The David Pakman Show - 8/11/23: Chris Christie mocks Trump, Matt Gaetz wants Trump above the law

Episode Date: August 11, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Luke Beasley, TDPS correspondent and host of The Luke Beasley Show, fills in for David -- Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose goes on Fox & Friends and accidentally makes the left sound good when talking about policy issues -- Congressman Matt Gaetz wants to use Congress to make Donald Trump immune from prosecution -- Congressman Greg Steube wants to file an impeachment resolution against Joe Biden for “involvement in drugs and prostitution” -- Trump lawyer and unindicted co-conspirator John Eastman says in an interview he planned on the military quelling mobs if Trump was able to successfully overthrow the 2020 election results -- Chris Christie mocks Donald Trump for potentially skipping the first Republican primary debate -- Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller says Watergate was a "deep state coup" against Richard Nixon -- Fox commentator Jessica Tarlov shuts down other Fox personalities who argue Joe Biden is implicated in a corruption scheme -- Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claims that Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis shouldn't be allowed to prosecute Donald Trump -- On the Bonus Show: Twitter CEO explains X rebrand, Trump trial date updates, Pence asked why he committed treason, and much more... 🌎 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription (rules & restrictions may apply): https://babbel.com/pakman 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get 25% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://www.ounceofhope.com/ 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.com/pakman 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Welcome back everybody to the David Pakman show Luke Beasley here filling in for David while he is away you can find me at Luke Beasley on YouTube. I want to take a look at some of the responses we've seen to the failure of issue one in Ohio. Of course, I'll get to some details on what that was in just a moment in case you missed it. But as a little bit of a foreshadowing, Frank LaRose, the Secretary of State of Ohio, went on Fox and Friends and in trying to, in the wake of issue one failing, say that if we keep going in the direction of what the left wants and they get their way, then these things are going to happen. And as he lists off these things, he paints a pretty nice picture for what the radical left

is going to do. A very funny, unsuccessful bit of rhetoric there but first here's this from cbs news as a little bit of context ohio voters reject issue one in major victory for abortion rights backers ohio voters on tuesday definitively rejected a closely watched proposal known as issue one that would have made it more difficult to amend the state constitution delivering a crucial victory to pro-abortion rights supporters seen as a de facto vote on abortion rights because, as was noted in that article, in november there will be a vote to amend the state constitution to protect reproductive rights and right now you just need a simple majority to make that happen in the form of a direct ballot initiative but this would increase

that threshold to above 60 and so that would make it a lot harder come november to amend the state constitution to protect reproductive rights so kind of the conservative side was doing this as a way to amend the state constitution and increase in the likelihood that indeed november reproductive rights will be protected and here was frank la rose's response on fox and friends so your initiative would make it harder to change the state constitution uh right now simple majority 50 plus, but you wanted it 60%. That failed. What's Ohio telling you? Well, I'll tell you what, 1.3 million Ohioans stood with us in another free and fair election.

And how many stood against? We released the results on election night. That's this thing we do in Ohio. Other states should check out. Proud to say that as Ohio's chief elections officer. But you're right, the other side prevailed. This is just one battle in a much larger war, though, because the all out assault on Ohio is coming from the radical left. I mean, look at the tech billionaires from California and New York that funded the no campaign.

And they've got other bad plans. This radical abortion amendment this November that takes away parental rights. They want to bring a minimum wage increase, a massive increase in minimum wage to Ohio that would put Ohioans out of work. And even the mayor of Cleveland said last week, he said the quiet part out loud. They want to do common sense gun reform, which means they want to disarm. What? Common sense gun reform and increase in the minimum wage? The horror. From lawabiding citizens

so yeah we lost one battle but the war continues and i've just begun to fight so so i guess the case that he's making is hey ohio you voted against us this time but next time vote with us because otherwise you're going to have your abortion rights protected you're going to have your abortion rights protected, you're going to have common sense gun legislation implemented and your community is made safer, and you're going to have your wages increased. So don't let them take over or they'll do all those things. Based on the polling, I don't know if that's the best way to articulate that.

That would be my advice. But moving on to more of the foxy's response that we've seen to this this was on sean hannity's show where he asks mike huckabee the former governor of arkansas and father of sarah huckabee sanders a question to the effect of should republicans moderate themselves and take some of these messages that have been sent by the American people in support of abortion rights and shift gear a little bit. And Mike Huckabee says, heck to the no. Saw the vote in Ohio. And I will tell you that if you look at Doug Mastriano and Tudor, even your race, I would argue that people that have very restrictive views on abortion, unlike, say, Mississippi has 15 weeks.

That seems to be that was the Dobbs decision that any anything less than that. The fear among many, many conservatives is this will chase away many suburban voters. Do you agree with that, Mike Huckabee? I do not. I think the problem is Republicans have done a very pitiful job of explaining that the difference is we want to protect life. Democrats want to take it right up to the point of birth. They want to vote in Ohio. Hmm. Because notably, we've never heard that argument before. And if only a brave Republican

would come and say what Mike Huckabee just said there, it would change the tides forever. Now, constantly hearing that, and it derives itself from the extended talking point of Democrats want abortion on demand until the ninth month of pregnancy. And of course, as I know David has outlined and I have on our respective shows, it's just not accurate whatsoever. The only late term abortions that they refer to are medically necessary. Life of the mother fetus no longer viable, medically necessary instances. And so that's the only thing that happens. And that's the only thing that Democratic politicians and voters support. And so the reason why people like Mike Huckabee focus on that talking point is because otherwise

they can't really explain why their talking point is so extreme, or I should say why their actual position is so extreme. So portray the other side to have a more extreme position to make yours seem less extreme, when in reality the standard Democratic Party position on abortion rights, as was kind of popularized and laid out after Roe v. Wade was implemented, is widely supported and widely popular. Then here's Laura Ingraham. Overturning Roe versus Wade is the greatest accomplishment the conservative movement has

had since the end of the Cold War. We should be proud of it and build on it, not run away from it. So she has the opposite idea than what Hannity was suggesting. She says double down and they can do that and see how it works out electorally, but it probably won't work out too well. And the reason that people say that is because we've had a series now of instances where when people can actually vote directly on the issue since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it's gone heavily in the direction of supporting abortion rights. And as a few examples of that, just from the midterms, you had Montana rejecting an abortion measure that would have added criminal penalties to health care providers, Kentucky rejecting amending the state constitution to restrict abortion rights. Michigan, California, and Vermont all enshrining in the state constitution abortion rights and that, again,

direct ballot initiatives. And then Wisconsin Supreme Court race heavily associated with, this is now out of the midterms, but heavily associated with democracy and abortion rights. And that went in the direction of the liberal candidate and then Ohio here. And by the way, going back to the midterms, the exit polling showed that 27% of people ranked abortion as their top issue. That is a really large portion of people saying that's my top issue going to the polls today. And then as CNN reports, Americans discontent with the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade remains as potent as it was a year ago, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And it notes that a 64% majority of US adults say they disapprove of last year's

Supreme Court ruling that women do not have a constitutional right to an abortion, with half strongly disapproving. So 64 percent of Americans based on that poll disapprove of the Dobbs decision. That is massive. Hopefully we'll see it play out in a very strong way in the upcoming election and see big wins for abortion rights. Republicans have been telling us for quite some time that the Democratic Party is weaponizing the authority of congress to try to defend the dear leader donald trump through the usage of congressional immunity really strange wild idea and an example of both that contradiction and just the links to which these individuals will go republicans will go to defend donald trump so this is from newsweek then we'll look at

a bit from an interview matt gates outlines possible trump immunity plan republican representative matt gates of florida argued on tuesday that house republicans could pursue legal immunity for former president donald trump i'll dive into the specifics of congressional immunity why this seems very much not within the authority that Congress has, at least as Matt Gates breaks it down. But first, here's a little bit from this interview. You can actually bring President Trump in to give testimony to the Congress and in doing so immunize him. Now, there's different forms of immunity that take place at the committee level, subcommittee level. In some instances for full immunity, you have to have more of a supermajority vote. But if you had a supermajority vote of a committee,

like Speaker McCarthy could set up a select committee tomorrow that could bring Trump in and immunize him. And then we could proceed with the very legitimate investigative work that we're doing of the Bidens and the corrupt. Sure. Okay. So unfortunately, none of those things are happening. Instead, Congress is is not in Washington, not assembled. And I think the timing is on purpose. No timing in D.C. is ever just, you know, a mere coincidence. And so right as Congress is leaving town, right, as we're walking away from our equities, you see this acceleration of activity against Trump. So yeah, let's be...

Before watching the follow-up question, and we will watch how it proceeds, but first, on congressional immunity, and some of you may be really well-versed on this, and of course, what I had pulled up here is now not loading unfortunately there we go uh from cbs what is congressional immunity you may never have heard of it that's because in recent years it's rarely granted but congress has long had the power to protect witnesses from being prosecuted for what they're compelled to say under oath frustrated by witnesses who refuse to testify taking the fifth before the house un-american activities committee congress in the 1950s granted itself the power to force a witness to answer questions even after they've said they won't so because we are protected by the fifth amendment

from self-incrimination it was getting annoying to congress i guess to have people just plead the fifth plead the fifth plead the fifth which they have the right to do. So they came up with this ability that they could have where they can force you to answer. But then if you say something that incriminates you yourself, you can't be prosecuted for it. If the full House or Senate or two thirds of a congressional committee vote to issue a subpoena to a witness who refuses to testify, a federal court will order that person to appear and answer questions and the answers cannot be used against them in any criminal proceeding. And that's where this falls apart in my mind. And always I will say I'm not a lawyer, so I could be reading this incorrectly.

But if Matt Gaetz is trying to, as he's promoting this idea to be doing, if he's trying to protect Trump from prosecution across the board, but granting him immunity within Congress for his testimony, then, yeah, he won't be able to self-incriminate himself as he's talking. He can't in that moment say things that then he could be prosecuted for, but he could continue being prosecuted for what he's already being prosecuted for. But continuing. Be specific here, though. So immunize him from what crimes, even if he's under current indictment? Is that including even the obstruction claims? And give us some examples of how this has been used recently. Well, it hasn't been used recently, but obviously we're aware of the ability for any person to plead the fifth. you can dissolve someone's ability to plead the fifth if you immunize them. And so Congress has this ability that's been recognized. It's even laid out in 18 USCA 6002 and 6005 if folks want to look it up. But there you've got the ability to say, well, we're hereby compelling your testimony.

We're giving you immunity for anything you say to us and anything that that would lead to. And so, for example, if President Trump came in and said, I'm here to give you testimony about the witch hunt, the abuse of criminal process that Congress has a legitimate oversight equities to resolve and if he were to say things to us we could immunize him for that conduct that he were to discuss does it for that conduct that he were to discuss so not just the discussion and in the discussion he can't incriminate himself but the conduct that is the topic of the discussion, he also would get immunity for. Seems way outside of the power that Congress has there. Again, lawyers, feel free to weigh in, but sounds rather ridiculous for sure.

And based on my reading of congressional immunity, it indeed is. Gates explained his latest plan as truth out reports this week while discussing Trump's most recent indictments and says the plan would require the House to establish a select committee. McCarthy cannot do so on his own. He needs a majority vote in the House, which would require nearly every Republican in the chamber to cooperate with the scheme, given the GOP's extremely narrow majority. The plan would also likely be challenged in courts by the DOJ, which may argue against the legality of granting Trump immunity in a way that is so transparently corrupt. And then also in this same interview, Gates said, quote, the downside of bringing anyone before Congress to give testimony is that if you say something that is material and is not accurate, that can create a cascade of follow-on charges, meaning Trump could perjure himself, which indeed is probably not the best

idea in an effort to defend someone, to put them in a situation when they're notorious for having a very horrible relationship with the truth, where they have to tell the truth. That might end poorly for Donald Trump. Let me know what you think of all of this. You can find me on YouTube at Luke Beasley and on Twitter or X Luke P. Beasley. them and what they do is amazing for their community. Ounce of Hope is an aquaponics cannabis farm. Aquaponics means that at their farm in Memphis, Ounce of Hope sustainably raises fish and they use the nutrient rich water from the fish habitat to feed the cannabis plants as fertilizer. It is an incredible symbiotic relationship between the fish and the plants. They donate the fish to local homeless

shelters as food. They donate the extra fish fertilizer to small farms and gardens in their community. And what Ounce of Hope has for you is an extraordinary selection of cannabis products shipped right to your door. Everything from CBD, more recreational THC products like Delta eight, Delta nine and HHC. If you're looking to unwind on the weekend, it is all federally legal, even the THC products. So they can ship them to any state in the US. They have oils, topicals, flowers, soft gels, as well as THC infused edibles, gummies, caramels, chocolate bars. Everything is grown and processed in-house by their mom and pop team. You can trust the quality, the safety of the product you get. And Ounce of Hope has a special deal for my audience, giving you 20 percent off everything

they offer when you go to Ounce of hope dot com and use the code Pacman. That's O.U. and C.E. of hope dot com code Pacman for 20 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. A while back, Lauren Boebert said that she was going to try to impeach President Joe Biden. She introduced her articles of impeachment for this, that, and the other thing. And when I cover that story, I said that this was really just an attempt for Lauren Boebert to get attention, to be relevant, to have more invitations into media interviews. And now I have another example of that for you. Apparently, Republican Representative Greg Stubbe

feels a little left out of the impeachment conversation. And so he's saying, I'm going to impeach Joe Biden, too, for all the same accusations we're still unsuccessfully trying to provide evidence for and also for prostitution. Because apparently you can just say whatever you want now within the GOP and accuse Biden of whatever you'd like. Take a look at this. Goodness, goodness, goodness. For more on this, let's bring in Florida Congressman Greg Stubbe. He's on the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government.

And Congressman Stubbe has something to share. Congressman, welcome to the show. You have some exclusive news that you're going to break on tonight's show congressman tell us about that yeah so you you laid out a a great case uh for a number of different crimes and you laid the factual predicate for those crimes uh and tomorrow i intend on filing i remind you uh once again as I have a bunch of times on my show recently, James Comer got asked, will you be able to prove these things about Biden? He didn't say we have. He said, I sure hope so. Meaning he hasn't yet. James Comer's words. on Joe Biden for bribery, for extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud,

financial involvement in drugs and prostitution, all of these things, you just touched on the highlight. Financial involvement in drugs and prostitution. It's just some of those, but we have all the facts and evidence now. And in the beginning of this Congress, Republicans wanted to make sure that we did the investigations,

that we got the information before the American people. You have witness testimony. You have financial records. You have the laptop. You have text messages. You have phone conversations. You have all of this evidence now to corroborate and support impeachment articles against the president. And I intend on filing those tomorrow on all of these corruption and bribery charges that uh you just hit the top one of the signs that this is just a political stunt and uh very unserious as we look at the broader effort by republicans talking about impeachment and going after biden is that is this unorganized it's not actually let's get our ducks in a row get the proper amount of evidence bring forward uh impeachment and try to actually get biden removed from office or something like that it's just hey i want to turn i'm impeaching him now we've seen marjorie green bring forward

impeachment uh articles of impeachment about 13 times we've seen la Boebert, I think at least once, maybe twice. And now Greg Stubbe and others. It's just a way to get a few interviews of the iceberg on. So, Congressman, your articles of impeachment against Joe Biden for all the things you just mentioned, bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud, financial involvement in in drugs and prostitution, and you're saying you have the receipts, you have the proof? Will these impeachment articles, when will they be released, Congressman? They'll be filed tomorrow, so we'll do a press release with all the details. It's pages upon pages of all the different things that we have gathered as Republicans, as the conference, you know, you had the investigation. Okay. So it's going to be all

the things that were gathered that we've already gone through so extensively in the past. We did a bunch of coverage yesterday on these very accusations. And as the days go on and really, as the investigation becomes more extensive, the allegations against Biden fall apart even further. And we saw that definitely with the Devin Archer testimony, key points that were supposed to hold together the accusations that Republicans are making against Biden fell apart. And it just has to be noted, by the way, when I'm recording this, he hasn't yet made the announcement, so I don't have the press release that he's referring to there, but I can imagine what it'd be like.

And it's important to there, but I can imagine what it'd be like. And it's important to mention on things like this. What's the underlying answer to the question? Why? Why this? Why are they using all of their authority, time, power, resources to go after Biden instead of doing things that are more meaningful? And it's because if Republicans were really transparent about their agenda, we've seen it. Even when Trump was in power, actually legislative victory-wise, not much went on achievements that would benefit the lives of Americans. His landmark achievement was a tax cut bill that disproportionately benefited the top of our economic ladder. So how are you going to run on that and convince enough

Americans that's in their interest and that's what they should be focused on and pushing for and voting in favor of? That's going to be really, really hard. And so what I always talk about my show is distract, distract, distract. That has to be the agenda for these politicians. Otherwise, a whole lot of constituents are going to be wondering, what have you been doing? And why is it that it seems like the other side, while far from perfect, at least is talking about real policies that could actually benefit people's lives? Whether it be the American Rescue Plan, as far as the Democratic agenda goes, or the gun safety legislation, or the Inflation Reduction Act, capping the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month out of pocket, or repairing roads and bridges, expanding broadband, addressing the fact that 10 million Americans don't have clean, reliable drinking water, spending $55 billion to address that.

These are the things that, again, while far from perfect, the Democratic Party and Joe Biden are actually up to. And so you juxtapose that against this and i guess this works enough as a distraction for enough people where clearly they see as politically effective and so there's that big angle on this and it's also a distraction yes from their lack of meaningful policy positions and also from trump's legal troubles because if they can portray president biden as a horrible corrupt leader or just muddy the waters on that then maybe less people in the american electorate care so much

about trump's evidence-based allegations against him and that really is a difference here but a lot of people won't think so much about the difference in evidence for the two sets of accusations and instead just see i mean a lot of accusations over there a lot of accusations over there maybe trump's not as much in the wrong as he previously appeared to be and so it's simultaneously doing the constant agenda item of the GOP, at least in its modern state, with the lack of meaningful policy positions to distract from that. And it's also kind of a campaign contribution to Donald Trump. related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, there were unnamed co-conspirators mentioned, meaning people who aren't formally identified in the document, thus not being indicted at this point in time, but could be in the future separately and are relevant to the broader set of facts being outlined in the indictment because they were a part of the

criminal conspiracy being alleged. And even though they're unnamed, many of them have been identified by the media just based on the facts laid out. And John Eastman is one of those people. The, as Mike Pence called him, crackpot lawyer that was around Donald Trump during Trump's attempts to overturn, potentially unlawfully, the 2020 election results. And I have now here for you him in an interview. And it's wacky and disturbing that this individual was advising the president of the United States. Not surprising because we knew it, but still always pretty wild to perceive. And he's defiant. This was around the time that Trump was experiencing this third round of an indictment, the arrest, the arraignment.

And he is still justifying his actions, as you might expect. And I thought it'd be interesting to look at what he has to say in the wake of all this. And as he awaits possibly himself being indicted. We are talking about whether we are going to, as a nation, completely repudiate every one of our founding principles, which is what the modern left wing, which is in control of the Democrat Party, believes, that we are the root of all evil in the world and we have to be eradicated. This is an existential... What?

Why do people say stuff like this? Show me the policies that Biden has pushed for that bolsters your idea there. You have a governing record to point to. As we talked about in the last segment, are you referencing the lowering of prescription drug costs? Are you referencing the roads and bridges being repaired? Are you referencing the child tax credit? What are you referencing? A threat to the very survivability, not just of our nation, but of the example that our nation properly understood provides to the world.

That's the stakes. And Trump seems to understand that in a way a lot of Republican establishment types in Washington don't. And it's the reason he gets so much support in the hinterland, in the flyover country. People are fed up with folks, you know, get along, go along while the country is being destroyed. And so I think the stakes are much bigger. And that means a stolen election that thwarts the will of the people. I want to remind you too, when people say that, there are real problems, absolutely. Real pain in this country and problems that need to be addressed every single day, 100%. The talking point, though, of Biden is destroying the country when he's overseen a pretty stunning

and unexpectedly good economic recovery after an economic downturn that a pandemic caused, the pandemic that Donald Trump has handled. And so it's actually been impressive, his legislative record, the successes there, and some real achievements on that front. And then also the economic record is impressive. Trying to correct course and get back on a path that understands the significance and the nobility of America and the American experiment

is really at stake and we ought to fight for it. There are no longer any impediments to them preventing us from ever having a fair election again, which means there are no impediments to them blocking the consent of the governed, having control of the direction of the government. And we no longer are free people. Those are the stakes. And if those are the stakes, you know what? You can hear in how he's explained this why he feels justified in telling Trump to or advising Trump to potentially unlawfully overthrow a democratic process. These are the words he uses to justify in his, but it's because the Democratic Party, the radical left, Marxist, communist, fascist, as Trump would say, are going to destroy us all and eradicate everything if we don't do the coup.

What are you supposed to do? Just just sit around and twiddle your thumb? It would be too messy to do anything about this. I'll just, you know, and maybe when the alligators come for everybody else, they'll eat me last. Yeah. What are you talking about? Truly, what is he talking about? This is what really scares me. And I see it when I go to trump rallies and talk to trump supporters i see it in some of my interpersonal relationships and the perception of this country and the world that is just so far

from what is real and i know both sides fear monger uh sometimes hyperbolically so about the other side absolutely and that's been the case for a long time and it's gotten worse and it is a both sides issue but you don't see whenever for example someone like me calls out the threat to democracy that the MAGA movement is I'll point to specific actions I'm referencing such as everyone agrees even if they disagree if it was against the law or if it was justified or not, that Trump did attempt to prevent Biden from becoming president, prevent the peaceful transition of power, prevent the lawful certification and just stay in the White House. Now, some people say it's justified because it's all an election. They don't have evidence of that. But those are the facts.

Those are actual facts I can point to and say this type of behavior threatens democracy. And then we can have argument about the facts when it comes to the stolen election claims and those lies also threaten our democracy. What could he point to to justify everything he just said about what the Democratic Party is going to do and the alligators are going to come eat you or something? My goodness. And then he gets asked, what next, essentially? Okay, so you overthrow the election. But then what? There's going to be massive protests. The military, I guess you're thinking you could invoke the Insurrection Act or even just before that, the National Guard. Some within the military weren't super happy with Trump. What would you have done there? You had to think through what would have happened

had there been riots on the street. I should have said riots, not protests. Likely there would have been. So now, how do they get quelled? Normally it would be the military, but the military didn't show a lot of support for Trump in the 2020 riots. Well, one hopes that our military still understands their obligation and the chain of command that stops at the top with the commander in chief.

If Trump is the legitimate winner and you're afraid of saying that because of mob's violence, you're subjecting yourselves to mob rule and that's not the rule of law okay think about how deranged that is seriously we're going to try to overthrow a lawful election we've failed time and time again in official venues to prove our claims of election fraud but we're still going to charge forward and a bunch of people in our administration are saying there wasn't the widespread fraud that you're saying there was there wasn't there wasn't there wasn't and still we're going to charge forward and overthrow a democratic election and then when there's inevitably riots based on that because people usually don't like their democracy being thrown in the garbage can we're going to i guess invoke

the insurrection act and uh mobilize the military on the streets of america and actually there's some reporting from an individual who is a four is Army officer, Kevin Carroll, who talked about how terrified he was of this happening. Secretary John Kelly during the Trump administration laid out and start terms on Tuesday, a part of the most recent indictment against former President Donald Trump that has not received wide attention. Quote, Donald Trump's advisers would have put the U.S. military in the position of defying orders or turning their weapons on civilians, which is what John Eastman, their former lawyer to Donald Trump, is saying. Well, they better have. Carroll begins by writing, as a veteran, my blood ran cold reading two particular passages in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment. He goes on to explain that in those two specific paragraphs, Smith details how then President

Trump and the team of election denying lawyers surrounding him laid out an autocratic plan to remain in power that would make the U.S. military choose between subservience to civilian control or refusing to undertake an anti-democratic domestic political role. And that line just really struck me as is in the headline here. My blood ran cold, this ex-Trump official said of that part of the indictment and so the idea of being put in the position as the military of following the chain of command a direct order or going against the anti-democratic coup attempt and either way there's disastrous consequences and I don't envy that position I'm glad it didn't get to that. But we got far too close because of people like John Eastman. We will be right back with much more

after this. Something that's been in the news a lot lately is data brokers collecting vast amounts of data about everything you do on your phone and computer, where you go, what you look at. They identify patterns in your behavior. And it's really quite disturbing how much data brokers know about us, even our health information. And then we found out that sometimes government agencies like the FBI will buy that information from data brokers to spy on Americans without warrants. Ad companies buy

the data to serve you ads. Financial institutions can use the information. The information can even end up on public search sites where anybody can see it. But there is a way to stop it. Our sponsor Incogni is an affordable service that sends automatic data removal requests to data brokers who are required by law to comply. Incogni even follows up with the data brokers to..... . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . ..... and my audience gets 60 percent off, go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman.

That's I.N.C.O.G.N.I dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman for 60 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Welcome back, everybody, to the show. Luke Beasley here filling in for David while he is away. You can find me luke beasley on youtube marjorie taylor green appeared on newsmax with eric bowling and i have a couple moments from this interview that i want to show you and have you noticed with some of these individuals that are especially dishonest occasionally they seem to get confused about their own dishonesty i think this is my stance you should not be dishonest if you're going to try to can you not be so bad at it like give us the respect of being good at being dishonest as you perpetuate these dishonest talking points that would be my request to marjorie

taylor green but she probably won't listen this is on again her trying to twist some talking point about ukraine and grain to impeaching biden everything connects to impeaching biden these days as i'm sure you're aware and this is what she had to say on that that's how the american people see it this is corruption on the highest level and and it cannot be ignored. But for people that don't understand, like, why are we constantly fighting this fight in Washington, D.C., let's break it down to where it matters. You know, take, for example, a single mom that is just trying to feed her kids. When she goes to the grocery store, she can hardly afford cereal and bread. Do you want to know why? Because those products are made with grain. And let's look at where the breadbasket of the world is. That is in Ukraine. So all of America is compromised and this comes all the way down to

consumers like a single mom who can't afford to buy cereal and bread because the price of bread... So before she connects it to impeachment, because that's a whole other batch of confusion. It's true that Ukraine is a massive producer of grain. But what does that, isn't that Russia's invasion of Ukraine's fault? It's Russia invading Ukraine that's getting in the way of the production, proper production of grain and distribution, exporting, etc. If that's what she's mentioning.

How is that at all another point to the Biden family corruption as is on the lower chyron? Who knows? And grain has gone up so much with this war in Ukraine. Ukraine, you see, you have to connect the dots and this is how it works. And this is why we have to do everything we can to impeach Joe Biden because he's a criminal and we have all the evidence that we need to do it. And then also do everything we can to turn our country around because Democrat policies are destroying our nation. How? Okay, so because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine's effect on grain prices,

Biden should be impeached for being a criminal. Now, if I'm going to actually give you what she's probably referencing, what this is built on is her idea that the laptop from hell uh hunter biden and the criminal enterprise that they allege is present without evidence and all of that is making biden beholden to zelinski i've heard before from the right right wing that he has dirt on hunter biden or something like that and so that's why biden is supporting ukraine absurd so absurd especially because of course biden's actions are in line with the broader u.s government stance on a situation like this and our allies uh stance on a situation like this how we should respond so very ridiculous and as she mentions problems, I've said it before, super, super easy to point at problems, harder to put forward solutions to those problems. And a lot of times people like Marjorie

Greene do a whole lot of pointing, but actually not just have an absence of policies that would assist in addressing those problems, but actually actively fight against the policies that could address those problems. And so this moment reminded me of one where she's saying that individual seniors are having to decide between rent payments and paying for their prescription drug costs, which is absolutely a difficult, brutal situation

that people are put in. And Biden and Democrats actually fought for legislation to address that lowering prescription drug costs allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices capping the cost of insulin at 35 dollars out of pocket per month and marjorie green fought aggressively against that was opposed to that and republicans prevented the 35 out of pocket per month cap on insulin costs from being applied to all americans which is what democrats wanted to do so every which way you look at this it's marjorie green being dishonest and ignoring the fact that she actually stands in the way of addressing some of the high costs and brutal economic realities that people live within.

Next moment on a different subject, Trump's legal troubles. Fannie Willis wants to indict Trump. Now we see outside the courthouse in Georgia, wherever the state house is, there are barricades being put up in anticipation of an indictment. We hear it's going to come mid to early next week. Fannie Willis may have a little problem of her own. There are some reports, some reports that say she's less than a stand-up prosecutor. She may have even had relationships with some of the gang members of the gang she's

prosecuting. Baseless. On my show yesterday, you can find it at Luke B's on YouTube. I went over this exact accusation, just completely baseless. Yeah, that's a weird conflict of interest, I'd say, Eric. You know, Fannie Willis's problem, and I go through Atlanta quite frequently, she doesn't put barricades up around the homeowners homes there in Atlanta that have to deal with all the crime in that city that she should be prosecuting with Fulton County taxpayer dollars. No, she's more interested in using her office as another campaign arm for the Democrat Party to try to smear President Trump with more lies and shame on her for doing this. And, you know, she isn't fit to handle this case. They need to remove her because of her weird conflict of interest,

especially how she's used some of these stories and some of these subpoenas to raise money for her own campaign. And so we'll see how these weird conflicts of interest that we're making up. That's why she shouldn't be able to prosecute Donald Trump. And I agree that criminals of all different sorts should be prosecuted. That's what she's been doing. And that's what she should do with Donald Trump. If indeed there's evidence for him committing crime within crimes within Fulton County. And she has, I mentioned this on yesterday's show on my channel, but she has a 90% conviction rate. So we'll see how it goes if she indeed indicts Donald Trump. Jessica Tarloff is on a roll. Just yesterday, I covered on my show the debate she had on The Five recently on the subject we're about to look at here.

And then she hopped over to the show on Fox News Outnumbered and did another round of debating a bunch of people all at once on the subject of the Republican accusations against President Biden. And it's so good to see. Anytime you actually have facts being brought forward on Fox News, it's an event. It's a notable moment. And that's why I love these Jessica Tarlow back and forth so much. So again, this is in response to a back and forth that Peter Doocy had with President Biden. I'll show you that. Then we'll get to Jessica Tarlow crushing her co-hosts.

There's this testimony now where one of your son's former business associates is claiming that you were on speakerphone a lot with them talking business. Is that what? I've never talked business in England. And I know you'd have a lousy question. Well, why is that a lousy question? Because it's not true. Thank you, Mr. President. It is a lousy question because as he said there,

he's referring to the testimony of Devin Archer and then saying that Devin Archer said that Biden talked about business with business associates of Hunter Biden. That's not at all what Devin Archer said. He confirmed the opposite. If Biden was on the phone, because Hunter Biden and him were on the phone rather often, if Hunter Biden was around business associates 20 times in a decade, he would likely to impress them, put Biden on speakerphone, but then business talk would not come up and it would be as the transcript says, question, the conversation was about the weather? Answer, the weather and niceties. The weather and niceties.

And based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read, meaning no wrongdoing on the part of Biden. When it comes to this, answer, no. That is Devin Archer's testimony. And that's what Jessica Tarlow will make very clear in this back and forth. Why not just take the question? Well, he did take the question and he addressed it. Why insult the reporter? Listen, Peter Doocy had to be waved over.

Sorry, quick pause. It has to be noted. Really? Harris Faulkner, you have an issue with the reporter being insulted his question being called lousy after you uh ran cover for donald trump not just take the question well he did take the question and he addressed it why insult the reporter listen peter ducey had to be waved over and he had to be allowed to come over there there was was secret service. So he welcomed him into that exchange. And if the president wants to say that it's a lousy question, then that's his prerogative to

do it. At least he let Peter Doocy ask the question in the first place. And frankly, the president is right to say that he didn't have anything to do with it because that's exactly what Devin Archer's testimony confirmed. I just I honestly can't believe it. We're talking about it on the 5 yesterday. Just let me speak. Hold on. Devin Archer said he wasn't on the phone calls. For instance, the Dubai call, he walked out of the room during the call. Okay. Well, there's more that Devin Archer

said. Like, he wasn't aware of any wrongdoing by the president. He's not an attorney. I'll just put that out there. He's not. And we don't know all of what happened on that call. Devin Archer either matters or he doesn't. And it was it was billed as bombshell testimony.

I'm here to tell you why it wasn't a bombshell. So, again, he said not aware. She's right on point there. And they keep doing this back and forth where Devin Archer proved a bunch of stuff. But then once you debunk the things that they say he proved, they say, well, Devin Archer doesn't matter. Oh, we got this form is associate of Hunter Biden. He's going to prove everything that we've been saying. And then the testimony happened.

Yeah, see, he proved it. Wait, really? Let's let's actually look at the the transcript. Oh, no, no, it doesn't matter. Then he has no way talking about any wrongdoing by the president. That 1023 form that Republicans like Jim Comer and everyone loves to wave around. He says it wasn't any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Biden, that it wasn't evidence of a bribe. He knows nothing of the, quote, five million dollars that the Burisma board allegedly gave to Joe Biden.

He also talked about what happened with Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor being fired by Joe Biden and the rest of the international community. He said that Viktor Shokin was good for Burisma, that he wasn't investigating corruption there. Every piece of evidence, so-called evidence that the Republicans have, has utterly fallen apart,

which is why Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have admitted on our air multiple times that they don't, quote, have it yet. And I would encourage everyone to watch Steve Doocy this morning talking about it on the Fox and Friends couch where he's pushing and he's saying, tell me what the crime. And then she continues. But it's absolutely right. That other part of this, too. Quickly, another moment from the transcript question. But so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. government's anti-corruption policy in Ukraine? Answer. Yeah, I have no other.

I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason. Question. You have no reason to believe. Otherwise, answer. I have no reason to believe. That's from Devin Archer. Then you take into consideration what Jessica Tarlo tarloff is saying there and it really falls apart even further for republicans because a big part of this accusation or set of accusations against biden actually

before i make this point this next clip is very relevant to what i'm about to say so watch this there's no we got well first we got a prosecutor fired that was investigating a company that is true really you're gonna he said on tv and why you know what i got inspired unless they fire that prosecutor i'm gonna ask the team to see if we can i i've seen the video okay so you know i know it exists with the president there, with a ton of people in the audience. But the prosecutor was not fired for the reason that you guys are saying. You don't think it helped that he was going to withhold a billion dollars in USAID? Because that's what he said.

That was the point, that he was not actually... Then you're contradicting the president of the United States of America. No, you're misinterpreting him on purpose. This is what we're... So there, the back and forth is about them saying biden to help his son hunter push to get this top prosecutor victor shokin in ukraine fired and the context on that is the narrative from the right right wing right now is victor shokin was harmful to burisma because he was overseeing an investigation into burisma where hunter biden worked so that's victor shokin

overseeing investigation burisma uh but actually what we're learning as more evidence comes out and as devin archer walked through this burisma actually liked having victor shokin in that top prosecutor position because while yes technically on, he was overseeing an investigation into them, he had no interest in because of his own corruption actually properly going through with that investigation, actually targeting top executives. And so they liked the fact that there was an illusion of something going on yeah the prosecutor he's technically not our friend but actually it was good to have him there so they didn't want him fired biden pushed to get him fired biden did the thing the hunter biden's company didn't want to happen but then they say that biden was bribed to do that thing really really wild for sure another quick break we'll be back after this. Magic Spoon. Magic Spoon is the breakfast cereal with the crunchy, sweet goodness you love,

but with zero grams of sugar, more protein and only four to five net carbs. So it's perfect if you're doing low carb, if you're doing keto, if you're like me and you just don't want to eat a bunch of sugar. Magic Spoon has delicious flavors to choose from. Cocoa, fruity, frosted peanut butter, honey nut, cinnamon roll, birthday cake. My favorite is maple waffle. And right now they have limited edition spring flavors, strawberry milkshake and peaches and cream. Sometimes you just feel like sitting down with a bowl of cereal when the mood strikes. Go for something with plenty of protein without all the sugar.

If you don't love magic spoon as much as I do and our team does, magic spoon will refund all of your money. No questions asked. Go to magic spoon dot com slash Pacman. Create a custom bundle. Use the code Pacman for five dollars off. That's magic spoon dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. personally in very vile and childish ways and chris christie has responded and is using it as

an opportunity to taunt trump and mock him trying to get him to show up to the uh debate going on later this month that trump seems not super excited about showing up to because he is afraid now before getting to chris christie as a reminder of the types of things Trump has been saying about Chris Christie, here's this from a recent speech. Who's good? No, no. Christie's he's eating right now. He can't be. Sir, please do not call him a fat pig. That's very disrecent. Don't call him. See, I'm trying to be nice. Don't call him a fat pig. That's very disres, don't call him. See, I'm trying to be nice. Don't call him a fat pig. You can't do. You can't do that. So

so childish and low character and then also just where does that get us? How does that at all fit into a meaningful discussion about why you would be a better leader than that individual, why they would be a worse leader, why their policies are worse, etc. It doesn't. And why people think that's admirable on the part of Trump, I have no idea. But then here is Chris Christie responding during a recent town hall to just generally the attacks from Trump. He's got a lot to say when he's got a phone in his hand posting something on social media we're going to know what he's really made of if we

see whether he shows up two weeks from tonight or not on that stage because i'll tell you one thing for sure i will be there and i am waiting for him and then we'll answer him because where i grew up and the way i was raised was a man who has something to say to another man comes up to him and looks him in the eye and says it to him. And a coward does the opposite. So we'll see if the coward shows up two weeks from tonight in Milwaukee, but I will be there. Okay. And I do want to see Trump show up to Milwaukee for this Republican primary debate on fox news he really hasn't had this type of debate challenge before i think chris chrissy on that stage with him really could risk humiliating

him which is why he's terrified the other ones what is the sands gonna do what is tim scott gonna do necessarily what is nikki haley they kind of don't want to anger the MAGA people so they're really soft on Trump Vivek any of them but Chris Christie is not going to be soft and Trump especially within the GOP is not used to that and so it'd be great to see him uh taking the task on the stage now as to what he's been saying about possibly showing up, because it is a big interest, this was one of the things he said recently about the debate. Election is closed out. Nobody has even a chance. We've already defeated the Republicans. They're at two and three and one. You know, they all want me to go, okay, onto the debate stage. And I say, well, if we're at 71, and they're at zero, one, two, three, some of them are at four or five. I don't know, does it really make a lot of sense? It doesn't really.

Okay. And then also this. I mean, I have a problem with the debate for another reason. I wouldn't sign the pledge. Why would I sign a pledge? There are people on there that I wouldn't have. I wouldn't have certain people as, you know, somebody that I'd endorse. So they want you to sign a pledge. So making a bunch of excuses. I do think it's noticeable that he's scared, not just of debating or of engaging with the 1%, the 2% polling people, just of Chris Christie. I think Chris Christie terrifies him and he is okay insulting him at a distance, but not to his face because then Chris Christie could respond to his face. And the pledge he mentioned there, of course, is the Republican requirement to get

on the debate stage that you sign a pledge saying you'll endorse whoever is the eventual nominee, which Chris Christie said he would take as seriously as Trump takes it, which is to say he won't take it seriously, but he'll sign it, but he won't endorse Trump if Trump ends up being the nominee. And so Trump, if he indeed does want to debate and does show up, signs the pledge, he's likely going to take it not very seriously, as we know. It is often talked about, rightfully so, why Trump would be so disastrous as president once again because of who he is, what he stands for. Something I mentioned before though in the past is we can't forget about the danger of, yes, all those things, and when it comes to a second Trump term, who he surrounds himself with and i want to remind you of who he surrounded himself with one

example of that that came across my attention recently this is former senior advisor to trump a senior advisor stephen miller i'm sure you're aware of him just casually saying this about watergate during a recent interview the atmosphere perhaps stephen, is right for true reform here at the DOJ. Sir, how do you go about doing it? Well, the first and most important thing is to reestablish what is known as the unitary executive. So this goes back to the Watergate era. And now we obviously know, looking back on it now, of of course that that was a deep state coup against richard nixon but this goes back to the watergate era because why not it wasn't the wrongdoing of

richard nixon the spying it was a deep state coup when you look at the world i warn you all once again when you look at the world through a conspiracy theorist lens, everything starts looking like a conspiracy theory, history, every world event, reality as a whole. Now, it's not just that with Stephen Miller. Rolling Stone report on this. We don't have time today to go through this extensively, but top Trump advisor push for drone strikes on migrants.

New book claims, and I've covered this on my show in the past, the fact that Miles Taylor is alleging that Stephen Miller asked an admiral about the prospect of while a boat of migrants was headed towards the United States because it was in international waters, could the United States drone strike it and just execute countless human beings? That is who Trump surrounded himself with. Incredibly dangerous, detached from reality, clearly, and deranged. And we must remember that as well as we enter into the 2024 presidential election. Thank you all so much for watching and listening to today's show. It is always so great to be with you again.

You can find me at Luke Beasley on YouTube. I will see you very soon.