you because you've self muted. Hello. Yes, you're on the air now. You're on the air. All right. So my question was, what do you think is the likelihood of a four way race this cycle between Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Joe Manchin? Because if Ron DeSantis wins the nomination, what will likely happen is that Trump's going to run third party. It looks like Joe Manchin might run either way.

So I want to know your thoughts on that. I believe that such a scenario is almost a complete and total impossibility. It is true that if DeSantis wins the nomination, Trump might run third party. There's a question as to whether sore loser laws would prevent him from getting on enough ballots to actually win the 270 electoral votes. I don't know the answer that offhand, but we should know the answer to that. I think Joe Manchin's possibility of running under the no labels umbrella is sort of a long shot.

He might do it. But you're basically saying the odds of both of those things happening and Trump losing the nomination to the Santas, which doesn't seem likely. So the scenario you outlined, I don't know where I would put the odds against it, but they would be very heavy odds against that scenario. All right. And my second question, how useful do you think the left right political spectrum is in the modern day? I think it is still mostly useful for at the top level understanding political movements. However, we are seeing

kind of what some people would call horseshoe theory. This is the idea. If you go so far left, you end up on the right or vice versa. We are seeing weird movements, conspiracy type movements, sometimes populist type movements that because they don't really have policy, they just have rhetoric. They pull in people from the left and right and they confuse the spectrum like the RFK Junior movement, where he's running as a Democrat and he's from a Democratic family, the Kennedys. But he's mostly working with Republican strategists

and building support overwhelmingly from Republicans and raising money from Republicans. At these individual example levels, we are seeing a little bit of a breaking of that standard left right spectrum, but not to such a degree that it's not a useful general tool. Like if I say, listen, guys, big picture, I'm very clearly on the left and actual socialists are probably further to my left and Biden's to my right. And then if you go beyond that, you get to Joe Manchin and then you get to Lindsey Graham and then you get to, you know, I think that that's still generally useful. All right. Really appreciate you talking, taking my call. Have a great day. All right. Nevin from Maine. That's actually a good question. It's a really important thing to be

thinking about. All right, folks, thank you for calling in. I'll take calls again. Don't fret too much if I didn't get to you this time. There's something really disturbing we've been seeing in the news lately. The FBI is now gathering huge amounts of data on everything people do on phones and computers. And here is how data brokers collect information about what you look at online, where you go, your political views. The FBI then buys that data to keep track of you. It is a legal gray area that the government will happily take advantage of. They don't need a court order. They just do it. But it's not just the government because criminals can end up accessing that data and use it to target you for phishing or identity theft. Big tech companies, political campaigns can buy the

data to try to influence you. But here is the solution. Our sponsor, Incogni, automatically sends data removal requests to the major data brokers who are required by law to remove your information upon request. If any of your information stays online, Incogni will even follow up with them about removing it. And Incogni keeps you updated with details at every step. So, you know, when everything's been removed, it is a fantastic service that I use and my audience gets 60% off. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 60 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. This show is a two way street of sorts in that I do the show, but then people have feedback and opinions and criticism and trolling and

compliments and all of these different things. And once a week, some of them get featured on the show on the Friday feedback segment. These might be emails or YouTube comments or they really could be almost anything. are going to start today with a really incisive, mature, critical analysis of the Biden administration and of my role here. And it comes to us from George. That is exactly right. I am the guy who checks Biden's diapers. And I may be doing that until January of twenty twenty nine, depending on the results of the twenty twenty four election. All right. On to more substantive things. Roman wrote in and says separation of church and state is not a law. It was a private letter written saying we should keep the government out of churches. Look it up, rookie. All right. All right. Well,

OK, Captain, I'll look that up. This is, of course, very untrue. Two different aspects to this. Number one, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, says there shall be no establishment of religion. This means that if you use any particular religion or religiosity in general over non religiosity, any of that would not be in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Therefore it is a separation of church and state. The separation is our lawmakers, our public officials. Everybody can be any religion they want, but one's religion shall not be imposed or established or used to

justify or frame laws. Now, of course, this happens all the time. If we look at the abortion laws in many states and you look at the debates that took place for and against those laws, you very quickly realize that religious arguments are used all the time. But yes, separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. In addition to that, check out my interview with Tom Hartman earlier this week where he talks about the Treaty of Tripoli and George Washington and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and says, although they were deists, they all in different places codified and enumerated the separation between religion and government that there must be. So just very, very wrong.

Here is Pap Pav, who weighed in on my interview with Richard Dawkins and says, David, you were so generous in your approach with the topic of trans. You even tried to hide the rope. So he, Richard Dawkins, couldn't hang himself, but he did. It's very conflicting for me, as Dawkins was someone I always looked up to on the topics of biology and religion. I wish you asked its thoughts on what other biologists say about current findings and understanding of biological sex. Listen, here's one of the things that I have learned by doing this show for a long time, which is there really is no one that I agree with all the time. And I know some people wrote to me and said, David Dawkins is in

his 80s and he's just you have to even though he's this brilliant biologist, you still have to see his views on gender as just he's kind of out of touch because of a generational thing. Well, that's one perspective. Others who said, you know, he really just shouldn't be addressing those issues or everybody that I am aware of may be brilliant and may have many areas where I agree with them, but not necessarily in every area. And that's OK. I still think the interview with Dawkins was super interesting, but many people reacting similarly to to that message. No, well, Hans says my MAGA sister has to my pillows. It's like laying your head down on a bag of popcorn. You know, even among left wingers. Views about Mike Lindell's my pillows are mixed. There

are people who write to me and say things like what Noel says that the pillow is terrible. Others write to me and say Mike Pillow is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, but the pillows are good. You know, the thing about pillows, it's it's a very personal thing. What kind of pillow one might want or benefit from? It all is very subjective. And you know, Mike Pillow said that my goose down pillows are no good for my neck, but I like my goose down pillow. So I don't know. I don't know that one way or the other.

Mike Pillow is bonkers regardless of how good or bad his pillows are. A Space Force commander wrote in, commented and said Democrats need to speak up and have better messaging. And Gavin Newsom is good at it. Yeah. You know, I find that when I started talking about how Gavin Newsom is the style of Democrat that the Democratic Party would benefit from kind of orienting itself towards, I received many emails from people angry that I would say such a thing. How dare I say something positive about Gavin Newsom? But since then and over the last couple of months in particular, I'm getting more and

more messages from people saying, David, you know, I don't have to agree with Gavin Newsom on every issue, or I can recognize that Gavin Newsom is not the ultra progressive goal that we should set our sights on necessarily. But the guy knows how to communicate. His interview with Hannity was absolutely fantastic. And I tend to agree that even without saying I again, like I just said, I don't have to agree. I don't agree with anyone on everything.

But Newsom is definitely hitting the right notes when it comes to many of the types of topics that he addresses, how he addresses them and the sort of ruthlessness with which he does it. Check out the interview with Hannity, about a million views or more on YouTube. Incredibly interesting to people. Check out his interview with Hannity and how he handled it. Mike commented on Facebook, says Pacman, I agree with most of what you say, but you suffer from diarrhea of the mouth. You simply have to let the videos talk and stop the 20 minute commentary. It's exhausting and I can't listen to you. OK, I'm going to let Mike in on on a little secret. We've gone back and forth about this exact issue for a decade on the show. And every once in a while, someone will write in saying, hey, David, you know,

don't interrupt the videos. Just let the video play. Don't say a word. And I will mention to the audience, hey, do people want me to do this? Should I just shut up during the videos? And overwhelmingly, people write in ninety five, ninety eight percent and say, David, the whole point of your show is to hear your commentary. And sometimes it might be appropriate to leave the commentary until the end. But if you're if you're playing a three minute clip, you can't play an entire three minutes and then do a full response to maybe five or six different points. It makes sense that you stop the video when you want and you comment. If people don't like it, they can go and just seek out the individual clips without commentary. It's sort of like if you watch a live stream with me versus watching it on C-SPAN.

If you don't want the commentary, then go and watch C-SPAN. We've decided that's the way we do it. So if you don't like my commentary, this may not be the right show for you. And the clips I play are available on the Internet by themselves. But the audience has spoken. It's not unanimous. I know someone will write in and say, but I don't want you to talk. OK, I talk. I talk on the show and I talk when I feel like interjecting. Dora wrote in and says with regard to Trump's alleged crimes,

a speedy trial would be the right thing to do. Stop delaying and move forward with the criminal charges. Trump must be held accountable of all his crimes and should be in prison. Lock him up, lock him up. Now, I don't know that this type of message is particularly useful, and I'll tell you why. I've been very careful to not call for the imprisonment of people who have not been found guilty and sentenced. It's not law and order to say lock up Hillary when Hillary has not been charged with any crime, never mind convicted. It's not

law and order to demand the same thing of Joe Biden or Hunter Biden or whatever the case may be. So I think it's important for us on the left to say we actually support law and order, meaning if there's probable cause, investigate. If there's evidence presented to a grand jury, if the grand jury finds the evidence compelling and says there's an indictment here, then you indict and then you have a trial or strike a plea deal. And then if there is a sentencing guideline in place, you evaluated a new sentence and then you can say, well, now we've done what we need to do to lock somebody up. But I think it's important for us not to go around saying lock up Trump

because it's not law and order. There are charges. The charges are serious. Let's now go to the next phase. That's my view. Dottie wrote in and says, I don't understand these people who watch shows that don't agree with their politics or the people who post on here referring to Facebook, who obviously support old orange and hate the Democrats. They must have too much time on their hands. I'm 61. There's no way I'd waste a minute of what's left in my life doing what they do. Life's too short. People keep up the good work, David. Yeah, listen, I've said before. I've never written into any show I've ever watched ever, ever, ever. Fiction shows, news shows, podcasts. I've never, ever, ever done it. And so when I get these horrible hate messages,

anti-Semitic messages or homophobic messages, even though I'm not gay, but they still, you know, throw around the F word or any time I receive those. I used to kind of get like mad and go, what? But but then I think to myself, what must be going on in the lives of these people to think it valuable and worthy of their time to just send these disgusting messages to people they don't even know on the Internet? I start to feel bad. Their lives must really be terrible. And sometimes when I say this, some of the usual suspects who write in all the time, this sort of stuff will write to me and they go, David, I'm very happy in my life. I'm very happy. Really? You're so happy that you spend years writing hate mail to me. And then when I mention

your life must be sad that you do that, you immediately feel the need to email someone you don't even know and defend yourself. Hard to believe how happy you really are. But listen, my I actually feel bad for those people. I really do. And I think we should practice radical empathy with them. That's my thought. All right, folks, we have such a great bonus show for you today. It will be coming up right after this. If you don't have access to the bonus show, it's really easy to get access. Just sign up at join Pacman dot com. It's our primary funding source memberships at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code 24 starts now to get a discount. You don't have to take the discount, but it's available to you.

And then we'll see you on the bonus show. We'll see you on the commercial free audio and video stream. You'll get access to the soundboard. You'll get invited to the members only town halls. All of it. All of it. All of it. See you then.

Otherwise, we'll be back here Monday. Have a good weekend.