The David Pakman Show - 7/4/24: Trump convicted on all 34 counts, now a felon (CLASSIC EPISODE FROM 5/31/24)

Episode Date: July 4, 2024

INDEPENDENCE DAY / CLASSIC EPISODE FROM MAY 31, 2024 -- Failed former President Donald Trump is convicted on all 34 felony counts in his first criminal trial and is now a convicted felon -- Donald Trump is clearly shellshocked as he delivers a brief statement after being criminally convicted of 34 felonies -- Trump supporters are devastated and lose their minds outside the courthouse just moments after Trump's conviction -- Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's lawyer, delivers an absurd series of interviews after losing Trump's case -- Caller discusses Christian nationalism -- Caller asks about the possibility of Trump suspending the Constitution -- Caller is worried Texas Republicans will change election laws in their favor -- Caller may vote for Joe Biden -- Caller asks what happens if Biden dies before the convention -- Caller discusses school voucher programs -- Caller talks about AI regulation -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: More Trump guilty verdict reactions, and much more... -- Become a Member: https://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- Pakman Discord: https://www.davidpakman.com/discord -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave a Voicemail: (219)-2DAVIDP

Hey, this is David Pakman inviting you to enjoy a classic episode of The David Pakman Show today. We will return with new shows before you know it. Welcome everybody. It's a new day in the United States of America, and I can now present to you civilly liable sexual assaulter and convicted felon failed former President Donald Trump. It really happened. The 12 jurors found that the evidence was sufficient when comparing it to the law, applying

principles of law and order and due process. Here is Jake Tapper on CNN. Thirty four felony counts. Thirty four guilty verdicts for the failed former president. Count one is guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, another felony charge. Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. All 34 are felonies. Donald Trump has now been convicted of 34 different felony crimes. Wow.

Trump joining his campaign chairman. Let me see if I can remember. Deputy campaign manager, former national security adviser, foreign policy adviser, a variety of consultants and different lawyers, I guess, as as felons. When almost the entire world celebrates you being found guilty other than your sycophantic brown nosing followers, you're not living your life the right way. Thirty four counts, 34 felonies, all guilty. Sentencing will be on July 11th. The range here for what Trump could be up against starts at just mere probation and goes all the way up to four

years incarcerated, four years incarcerated. Now, the assumption is Trump will not see the inside of a cell. The truth is, when you look at falsifying business records, if you just look at people convicted of falsifying business records in the state of New York, when you look at the more serious instances and this is 34 instances, right? This is pretty serious. Usually they do get jail time. Usually they do get some some time locked up. When you look at the reality that Trump didn't even respect the process enough to stay awake for it. When you look at the fact that Trump has shown no remorse whatsoever, which is something judges consider in sentencing, when in fact it's the opposite of remorse. Trump attacked

the judge every single day, showing that it's the opposite of remorse. Trump attacked the judge every single day, showing that it's not even possible that he thinks he did anything wrong. It's the judge who did something wrong. If we don't have a two tier justice system, if Trump is treated just like any other defendant, he probably would get some time incarcerated. I'm not saying I expect that. But if he were a different non former president, that's what we would we would expect. Sentencing will be July 11th. And of course, we will cover that now on some specific questions that have come in. And this is to some degree uncharted legal territory. Trump's now a convicted felon. Can he even vote in the upcoming presidential election? So here's my understanding of that.

Trump lives in Florida. He would be voting in Florida as long as he stays out of prison in New York state. He would be allowed to vote in Florida, New would be voting in Florida as long as he stays out of prison in New York state. He would be allowed to vote in Florida, New York, the way Florida goes by the state in which you were convicted. New York law only removes the law, the right to vote for people convicted of felonies when they are incarcerated. Florida would then say, well, if that's New York's law, if Trump is not incarcerated in New York, then we allow him to vote in Florida as long as he's not sent to prison.

He can vote for himself in November. Can Trump hold a security clearance? It's unclear. It's I don't have an answer. I've read conflicting legal opinions. I don't know if Trump can hold a security clearance, which you need to be able to do to functionally be president of the United States. Can Trump have a real estate license in Florida or New York? I don't know the answer to that. It's not totally clear. Trump was already running on a platform of dictatorial retribution and revenge. That's only going to increase now. And the American people can decide, do they want that? And there are some really stark contrasts now in November. Do you want to vote for the guy who thinks the winner of the election should be president? Or do you want to vote for the guy who believes the loser of the election should still be president, as Trump tried to do in 2020?

Do you want to vote for the convicted felon or the guy who's never even been indicted? That's a very stark contrast. Do you want to vote for the guy who did not weaponize the justice system against his opponent? Or do you want to vote for the guy who promises to weaponize the justice system against his opponent, that being Donald Trump? There has been a reaction from some of now that Trump was convicted, he's going to win. This helps Trump. And I have two reactions to that. Number one, I don't think that that's the case at all. Based on the polling I've seen, the conviction hurts Trump a little bit. It should probably hurt him more based on the polling. It

hurts Trump a little bit. But more importantly, we don't deliberately miscarry justice because we suspect there is enough completely insane people in this country that they're more likely to vote for Trump if he's convicted. Those people may exist. I don't think they're a large number, but that wouldn't be a reason to deliberately miscarry justice. But on the fact I struggle to believe that this actually helps Donald Trump. So 34 guilty verdicts. What was Trump's reaction? Let's talk about that next. Moments after being convicted on 34 felony counts now facing up to four years in prison, Donald Trump looking shell shocked and stunned, mumbling and stumbling out of the courtroom. I was looking for Melania standing by her man. I didn't see her. But

here is Donald Trump's statement. really disoriented and clearly shell shocked by what took place. This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. It's a rigged trial, a disgrace. They wouldn't give us a venue change. We were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area. This was a rigged, disgraceful trial. The real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people. And they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here. You have a sore respect, D.A. and the whole thing. We didn't do a thing wrong. I'm a very innocent man. Very. And it's OK. I'm fighting for our country. I'm fighting for our Constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now. This was done by the Biden administration. Just so everybody knows, everything he's saying here is a lie. In order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent.

And I think it's just a disgrace. And we'll keep fighting. We'll fight till the end and we'll win because our country's gone to hell. We don't have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We're nation in decline, serious decline, millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists, and they're taking over our country.

Trump's just been convicted on 34 felonies. This is what he's talking about. A country that's in big trouble. But this was a rigged decision right from day one with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case. Never. And we will fight for our Constitution. This is long from over. Thank you very much. All right. So there is Donald Trump defeated, shell shocked, stunned, blaming everyone by him, but himself and then wandering away from the microphone. I've been looking around for a statement of support from Melania Trump supporting and defending her beloved husband.

I was not able to find it. So Donald Trump now will wait until July 11th to have a sentence levied upon him. In the meantime, Trump supporters just losing their minds outside of the courtroom within seconds of the conviction of now convicted felon, civilly liable sexual assaulter and failed former President Donald Trump within seconds of the verdict. Trump supporters outside the courthouse losing their minds. There is some explosive and extreme language here. These are really agitated people.

Some of these videos from NBC, some from Freedom News TV. They were so emotional they were unable to maintain any level of calm or whatever. Take a listen to this and psychopathy possible here. here? There you go. So levying a number of vague and generic threats during an NBC News report just outside the courthouse, the reporter actually mentioned that just feet away from her, another group of people was I mean, listen, I don't know what to call it other than just losing their minds. Listen to this. And the visual is an important component here. You can hear the crowd here.

There's a lot of supporters out here that you can hear are very worked up. As I was reading the I love the phrase that they're that they're worked up. I don't know why I find that to be funny because it's it's both one of these. It's an understatement and it's an overstatement with regard to the sort of like validity, validity and soberness of the way that they're worked up. Yes, it's true. They are definitely worked up. Very worked up as I was reading the verdict. I could hear the crowd emotion growing behind me. I'm only a couple of yards away from the area that you can see on your screens right there. Sort of the First Amendment area, if you will.

It's just a stone's throw away from the press area. It's been growing as the day went on. It's growing after they heard that this verdict was coming in. A lot of them, as she's describing this, there's a guy visibly shaking and holding a free father to race a sign. She's running very high in this city right now. Again, this is the presumptive GOP nominee in the middle of an election year for things that he did that the prosecution said he did to try to corrupt the last election.

And just remarkable scene playing out right here in lower Manhattan. I just I just can't with this stuff. Here's another part of that earlier group saying that they will threatening to tear apart the courthouse. Go where you go. Go where you go. Speaker 1 By the way, there's this guy in the black shirt yelling, you're the F word slur for a gay person. He's wearing a shirt that says gays for Trump. So I don't I mean, you know, it's like with all of these things, there's five layers. We could analyze it and none of it makes any sense. Get the fuck out of here, bitch. Bitch, you have a cunt. You're a little pussy. You're a pussy. You're a pussy. You hear me? You're a little pussy. Little shrively pussy.

That's what you are. That's all you are is a run. You're not even a man. We're going to eat you. We're going to eat you and your family. Oh, I'm so proud of you. All right. So and then lastly, here is, you know, just more reaction. People really, really upset, I guess, is the way I would say. And NYPD, they're just kind of like, can we just calm down, please? Is it possible for everybody to calm down? OK, so tensions running very, very high. Let's now hear from Donald Trump's lawyer. Trump's defense attorney, Todd Blanch, gave a series of unhinged and unintelligible interviews

last night on CNN, also on Fox News. One particularly funny moment was when Todd Blanch was asked on CNN by Caitlin Collins, you know, Trump said there were all these great witnesses, defense witnesses that would have completely exculpated Donald Trump. But you didn't call them. Why didn't you call them? Todd Blanchard's explanation is completely ridiculous. Listen to this. When he was leaving, one thing he brought up were the witnesses who were not called. And he was saying that there could have been witnesses that would have helped make the case. We never saw Keith Schiller, Alan Weisselberg, some key figures here who got brought up a lot.

Why didn't the defense call any of these witnesses? Well, because we happen to live in America, and we don't have the burden of proof. And so there's not, that's not the point. That's a question that is a loaded question that should not be asked of a defense attorney or a defendant. The question that we asked the jury, and they ultimately obviously got passed, is why the prosecution didn't call those witnesses, right? As a defense attorney, you don't go into a case saying, I'm going to fill the holes of the prosecution, right? And Keith Schiller and some of the other witnesses that were not ultimately called, in our view, should have been called, should have been called by the prosecution. And we we asked the jury to take a hard look at that. What on earth is this guy talking about? Now, later, he admits Trump was involved in

guiding strategy. Your hope is that you're going to win the case for your defendant by pointing out to the jury that there were people not called as witnesses by the prosecution. It's not your job to fill the holes of the prosecution. Well, but maybe it's your job to expose the holes of the prosecution. He's saying the prosecution should have called the witnesses that would have been useful to my client that would have made the defense better. But we didn't call them.

What is this guy talking about? Now, the reality is the answer for why they weren't called is the same as why Trump didn't testify. There was no way to put people under oath and present a coherent alternative explanation for the facts, period. Now, if you're wondering why the defense was so screwy, here is Todd Blanch on Fox News saying Trump was making decisions about legal strategy. How involved was Donald Trump in his own defense? I mean, what do you think? I mean, very involved. And he's a he's he's a smart guy.

He knows what he's doing. He jokingly said to us a lot. Sometimes he wanted to be the litigator. You know, he wanted to be the one that was actually arguing because he's a smart guy and he knows what he's doing. We made every decision together. We did. And there were things that he was frustrated with. You know, the judge several months ago, there was a we wanted to be able to argue reliance of counsel that we were that to some extent, President Trump was relying on his lawyer. Yeah. Imagine losing all 34 accounts for your

client and then acting like you and your client together were these brilliant legal geniuses who strategize to get you just lost everything. It's it's it's the blind leading the blind here. And imagine Trump wanted to be the litigator. Trump couldn't even be put on the witness on the witness stand in in in his own defense because he would immediately perjure himself and have absolutely no way of explaining the facts in a way that doesn't actually further incriminate him. And we're to believe that Trump would have been able to represent himself as an attorney. It's absolutely absurd. It seems as though we got a very deserved verdict here. And now we wait and we see what is the sentencing on July 11th. Let's take a very quick break. Remember that it's the last day on the Memorial Day membership special. If you missed

it and you want the coupon code to get the discount email info at David Pakman dot com. Say, hey, David, give me that code, please. Please. Quick break back after this. Don't forget that the best way to support The David Pakman Show is by becoming a member, which gives you access to The Daily Bonus Show, the regular show with no commercials. You also get access to our entire archive of every episode dating back a really long The David Pakman Show continues to be supported and funded by our members. We make membership cheap, easy and quick to sign up for.

You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. It doesn't cost a lot of money and it can cost even less with the coupon code. Save democracy 24. Let's hear from some of the great people in our audience. We do this on Fridays. We do it via discord and you can find our discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Why don't we start today? And this is only where we're starting. Who knows where we will end? Let's start with Andrew from Utah.

Andrew, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hey, David, thanks for taking my call. My pleasure. My question has to do with Christian nationalism and kind of how the right has continued to push further out and be a bit more bombastic in their attacks. I grew up in Utah. I grew up Mormon and LDS and statistics that have come out lately show that even Mormons are now becoming a majority in the state and the state is starting to push away from being religious in general.

And I just wonder your thoughts on if the reason the right has become more pushing with like the Christian rhetoric, you know, anti abortion, whatnot, is because they are kind of like a almost like a cornered animal. And they kind of have no choice at this point either to lash out or just to give up. You know, I'm not sure if that's the case. And I see conflicting data on Mormons in Utah. I see as low as 42 percent or as high as 61 percent. So it's actually unclear to me whether Mormons are a majority. And I don't know if some of that has to do with folks who are from Mormon families, but

maybe are not officially in the church. I just don't know. But let's assume it's between 40 and 60 percent. It's certainly a significant portion of Utah's Utah, Utah's. I don't know if that's the right way you say it. I'm not sure if the Christian nationalism fervor from people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and others comes from them feeling like this is their last shot at it and their backs are against the wall or if they see an opportunity because of the rise of MAGA. It's very much unclear to me what it is. What I do know is that it's a major, major risk that we have to do everything we can to shut down as quickly as possible, primarily not because of any opinion of mine, but simply because it's

not the basis on which this country was founded. I agree. Yeah, I definitely think it needs to be out of politics and there definitely needs to be that wall of separation of church and state just feels like they're doing everything they can just to tear it down while they continue to kind of fall a little less. I mean, I know you've probably seen the statistics of the rising of the nuns or the non-religious are probably one of the highest group that's growing right now, as far as in those circles. Would you agree? Absolutely.

No doubt about it. That's all I want your thoughts on, just if you felt like that was a thing or if you don't like that's happening. No, I do. And, you know, the other thing also is that there's sometimes the religion surveys don't do a good job of getting at separate separating organized religion from some generic spirituality. And from what I'm seeing, generic spirituality, which doesn't necessarily have to believe in anything supernatural, that seems to be increasing in certain parts of the country in a way whose effect is not yet

totally clear to me. So I think there's definitely changing dynamics here, Andrew. The Christian nationalism is part of it. The nuns who are spiritual is also part of it. We'll see where we kind of land in five years, you know. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you. You know, great to hear from you. Very much appreciate it. Let's go next to Jack from Minnesota. Jack from Minnesota. Welcome to the program. What's going on with you?

What's on your mind today? Oh, Jack from Minnesota, please. Please. And last chance for Jack from Minnesota. Oh, hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.

Hello. You're on the air, Jack. Oh, hello. You're on the air. Oh, my goodness. Sorry, I have I had a spasm. I kept saying hello repeatedly. It happens.

Anyways, how goes it? How are you doing? It's going well, Jack. Thank you. OK, I wrote this down because I'm really bad at speaking. So this is on the topic of this year's election in November. I know you're not a fan of dipping into the conspiratorial, so do forgive me. But from what I think I know, the FBI and like certain intel agencies like the Pentagon and stuff like that uh many current and former military officials

all uh most of them i would say i heard a lot of them say this they express like great concern like about like a trump presidency most notably mark milley uh he literally called trump uh the fuhrer uh so what do you think of these communities and their opinion on Trump? And do you think they have like a vested interest in him losing for the sake of national and international security? Or would they just accept a person who stole countless top secret documents right back into the White House? Speaker 1 I think they would. So a couple of different things here. First of all, I take very seriously the Trump defectors who say this guy's a danger. You know, we did a piece recently reminding everybody that there are all sorts of allegations

made in the media against Joe Biden. And we don't have a single defector or whistle whistleblower from Biden's administration that says any of this stuff is true, that Biden's not really in control, that someone else is making the decisions, that he's's demanded. He doesn't know what it is. And yet with Trump, we have dozens of defectors and whistleblowers from inside the former administration. So I take it very seriously and I believe them. And also because most of the people who work for the federal government are essentially career bureaucrats who are not overtly political. I think that if Trump does win, they will say, hey, me staying maybe helps to prevent him from doing the worst stuff that he wants to do. If I leave, they do replace me with a loyalist. So I think it's less about will they tolerate it? They will

say, wow, I'm going to stay to try to fight against the stuff that Trump is going to try to do. That's fair there. There is another thing like like Trump did say he was going to, like, suspend the Constitution or he was going to do things that were, you know, well, what? Yes, let's be clear. Let's be clear, Jack. What Trump said was he believed that in order to right wrongs that don't exist, right, that the election was stolen or whatever, that

it would be justified to suspend parts of the Constitution to do what he says is the right thing. Now, it's completely nuts that he said that he didn't just generically say, I will suspend the Constitution, period. But he tried to sort of say there would be justification for that. OK, but let's just say he he he does that. Yeah. Due to his justifications, doesn't that mean the military comes in because they have an oath to the Constitution? Right. Speaker 1 You know, you're making a lot of sense. I don't know what happens if Trump suspends the Constitution. That that's OK. I it's a scary scenario and I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure what happens. I'm hoping we defeat him and it's not something we

have to find out. I agree. All right. Jack from Minnesota, thanks so much for the call. I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. All right. There goes Jack. Let's go from Jack to Jackie from California. Jackie, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? What are you thinking about? Hi, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hi, it's my first time calling in and using discord. So you're doing great so far. Thanks. So I was just curious about I noticed when people call in the ratio of men to women, it seems to skew that your audience definitely seems to be more male based.

And I was curious if you had the analytics on who who your audience we do see made up of. Yeah, Jackie, this has come up my show and shows like this one, even when they have a female host like the Young Turks with Anna Kasparian, they skew male, they skew male. And it's depending on the platform. It's like a sixty five thirty five sort of thing or sometimes even seventy thirty male depends on the platform. And I think there's a lot of speculation as to why that is that the best explanation I've heard. And, you know, I it's worth what you're paying for it, Jackie, which is nothing, I think there's a lot of speculation as to why that is that the best explanation I've heard and,

you know, I it's worth what you're paying for it, Jackie, which is nothing is that at the platform level, women seem less likely to get political commentary from YouTube and podcasting. It seems that it's sort of like a structural thing. But beyond that, I don't really have anything other than the numbers, you know? Yeah, yeah, that that's kind of what I what I figured. Let's try Jefferson from Austin and see if we can avoid a three in a row call bungling. Jefferson from Austin, Texas. Welcome to the show. Hi, David. Thanks for having me again.

My pleasure. I saw your item just this morning, actually, about the new bill in Texas on the books to make elections so that any candidates have to win a majority of counties in Texas, effectively making it basically impossible for Democrats to win. Yes. And the the consensus seemed to be that among legal minds that this was not going to be a legal those. This was a measure that couldn't be found legal. Do you have any other detail about about that? No, I mean, it very clearly seems to violate one person, one vote saying, hey, not only do you need to win the popular vote in Texas to win a statewide office, you also need to win a majority of the counties.

Now the funny thing is, if that violates one person, one vote, then so does the National Electoral College, which by the way, I agree, violates one person, one vote because it makes votes in different states worth different amounts. I don't have anything new since we reported the story, Jefferson, other than it really doesn't seem that it would be legal. And hopefully they don't even waste time and resources trying to do it. I would hope so if by if it somehow gets gets passed. I guess the the real hope at that point would be that first the state Supreme Court would have to go. Well, I guess I don't know if there's anything necessarily in the Texas Constitution that would that it would be in violation of or if it would take a lawsuit to the United States Supreme Court to have that potentially struck down. Yeah, I don't know the lawsuit process that would be required.

I'm hoping that Republicans realize this is idiocy and they don't actually vote to try to do it. That's my hope. As do I appreciate your time, David. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Jefferson from Austin, Texas. Always great to hear from you. Let's go next to Ty from Iowa. Ty from Iowa. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hello, David. Can you hear me? Yes. We're not on speakerphone, are we? Oh, I'm using a blue. Yeah, you might. Oh, all right. Well, let's do the best we can with it. OK, well, I was on here a month ago and I'm so sorry I forgot, like I forgot, but

I basically said I'm going to vote for Biden, but I didn't say that I was, I agree with him on everything, and he said, like, what, and I didn't hear that, so I guess just, it mostly has to do with the Palestinian conflict, I mean, so I was really on the side of Israel, you know, from the start, because, and I thought it was kind of weird when people were supporting Palestine when Hamas did something so bad. But then I look into the deaths of how many Palestinians have been killed. I think it's like 30 something thousand, you know. Now I kind of see where people are coming from.

But I definitely still think people should vote for Biden just because I just I don't think Trump would handle it any better, probably would handle it worse, you know, so. Right. That makes a lot of sense to me, Ty. because it was record store day and there's someone in line that was giving out little pamphlets and they said, um, we, this is an alternative to Biden where you can vote for, uh, like socialist party or something like that. When they came up to me, I said, well, you know, I, I really don't want another Trump presidency, so I'm just going to vote for Biden. And then what did they say? Oh, they just walked off and just went to the next person. Yeah, listen, this for me, you know, everybody has to.

I can't tell you what to care about, Ty. Right. I can't tell you what your moral compass should be. For me, this is not an election to mess around with anything that could get Trump elected, especially given given the things he's admitting he's going to try to do. I would be very scared about the things he's smart enough not to admit also. Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah. All right. try to do. I would be very scared about the things he's smart enough not to admit also. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. All right, my friend, Ty from Iowa. Great to hear from you again. Let's take the quickest of quick breaks and then come right back to the phones and talk to some

more people. So hang on. If you value what we do at The David Pakman Show, remember to support us on Patreon. Go to Patreon dot com slash David Pakman show. All right. On the Friday show, we hear from people in the audience through discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Let's go to Vince from Wisconsin. Vince, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Morning, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Perfect. I have two very brief questions. My first concern is reading. So what advice would you give to people who have fallen out of reading for a while to sort of get back into it? Number one, find a book that's genuinely interesting and doesn't feel like a chore to read. And number two, carve out even if it's five minutes, this is all it takes.

Even if you can carve out five minutes a day and say, I will read three pages a day. Just start with a book you like and five minutes a day. You just got to start. That's the only way. OK, and what what about what do you do to like get off the phone and the computer? And what advice do you have for that? I would I would employ something like Cal Newport's. If this is a struggle for you, this is not something I really struggle with. But for people who struggle with this, I would employ what might be called the phone foyer method where when you're home, you have some place where your charger is. It could be in your foyer.

Right. I mean, most people at this point, does anybody have a foyer anymore? But somewhere maybe it's in the kitchen or your chargers there, you plug in the phone and you leave it. And then this is the crazy thing. You walk away and you read the book somewhere far from the phone. If someone calls you, you'll hear it. You won't miss the call if you feel like, oh, I need to look up something. Do I really need to look it up right now and walk all the way over to the phone? Or can I just look it up maybe when I'm done reading and leave the phone connected in your proverbial foyer and only go over to it when you actually have something to look up? Speaker 4 That's pretty smart idea. Yeah. My second my second question is,

when are you going to do another members town hall? Speaker 1 We have to do it soon. You know, I've fallen so behind on everything because honestly, just having a toddler, that's really it. I was able to do a tick tock live earlier this week. I'll be streaming the debate with Trump and Biden in a few weeks. And in between, I want to do a member town hall. I want to do some more live streams, tick tock YouTube as well. So hopefully soon. And we'll certainly announce it when it's when it's scheduled. Speaker 1 OK, so it's kind of on the radar, it's kind of in your. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

Speaker 2 Perfect. That sounds great. Oh, thank you, David. I appreciate it. All right, Vince. Great to hear from you. Really appreciate it. Let's go to Ryan G from Colorado Springs. Ryan, welcome to the program. Speaker 4 Hey, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Speaker 1 OK, I'm going to offer you a series of like hypotheticals. I know they're your favorite question, but I think they're kind of relevant. OK, so in so Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee. Right.

And he's not he hasn't been certified by the Democratic convention, right? That's true. Okay. So in the event that Joe, knock on wood, knock on wood, something happens to Joe Biden right now. And he's unable to be president for whatever reason, how does the Democratic Committee go about selecting the new candidate? I know that Kamala Harris becomes the new president, but because they haven't necessarily been elected, she doesn't just automatically become the nominee. Right. Right. OK, so what is it? What is the process for the Democratic convention selecting a new candidate? Do they get to, like, anoint someone or do they have like a.

My understanding, Ryan, is that that is an unprecedented situation and the DNC would essentially be deciding what are we going to do? I don't think that it's they go to some book and they do what's in the book. I think that they would they would work backwards. They would say, what gives us our best shot of winning in November in this outrageously difficult situation? And then they would just reverse engineer how to get to that. I don't think it's here's the rule. Here's Ryan can read the three step process here and that's what they will do. I think they'll just figure it out based on what they think is best for them. Speaker 1 OK, and in my opinion, I think Kamala would probably be the best one, at least Alan

Lichtman's to think seems to think so. OK, and then then on the flip side, on the Republican side, if something happens to Donald Trump, they would also have to do some sort of like process best for them. Yeah. I mean, listen, the difference with the Republicans is they ran a real primary. And what I mean by that is when you have an incumbent, you don't run a real primary. There might nominally be a primary, but it's just like Biden got like 92 percent of the vote or something. And there was no there was no serious challenge on the Republican side. There was a serious challenge. So if they wanted, they could say, we're just going to go with whoever got the second most

delegates, who I think is Nikki Haley, obviously, although maybe not. And I'm just like the math of it is not in front of me. But I don't think that they would necessarily do that. I think they would also meet and they would go, OK, who can we anoint that we think gives us the best shot? I think both sides would do that. I think they would also meet and they would go, OK, who can we anoint that we think gives us the best shot? I think both sides would do that. OK, OK, that makes sense to me. All right. Thank you so much for your time, David. All right. Thanks, Ryan, from Colorado Springs. Great to hear from you. Let's try Mark from Raleigh. Mike, rather Mike from Raleigh,

a website member. Please save us, Mike. Hey, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Well, thank you very much for letting me on. I'm hopeful I can say things here. I wanted to ask you about a school voucher, something that I've not heard you bring up too many times on the podcast before. I live in North Carolina. Our state legislature recently expanded the families that are eligible for it. And now applications for these school vouchers are up like something like 500% this year. I have some friends and family who are big fans of these school choice vouchers.

One I talked to recently said that she thinks that they help private schools and non-public schools compete better with the public schools. That just doesn't like compete with me. These folks generally tend to subscribe to like minimal government conservatism. Yeah. And using school vouchers to artificially help other schools compete against private schools just doesn't make sense to me. I just wanted to get your opinion.

So here's my view on school vouchers. OK, here's my view. So let me give you the nominal advantages and then we'll talk about what the cons are and whether they outweigh them in some generic sense. School vouchers can give some people more choice. Now, in reality, a lot of times the schools that you can you go to with the voucher don't have buses. And it's not like is it really choice or is it the appearance of choice? But really, it's only choice for the people that are already wealthier and don't really need the voucher to begin with.

So that's a pro, but it's a pretty limited pro. There's an opportunity for a more tailored education, right? There might be a particular school that's more aligned with your kids style or interests or your beliefs or whatever. So that's a possibility. There's the idea that you're generating competition by making public schools have to say, hey, it's not just you come here or you don't and pay somewhere else. You can actually take your money that would be allocated to your child and go somewhere else. We've got to be better. It's going to encourage competition. But the reality is a lot of times to better compete,

the public schools need more money, not less. And the voucher takes money away. And there is the, I guess, possibility that there is some specialized program that a public school simply can't offer that with your voucher, you go to some other charter or private school and they offer it. And OK, maybe the problem is the voucher programs. In every instance I've looked at, they worsen the public schools by letting someone say, hey, if I don't go to the public school, I get to take money out of it. It makes the public schools by letting someone say, hey, if I don't go to the public school, I get to take money out of it. It makes the public school even worse, which is often what these right wingers want to do.

They want to take as much money out of the public school system so that it becomes terrible. And it actually creates even more inequality because by reducing the funding to the school that you can go to for free, you actually make it even worse than what some of the paid alternatives could be. And so you make the quality of the education someone can get even more dependent on the financial situation of their family. There's also often a lack of accountability. Whatever amount of money is allocated to your child in a public school, there is oversight and there are regulations and there are standards. If you take that money out and you bring it over to a charter

or a private school, all of a sudden you're taking public money, bringing it over. And now it's in a school that doesn't have the same accountability and standards as the public school. So, you know, I could go on. But the generically the idea of saying, hey, choice is good. Specialized schools are good. Cool. Yeah. That sounds interesting. Sounds great. There's many things about the school system we have that I think are basically just based on getting people into like generic factory type work, whether it's literally factory work or sort of like thinking factory work. And some people call it a Prussian system. I think there's a lot of problems, but I don't think taking even more money out of it and giving it to charter private schools is the answer. I could go on about this, too, for a long time, but I think that the way you just wrapped

it up there is kind of the crux of it is that I don't think that the answer to improving public schools, which is what most kids in any state are going to is to take money out and be taking funds away. Exactly. Well, thanks, David. All right. My pleasure. There's Mike from Raleigh on school

vouchers. Great to hear from you. Let's go to Ben from New York. Ben from New York. Welcome to the program. Thank you for taking the call. I appreciate it. Great to speak with you. Likewise. My question, my question is this. I've been thinking a lot about how how we've come to this this place where it's kind of it's two parallel things. Number one, how the left has become this. This is how I've seen it. The side of principle. OK, Ben, you just glitched on the word principle glitching badly. Can you still hear me? Well, then, oh, boy, yes, I can. OK, we lost the entire question. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, I'm so sorry. OK. I have the right. The left is the side of principles and the left is the

side somehow of the right is the side of just still go with whatever. Aligned with that somehow has been that the left Democrats have been put with China, that there's this imagined loyalty with China and the right has, I don't know how this has happened, become aligned with Russia. And I kind of wanted to hear your thoughts on how this has happened. If this is just a recent thing since since 2016, since Trump and MAGA have taken over the Republican Party. I was really interested in hearing your thoughts on these. It does predate. You can go back and go and watch the 2012 debate between Obama and Romney, and you will

see that this topic of who thinks China versus Russia is worse and who's aligned where this was already starting to be an issue in 2012 and probably earlier. But it really took on the kind of weaponized texture that it now has because of the Russia investigation with Trump in 2016, 17, 18, then Trump claiming that he's tough on China with regard to tariffs that he didn't even understand. Then Trump with covid blaming China and saying Biden is affiliated with China and then Biden's going to be soft on China. So it took on these weaponized dynamics under MAGA Trump ism.

But the concept of who's better, worse, who's aligned where Russia, China, it does predate Trump. It's just gotten way worse under Trump. Fascinating. Thank you for taking the call. I appreciate your podcast for the technical difficulties. All right. We figured it out.

Ben from New York. Excellent to hear from you. Why don't we go next to Josh from Michigan? Josh from Michigan. Welcome to the program. What's going on? Hi, David. It's good to hear you. I was wondering about artificial intelligence. I've been dabbling with like chat GPT and Gemini. Um, and, uh, I listened to Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. Uh, he has some recent interviews and, uh, I feel like we're going to need a form of regulation as this stuff advances exponentially. Yeah.

It's like, it's, it's going exponential. So my question is kind of like, how how how would it from the political sphere, how would you go about regulating or do you think it's necessary? Eric Schmidt thinks that we'll have like bunkers with nuclear powered data centers guarded by machine guns to protect against like foreign adversaries and whatnot. Well, listen, we may. Here's my thought on this. I would turn to the experts on this stuff. And one interesting book on the regulation, like what would we regulate exactly? There's there's a book called The Coming Wave by Mustafa Suleiman, and it delves into a lot of these issues. But exactly what a regulatory framework might look like, I would just defer to him because

there's no way I will be able to lay out in this context, since it's not my area of expertise, exactly the way I would regulate A.I. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that this is happening. The idea of just stopping this seems like a waste of time. We should accept that it's happening and we should figure out how to best regulate it. Something we probably missed when it came to social media. There were people saying, no, this isn't going to happen. We're going to stop it. It's not. And then we missed properly regulating it. We shouldn't fall behind again when it comes to AI. Our ability to stay on top of it, of course, depends on our engagement with

it now. But I would check out Mustafa Suleiman's book, The Coming Wave. And you can even skip specifically to the chapters on regulation. Cool. Thanks, David. I own that book. I skim through it a little bit. And that's a great recommendation. I'm also looking forward to Ray Kurzweil's new book coming out this summer. And there's a book with Eric Schmidt and the foreign guy that just died. He was like 80 or something, worked for Nixon. Yeah, it's an Eric Schmidt book. And I'm really looking forward to those and just seeing how this rapidly advancing tech will affect our political sphere and governance. And if we all even need a leader in the future,

you know, the AI might be so powerful that it will make the best decisions and will sort of be protectorates of of the state. That's an optimistic view for sure. Josh, I look forward to seeing what happens as well. Thanks, David. All right, Josh, from Michigan on AI regulation. Let's hear from a sponsor or two. We'll take a very quick break. And don't worry, we will take calls again. Follow us on social media. Interact with the David Pakman show community.

See exclusive content. See when we're taking calls live and stay up to date on other big show announcements. We post daily. Find us on Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Discord and Tick Tock. on the show. Some of it's trolling. Some of it is ambiguous. Some of it is delusional. Let's just get right into it. Douglas Dingwall has one of these. And how did all of this happen? Sort of moments. Douglas says Biden has destroyed the future of young people.

If you want to shot at the American dream and Biden gets another term, you can kiss goodbye ever buying a home and raising a family. Why? What's this person talking about? How? How did Biden do these things? Which metric shows that Biden did this? What economic policy was able to achieve this? They never say. Douglas goes on. David Pakman doesn't give a crap about young people or anybody else as long as he's got his. He is here because he gets paid by the DNC and other leftist organizations. I do not get paid by the DNC and I do not get paid by any

leftist organization. People have been accusing me of this for over a decade. No one, no one has been able to provide any proof. Please provide that proof proof. And if you do, I will apologize and eat my microphone. He goes on. He gets his daily talking points and never strays from them. No one sends me talking points that would require thinking for himself. And he's now a family man and he can't risk losing his paycheck. What else is David Pakman qualified to do if he were to lose this gig? I'd probably end up running some financial services company or a tech startup or working in renewable energy or becoming a investor in alternative energy technologies. Or, yeah, I don't know what I would do if I lost this job. All right.

So anyway, Douglas, very, very clueless there. A number of unsubstantiated claims. Whitey. Oh, boy. Whitey says you're wrong. You're always the wrong. You're you're a delusional communist fruit loop under Trump. No war, secure border, wrong border and a solid economy. And the justice system wasn't weaponized under senile Biden, a weaponized justice system to attack political opponents. Trump, conservative voters, Catholics, Christians, Jews, parents and pro-lifers. Biden's intentionally funding both sides of wars around the world, Ukraine and Israel, to profit off money laundering. There's no evidence for any of this, by the way. This is a deeply, deeply disturbed person. He continues. Biden's has intentionally allowed an invasion and invasion of America

to steal illegal votes in future elections. That's treason. There's no evidence of that either. Biden is illegally using taxpayers money to buy votes from spoiled, rotten liberal college kids that promote Hamas, Iran and Islamic jihadism in America and the genocide of Jews and Americans. Biden has sold classified information for profit, including influence peddling through his junkie crackhead son and the rest of the Biden crime family. Are there more lies or grammatical and spelling errors here? I think there's 11 lies and 12 grammatical or spelling errors. So that is really something for a single paragraph message. Karen says, I think a debate will help more

people realize that Biden and the Democrats have policies and platforms and Trump and the Republicans have none except revenge. You know, Karen, I wish that that's what a debate would help people realize. I worry that people will watch the debates and actually not learn anything about that. And it will just be about. Who had the one liners, who had the zingers, who made the other candidate look the stupidest? But there are still people writing to me saying Biden will be dead before the debates. These are the same people who were saying he'd never make it to January's inauguration in 2021. Mind you, here's Anthony Casanelli, who says Biden won't make it to the debates. He's going down and

will be replaced. Mainstream aren't running cover for him like you are. There are signs he's getting pushed out. David Biden isn't likable. His stand up comedy sucks. It's not funny or entertaining. We have issues in this country and people aren't in the mood for comedy from our president. You know, in 2020, they said Biden will never become the nominee. When he became the nominee, they said Biden won't make it to the debates against Trump. Then they said Biden won't make it to Election Day. Then they said Biden won't make it to the debates against Trump. Then they said Biden won't make it to Election Day. Then they said Biden won't make it to Inauguration Day. Now they've said Biden won't make it to the State of the Union.

Biden won't make it to the twenty twenty four primary. Biden won't make it to the convention. Biden won't make it to the debates. Biden won't make it to Election Day. I will grant you that statistically from an actuarial perspective, if you are in your late late 70s or early 80s, the chance that you die is higher than if you are 37 years old. I grant you that. Statistically, that is true. Beyond that, all of these people have been making the same prediction for five years and they've been wrong every time so far. And

the idea that there's a plan to replace Biden, there's just no evidence of that. No evidence at all. We did a poll on The David Pakman Show YouTube channel about the topic of performance enhancing stimulants. Trump has accused Biden of using stimulants. Many people who know Trump have accused Trump of using stimulants. One hundred and twenty thousand of you voted. Think of that. One hundred and twenty thousand of you voted. Forty six percent of you believe that Trump is the only one on drugs. Eight percent of you believe Biden is the only one on drugs. Twenty eight percent of you believe that both Trump and Biden are on drugs and 19 percent of you believe that neither are on drugs. I don't even know how to interpret these results other than to say among my audience, 36 percent total, about a third of my audience believes Biden is on some kind of drug. I think the next question would be which drug, which drug?

Douglas, again, says David Pakman is the ultimate drama queen to David. Everyone except him is unhinged. A rant, a humiliation. This one is tragic. You know, maybe you need a little humiliation in your life. It might make a man out of you. Well, Douglas, it doesn't seem to have worked with you. So I question whether whether it would work with me. And just one more from Douglas. We're including a couple of these just to show you how this guy's just

completely obsessed. Douglas coming back and saying David Pakman is calling Mitt Romney reasonable, but there is no way in hell paid leftist propagandist David Pakman would ever vote for him. David is just trying to portray himself as reasonable. Well, it's always what are my options between Obama and Romney? I voted Obama. That's true. Between Biden and Romney, I would vote Biden if it were Trump versus Romney. I'm voting for Mitt Romney every single time if that's the choice. So I would never vote that. Who are the options? Who are the options?

Douglas goes on to say Romney is jealous. He never achieved anything near what Trump did. If Romney were the Republican candidate, David Pakman would be slamming him. That's what David gets paid to do. He gets his talking points. He runs his mouth. He's far from an intellectual. All right.

Well, listen, if it's Romney versus Trump, I'm voting Romney that I can tell you. Sam Johnson says on the topic of purity tests, there's nothing wrong with having a purity test. This kind of thinking is why third parties don't get as many votes. You should always vote for the candidate whose policies you agree, agree with, not this lesser of two evils crap. Listen, everyone can use whatever system they want to determine who to vote for. I don't impose my system on Sam or anybody else. When someone calls in and says to me, David, I'm so mad at Biden for what he's doing in Israel and Gaza. Let's assume the caller even knows what's going on there. Half of them don't. But let's assume they do. They say, I'm thinking of voting for Jill Stein. Some people would say,

I only am going to consider whose policies are closest to mine. That's the only thing I will consider. If Jill Stein's policies are genuinely closer to yours than Biden's, then under your standard, you would vote for Jill Stein. Fine. Other people would have a different view. Some people might say, I look at who really has a shot and figure out who's better among those options because Jill Stein's not going to be the next president of the United States. Oh, I'm looking at the polling. I'm looking at common sense. The next president will be Biden or Trump. I don't want Trump to be president. So I am going to vote in accordance with making damn well sure that that doesn't happen. And thus now the Jill Stein vote is no longer the right vote, because if I vote for Jill

Stein, that denies Biden the margin or could deny Biden the margin he needs to defeat Donald Trump. I might be helping Donald Trump. Some people are comfortable with that. So you know, when Sam the there's nothing wrong with purity test. Well, you know, Sam, you don't get to tell others whether there is or isn't something wrong with purity test. You don't get to tell others what the right rubric is for determining who you want to

vote for. People can decide for themselves. And it sounds like with Sam, Sam doesn't care if his actions get Trump elected into office. Other people do care. Many of them have been calling me, in fact, and we've been having pretty productive conversations disabusing them of this idea that, oh, I might write in someone or vote Cornel West or whatever. Now, as it happens, as it happens for me, when I look at the candidates this year, it's an extra easy choice because I agree with Biden the

most. Look at the way Biden is legislated, the most progressive presidential term in how long Jill Stein's alliance and friendship with Putin, where she sits at a table with Putin and repeats those talking points. It's not interesting to me. It's it's not. Well, I just love Jill Stein and I have to vote for Biden. I look at Jill Stein and I look at Biden and RFK and Trump binds the one I agree with the most and I want to deny Trump the presidency. It's really easy for me. It's really that easy. So figure out what is the goal of voting for you and use that to then determine what the

right choice is and what the way I figure it out may be different from the way Sam figures it out. All right. Info at David Pakman dot com. We've got a great bonus show coming up for you. Make sure you're signed up at join Pacman dot com. Otherwise, I'll see you back here on Monday.