The David Pakman Show - 8/29/23: Fake Biden beer limit, Trump down 6 since debate

Episode Date: August 29, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Right wingers wrongly rally around the claim that President Joe Biden will limit them to two beers per week -- Fox News host Laura Ingraham realizes and admits that Cornel West's Green Party candidacy may serve to help Donald Trump -- Donald Trump is already down 6 points in a post-debate poll since the first Republican primary debate -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramawasmy is interviewed by Fox News propagandist Sean Hannity, and it does not go well for him -- One of Donald Trump's trials will be two years earlier than Trump wants, placing it in the middle of election season 2024 -- Donald Trump is terrified and flips out over the news that one of his criminal trials will be held much sooner than he and his legal team requested -- Fox News host Mark Levin breaks down, furious over Donald Trump's arrests -- MyPillow is in shambles, as CEO and Founder Mike Lindell tells Steve Bannon that his line of credit has been revoked by his bank -- Voicemail caller has choice words for David -- On the Bonus Show: Pat's Italian vacation stories, and much more... 🌎 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.com/pakman 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Is President Joe Biden going to limit you to two beers a week where if you reach for that third drink, armed agents will bust down the door and take that third beer from your cold, dead hands. No, that is not going to happen. But what is going on is that absent any actual policy package, absent any interest from the Republican electorate in the Republican Party actually putting forward policy ideas that might help someone's life. Republicans have again chosen to fearmonger about nonexistent nanny state impositions from President Joe Biden.

And the latest is that the Biden administration may heed the the advice of medical experts in recommending that maybe you don't have more than two alcoholic drinks per week, which is not crazy advice. If you've been following the science on this, let me remind you that it was alleged that Joe Biden was going to end indoor heating and cooling if he became president. Remember when Trump came up with that, he was going to give you such low flow toilets that you would have to flush 10 to 15 times. He was going to end energy and on and on and on. And of course, none of those things happened. And so the latest is that Republicans are pretending that Joe Biden won't let anybody have more than two drinks per week. The reality, of course, is that there are all sorts of different consumption guidelines

recommended not by Joe Biden, not by the person in power, but by the medical organizations that look at these things. I'll give you a list of these. Canada has already figured it out and they have recommended, you know, regardless of gender, regardless of weight, regardless of age, it's ideal not to have more than two alcoholic drinks per week. Now, you can ignore that. Nobody's going to come and take the alcohol from you. But here is Doofy Peter Doocy asking White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about this yesterday.

She's like, I don't know. I mean, it's nothing that Biden's going to do. Does President Biden want to limit Americans to two beers a week? Where is this coming from? Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't miss you so much. Where is this? Where is this coming from?

All right. Well, Dr. George Koo, who is the director of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, says the U.S. may soon follow Canada and recommend just two beers a week. How do you guys think that's going to go? Let me tell you what I'm not going to get involved in, in that question right there. I have no idea. I've not seen the data. I cannot speak to this. I will leave it to the experts and not wait for it. Say two beers a week.

I will leave it to the experts. Listen, they're trying to make this out to be some kind of authoritarian mandate, some kind of imposition, some kind of nanny state thing. This really isn't super controversial. You know, for I try to follow the science on all of these topics, you know, on smoking, there's very little science to follow at this point because you just shouldn't smoke. It's very bad for you. Period. Zero is the amount of smoking that you should do. Fine. When it comes to alcohol, much like with coffee, to some degree,

there have been ebbs and flows when it comes to recommendations. And very often you will hear, oh, red wine is healthy and people who drink a glass a day live longer or whatever. The last few years of science, as I have followed it, suggest to me that the longevity benefits that some wine drinkers have don't seem to actually have to do with the wine, but it's more about the social circumstances in which people may be drinking wine or whatever the case may be. And that the bottom line is that alcohol is carcinogenic, at least to some degree. And so, of course, it's all about the dose.

But generally speaking, drinking less is more healthy. Now, does that mean you should abstain completely? No, everybody should decide for themselves. But this idea that for a while the recommendations on drinking were too lax seems to be true. Now, the reality is there are all sorts of recommendations from government agencies about these things. They are merely that they are merely recommendations. Eat two cups of fruit and two and a half cups of vegetables a day. Is Joe Biden showing up and spooning, you know, putting a holding your mouth open, strapping you down and spooning broccoli into your mouth. Of course, that's not the case. Should we keep kids under two away from screens, for example? Yeah, that seems to be the right

thing. Do I know people who put their six month old in front of a TV every day? Yeah. And Pete Buttigieg never shows up to throw your tablets into the into the trash. Right. Get seven to nine hours of sleep a night or use sunscreen. Limit your salt intake. Brush and floss your teeth. These are recommendations. And the idea, of course, is if a Democrat is in the White House, recommendations from the same agencies that make recommendations when there's a Republican in the White House. It could be Trump in the White House and the same agency might say, hey, you know what? Better not to have more than two drinks a week. These are just recommendations.

And that is it. Now, of course, sometimes there are policy elements to these things. When we look at the city level, there have been efforts made to limit the sale of those comically oversized sodas. And then there's a debate. On the one hand, nobody, you know, soda is really not good for you. That amount of refined sugar isn't good. Occasionally, having a small soda may be fine. You sell this huge soda. It's got 150 milligrams or grams of sugar or whatever. It's not good. But then the counter becomes, well, you really hurt poor people because the price per ounce is lower with the big soda. You just force them to buy two small ones and spend more. And it hits people who can't afford it. All right. So we've been having

that debate. Sometimes these things do touch policy. But the idea that Joe Biden is going to show up and not let anybody have more than two drinks a week, I assure you that that is, of course, not the case. And this is what happens when they run out of ideas. This is what happens when they have no policy package. This is what happens when, quite frankly, their voters also don't care if all that they present are these culture war sort of ideas. They're going to come in and make your kids trans and force drag shows onto them and put cat litter boxes in the bathroom. And when dad wants that third beer a week, somebody will show up and Kamala will rip the beer out of his head. It's it's all imaginary. And we can also recognize the science has evolved on diet. You know, the food pyramid has changed over time and the science has evolved on alcohol. That's it. Everybody does what they

want. And that is as far as we go with it. Hey, this is really funny. Fox News propagandist Laura Ingraham realizes while interviewing potential Green Party presidential contender Cornel West that he may indeed help Donald Trump become elected president of the United States. Yes, even Laura Ingraham realizes the best that Cornel West can hope to do. Is to become a spoiler. Now, remember, the Green Party, at last I checked, isn't even on the ballot in all 50 states. And indeed, they can't really mount a viable campaign for the presidency unless you believe that a write in candidacy has the chance

of getting you 270 electoral votes. But what the Green Party and Cornel West could do is get just enough of the vote in a few key states that it flips would be Biden states to Trump or DeSantis or whoever is the eventual authoritarian Republican nominee. Laura Ingram realizes this and she presents Cornel West with the realization, the idea, the reality that he may be a spoiler candidate. Check this out. Speaker 1 So how could a third party candidate stack up in a general? Well, take a look at this poll from Emerson. Right. And head to head matchup between Trump and Biden, they're tied, the two candidates, at 44%. But when you add in Cornel West, well, he becomes a spoiler, knocking them both down, 42% Trump and 41% Biden.

I don't know. I'm here in my beloved Oklahoma where I was born. But thank you so much for allowing me to be part of this conversation on my way to Mississippi for the Emmett Till event for the Precious Family, dealing with Brother Jenkins and Brother Parker, dealing with police brutality. It's a blessing to be on your show tonight, my dear sister. It's great to see you, Dr. West. I mentioned this when we lost you for whatever it was, 30 seconds. Your ballot access, just the nuts and bolts of running for president. You're in fewer than 20 states right now. So given that fact, which is a pretty big one, why wouldn't you just run as a Democrat? Because Green Party ballot access is so low right now.

OK, what she's saying is you can't possibly win. So why are you doing this? Oh, no, we are on the move. I'm telling you, the brother Rick and others on the move. We on 20 will be on 30. We'll be in 13 by by December. And some of the states you can't begin until January, as you know, and I'm word salad. Fortunately, you got major impediments because both parties make it difficult for third parties, which is very sad. It shows that a two party system is an impediment for American voices to come to terms with the 63 percent of fellow citizens living paycheck to paycheck. So listen, everyone should realize the cynical motivations of Laura Ingraham having Cornel

West on. And I'm with Bernie on this one. And Laura Ingraham, I mean, good for her in some sense. She actually asks West again, do you realize the impact that this could have? And it's these words, salad platitudes. There is concern among in Democrat circles, Dr. West, that your candidacy, which is interesting to a lot of people, would actually potentially would potentially throw the election to a lot of people, would actually potentially, would potentially throw the election to a Republican and force Joe Biden into the loser column. What would you say to that? And how would you feel about that if that's ultimately what happened? I would say that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not entitled to any votes. They have to earn those votes.

And most of the votes that I will get are voters, fellow citizens who would not vote for either Republicans or Democrats. And keep in mind, my dear sister, 40 percent of our precious citizens don't vote at all. And I'm going to them as well as those in the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party. So it's a matter of ensuring that the Negro national anthem lift every voice, lift every vote vote. Democrats have no ownership over any vote. Now of course it is absolutely true. Nobody gets to assume any votes. Democrats have no over ownership of votes and Republicans don't either.

And also any reasonable person would evaluate the system we have, which is first past the post and not a rank choice or single transferable vote system. If that were the case, this would be completely different. You rank your candidates. You say, I prefer Cornel West, but if he's not viable, then I want Joe Biden problem solved. We don't have that system. Any normal person would look at this and say, OK. The worst possible outcome is an authoritarian like Trump or DeSantis or whoever else becoming president of the United States. That's the worst outcome. I can't in good conscience behave in a way.

That would make that worst outcome more likely, or at least I would feel bad if I did that. That's me. I would feel bad if I acted in a way that made a Trump or DeSantis presidency more likely. So, of course, Cornel West can run. He's not nobody's entitled to vote. He can go after the non voters. He can go after independents. He can go after Trump voters, Biden voters who he can do all of that. But it is a mathematical reality that he can't win. They don't have the ballot access, but he might be able to swing this from Joe Biden to Donald Trump. He might actually be able to do that. And you might come back to me and say, David, that's not his problem. And I would say that's you're absolutely right. If he doesn't care about that, then he can do whatever the hell he wants. But I'm a progressive. And the last thing I want is another

four years of an authoritarian lunatic. So I'm going with what progressive Bernie Sanders had to say about this over the weekend in that interview with CNN. We looked at clips yesterday. I'm with Bernie. You do whatever you want. Cornel West can do whatever he wants. But the best he can hope for in terms of influence is giving us another four years of an authoritarian lunatic like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis. At the end of the day, I don't even think he'll have that impact. I actually don't. But we will see. And that is the risk. Laura Ingraham knows it and she loves it. And that's why she's giving Cornel West attention.

Did you know that anyone in the world can very easily access a ton of data about you online? Data brokers collect huge amounts of data about you online. Data brokers collect huge amounts of data about everything you do on your phone, your computer, where you go, what you look at. But we recently learned that government agencies like the FBI have also been buying a ton of this data from data brokers just to keep track of people without needing a court order. Criminals can also use the information to target you. Ad companies and political consultants can buy it and try to influence you. But you can stop it. Our sponsor Incogni is an affordable service that specializes in getting your data removed from these sites.

Incogni will send data removal requests to the major data brokers. They are required by law to remove it upon request. If your information stays online, Incogni will just follow up with them about removing it. It's that simple. And you will be kept updated every step of the way. So you know what's going on. What Incogni can accomplish is amazing. I use it myself 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 and use the code Pacman for 60 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Our little old show here is primarily made possible by people who sign up is his courageous and triumphant vacation. We will hear what he got up to. And my expectation is that it'll be some pretty, pretty wild stuff. That's on today's bonus show. You can sign up

at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code tetradited, which means four times indicted. You can also use the coupon code four years for indictments if there is a preference there, spelling or otherwise. And you'll get all those great member benefits that join Pacman dot com. There is a new poll which shows Donald Trump down six in only the few days following his skipped debate last week. Remember, the Republican Party started debates last week, debates to help their voters choose who they want to be on the presidential ballot in November of 2024. Donald Trump opted not to participate in that debate despite being the current leader in polling. There were questions. Is this the right decision? Is this the wrong

decision? Will this help Trump? Will this hurt Trump? Yesterday, I came to you with tears in my eyes to tell you that although it has pulled down Trump support a little bit, he is still in a commanding lead. There is now another new poll which shows a larger impact of Trump on Trump of skipping that debate, showing him losing six points. This is the latest Emerson College poll, and it finds that since the debate took place, Donald Trump has lost six points of support. That's more than 10 percent, going from 56 percent to 50 percent. Vivek Ramaswamy is at nine. Ron DeSantis is at 12. Everybody else is at seven or below.

This is certainly very interesting. And there are now multiple polls that show Trump losing support since the debate. Importantly, I prefer to look at an average of recent polls, not at a single poll. And the updated information there from RealClearPolitics, which includes this Emerson poll, but it also includes other polls, polls which have Trump as low as forty five or as high as sixty one show that indeed Donald Trump has lost some support since skipping the debate. Trump was at close to 56 percent.

He's now down to just under fifty four. On average, it is not a major trend, a major change. The other trends are DeSantis continues losing support, as you know, at one point reaching 31 and then ending up in the low 20s and then the high 20. I'm sorry. And then the high teens and then 15 and now all the way down to 13. The vague Rama Swamy, it's difficult to call it a surge, but he is ticking up most recently at seven point six percent. And that's as high as Rama Swamy has been. If he can get to ten double digits and really contest the Santas, it will be a very interesting change of events, a turn of events. Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, right around five. Christie still struggling to break

three. Nothing else super remarkable going on. But indeed, it's so far does not appear to have been good for Donald Trump. Now, these data can only tell us so much at this early stage. And there are a number of different interpretations of the data. One extrapolation would be, you know, if Trump loses two, three, four points after each debate that he skips, he will eventually not be the leader. And that is mathematically airtight. But we don't know that that's the case. What Trump skipping the debate might have done is it might have sort of shaken out some very soft Trump support. And once that soft Trump support bails, well, then it's stronger Trump support.

And there's no real reason to think Trump's going to lose two to four points after every single debate. That's one possibility. The other possibility is that this is a trend that will continue to some degree. But Trump has such a lead that even if Trump were to go below 50 percent down to 45 or even 40, he still is going to have a plurality of the support unless one Republican gets all of the other support around them. Not super likely. And so that Trump has a huge buffer, even with 40 percent, even with 38 percent. If Trump has 38 and all of the other candidates split the remaining 62, Trump may still be the primary vote getter. Then you've got to look at the state by state

voting rules in the Republican primary and see, is it've got to look at the state by state voting rules in the Republican primary and see is it winner take all. Is it not? It starts to get a little bit more complicated. The third interpretation here is something more aligned with what Rachel Bidikoffer said to us last week, which is none of this really matters. Nobody or most voters, many voters aren't even really paying attention yet. Once we get past Labor Day next week, once we get past the second debate in a few weeks, once we get into November or December, where early primary voters start to realize, hey, we're voting in a couple of months, we're voting next month, two months from now. Once that happens, this is all going to change.

This is another interpretation of the data and that what we are seeing right now are going to be all sorts of ups and downs that are not going to be dramatically meaningful in the grand scheme of things. Which answer is it? I don't know. We have to wait and see. But if you're Trump, it can't be thrilling to be seeing a notable decline in average polling since you skip the debate. Is it enough to force Trump into the debates? I don't know, because to be perfectly frank, I don't know that debating is going to be that good for Trump either. So it's a real question he's got to figure out. He also has four criminal trials he's dealing with. And so it's unclear where his head is. But we'll talk

about that a little bit later. Let's now talk about Vivek Ramaswamy. We have learned by observing Vivek Ramaswamy, the 2024 Republican presidential candidate, that he has a penchant for saying one thing. And then later, when he's asked about it, saying I never said that. And then when it's quoted, he says the quote is out of context. And then when context is given, he says the context is wrong and it's being presented by left wing media or whatever the case may be. The epitome of this took place last night. This is really something I think you're going to enjoy this. Vivek Ramaswamy appeared on Fox News with propagandist Sean Hannity. Now, Sean Hannity makes Vivek look quite bad. But the remarkable

thing about this is that Hannity is doing this not in bad faith, but he's doing this cynically. Hannity wants to help Trump. Hannity is buddy buddy with Trump. So everything I'm about to show you here is Sean Hannity trying to help Donald Trump. That all being said, Hannity pretty astutely points out the erratic and contradictory nature of just about everything Vivek Ramaswamy says. First and foremost, here is Vivek Ramaswamy saying, once we get our semiconductors under control, then we bail on Taiwan. And Hannity goes,

did you just say that? And Vivek goes, no, I didn't say it. And Hannity goes, you did. You just said it. Check this out. So I'm the only presidential candidate in either party who has had the courage to say that I'm not going to embrace the one China policy, which is the posture of both political parties today, that I'm not going to just adopt strategic ambiguity. We can't afford that. We need to be clear that we will defend Taiwan. That's different from strategic ambiguity. Now, we have to defend Taiwan until we achieve semiconductor independence, at which point we resume our current posture of strategic ambiguity, which is exactly what the U.S. adopts today. So, Sean, right now, the U.S.'s position is a one China policy. Yeah.

Let me ask you this. At what point, for example, if Russia wanted to put nuclear weapons 90 miles south of our border in Cuba, we did have a Cuban missile crisis, what would your posture be there? In other words, if you're saying as long as Taiwan provides the semiconductor chips, we'll help them. But after that, they're on their own? No. Actually, Sean, and that's,'s again how my position's been caricatured. I will remind you and everybody else that right now the United States. I'm listening. No, it's not what I'm saying, because I'll give it to you very simply. Right now, the United States's policy towards Taiwan is a one China policy. Donald Trump was derided. He was made fun of

for daring to pick up a phone call from the Taiwanese president. The United States of America right now does not even recognize Taiwan as a nation. I view it differently. I am clear that we will defend Taiwan. I'm the only politician in either party that has until we get our semiconductors under control in 2028. And then I would resume what I would resume the current position of the United States after we've achieved semiconductor independence. OK, so it's basically what Hannity is saying. You know, this is the thing we learned through my interview and others with the bake. You can give him a quote out of a book he wrote and he will somehow slip around it and

say, well, but you know, the media and partisanship and misquoting and lack of context and whatever. Hannity confronted Vivek with another one saying, you said aid to Israel should end in 2028. And Vivek says that's false. And Hannity goes, here's a quote. I've got the quote. When you are putting Hannity in this position, you know you're not making much sense. Speaker 1 What were some of the issues, though? You know, you said aid to Israel, our number one ally, only democracy in the region should

end in twenty twenty eight and that they should be integrated with their neighbors. I have an exact quote. You want to read it? Speaker 2 That's actually. Yeah, I can tell you the exact quote. What I said is it would be a mark of success if we ever got to a point in our relationship with Israel, if Israel never needed the United States as aid and show, you know how politics is played. A lot of the other professional politicians who have been threatened by my rise have used that statement to say that I would cut

off aid to Israel. All right. Now, whatever you think about aid to Israel, that's not what this is about. This is about the fact that Vivek Ramaswamy with a straight face and very articulately. Right. You got to give the guy credit for it. He will just straight up say no, no, no, never said it. You've got the quotes. He doesn't care. He'll go on to something tangential. Hannity goes back and says, well, you said Israel shouldn't have preferential treatment. That's a quote. He goes, well, those are direct quotes from the fake news media. But so are they direct quotes or not?

Vivek traveled to Israel. I have business partners in Israel. The reality is this. By the end of my first term, our relationship with Israel will be stronger than it ever has been because I will treat it as a true friendship, not just a transactional relationship. Why did you say I want to treat treatment? Why did you say that Israel should not have preferential treatment from us? That's a direct quote.

Sean, I understand. No, those are direct quotes from headlines summarized by opposition research fed to the fake news media. So so are are they direct quotes or not? It's a very specific kind of direct quote. The reality is, here's what I'm saying. You say that, but- Abraham Accords 2.0 is my top priority. Abraham Accords 2.0 is my top priority, which is to get Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar into that pact with Israel. And foremost, to have a partnership with Israel that does something really important for the US, which is to make sure that Iran never, ever, ever has nuclear capabilities.

That's important to the United States. Notice that he's moved on to something different here. And this is he's he really is very slick. You got to give the guy credit. It's and the other thing I've said, Sean, is that Israel is our friend. Good friends learn from each other. I would love Israel's border policies in this country. I would love Israel's tough on crime policies and strong national identity in this country. I would love an iron dome like Israel has to defend itself against Hamas, which is a good thing for Israel. I want something like that here in the United States. So I don't read from the traditional GOP talk. All right. So he just goes on to filibuster more. And then just one more clip here in this one, Rama Swami says, you know, our actions might

be actually pushing Russia closer to China. And I have to tell you, Hannity rightly points out, no, but that that's already something that is happening. It's not about our Ukraine policy. Sean, there's also a deeper point, which is that I worry we are now driving Russia closer into China's arms. And the Russia-China alliance is the single greatest threat that we face. And that's what I really worry about. It's already there. There's an opportunity.

It's Russia, China and Iran. Well, exactly. A new axis of evil is formed. So the question is, I think other countries in the. And I want to weaken it. I want to weaken it too. And I'd love to see that happen. Yeah. And Vivek has said that he would, I guess, weaken it by giving parts of Ukraine to Putin

and then going and visiting Putin. So this is less about the issues. You could look at some of what Ramaswamy is saying here. Right. And remember, it's like pick and choose because the taking every position on every issue lets you just say, well, I liked what he said on this day, but not so much on that day. This is less about what we actually you know, there are elements of what Ramaswamy says where his most recent statement isn't crazy and many of them that are crazy. OK, this is about the fact that he is doing an incredible job and praise to him to the extent that it helps him.

He is doing an incredible job of with a straight face, just denying his own quotes. He's increasingly being presented with his own quotes and he just talks about something else. He's talked about, well, you said this on Israel. He says, I would love to have an iron dome. It's not really the question. It's not what Hannity is pointing out. And so Hannity doing a fine job, although it is a difficult job for sure, of pointing out that the

just slips out and denies his own quotes. It's an incredible ability to be able to do it with a straight face. Is it going to work in some sense? I guess. I mean, he's up a little bit since the debate. We'll see how he does in the second debate. We'll see what sort of media attention he gets. He's definitely getting a lot more media attention since that debate performance. Will Republican voters realize he just takes every side of every issue, sort of like Trump did in 2016? I don't know.

I don't know that that's something the Republican electorate really pays attention to. Are they even going to be interested in the Ramaswamy presidency beyond seven to 10 percent? That remains to be seen. But at a boy to Sean Hannity, to the extent that he at least attempted to keep this all under control, we'll have these clips on our Instagram, on our tick tock and of course, on our YouTube channel. So summertime is in full swing. It's hot, it's humid when you get sweaty.. sponsor. Sheath underwear has been a game changer for so many people. Sheath underwear is ergonomically designed with a pouch in the front. Keep everything comfortable and separate. When you wear the sheath

underwear, everything stays dry and cool. Instead of sticking together, you feel the air flowing. It's great. It's really something you have to try to understand. This has been my go to underwear for years, all year round, but especially when it's hot outside. The humidity is bonkers. They have plenty of different colors and styles, something for everybody and the sticking and the readjusting experience underwear comfort like you have never felt before. Try she go to sheath underwear dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 20 percent off. That's S.H.E.A.T.H. underwear dot com slash and use the code Pacman for 20 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. OK, that seems like an error. So I'm going to redo it one more time. That's S.H.E.A.T.H. Underwear dot com slash Pacman. Use the code

Pacman for 20 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. Judge Tanya Chutkin has handed the failed former President Donald Trump a significant setback in one of his four criminal trials, deciding that the trial will be roughly two years sooner than Donald Trump and his lawyers wanted. It is extraordinary. It sets up an incredible 2024, which the dynamics of which we will discuss in a moment. And it has also sent Trump into a meltdown spiral, which we will talk about later. Newsweek reports Judge Chuck can hands Trump loss with trial date, setting a date for Trump's trial on the federal charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Remember, this is separate from Trump's New York state

charges. This is separate from the other federal charges. This is separate from the Georgia criminal charges. This is just one case. Chutkin has scheduled the trial to begin on March 4, 2024. The date is more than two years earlier than the April 2026 date requested by Trump's attorneys who wanted to push the election, the trial back until after the election. Now, let's say one thing about that. We all know generally about the motivations for pushing trials back. Most lawyers or not most lawyers, all lawyers I've spoken to will tell you that in most cases, it's better to push the trial back. You have a right to request a speedy trial, but there are lots of reasons to delay trials, delay trials because prosecutorial

priorities can change over time and you may end up with prosecutors more willing to negotiate or offer a better plea or whatever the case may be. Delay because witnesses forget and or die or whatever the case may be. Delay because evidence can be misplaced or degrade or these are general principles. Whether this applies to Trump's cases specifically is a matter of some discussion. But generally, there's lots of reasons that one would seek to delay trials. In addition, when it comes to Trump, we know what the game is. OK, we know what the game is because we saw what it was when Trump was president while

he was president, regularly having lawyers argue as president. I can't be encumbered by investigations and I certainly can't be encumbered by charges. And then after he was president, I am a potential candidate for 2024. I can't be encumbered with investigations. That's no, absolutely not. When he announced that he was running in 2024, you can't encumber a candidate for the presidency with investigations and charges. Now they're making that similar or same argument. If Donald Trump wins and then they go, OK, you won, but it's April of twenty twenty six

is time for your trial. Then he will shift to arguing. I'm currently the president. You can't encumber me with a criminal trial. So it's all being done in bad faith. Fine. Judge Chutkin has decided that this is all going to start in March and prosecutors asked for January 2nd, 2024, which I believe is the first judicial day of 2024. The trial is going to start the day before Super Tuesday. That's the day where voters in 15 states and one territory will vote in the Republican

primary. Trump's campaign criticized Chutkin for the date. The campaign said the date set today deprives Trump of his constitutional right to a fair trial, a seminal bedrock of America, and continues to expose the corruption of the witch hunts being thrown against President Trump. Prosecutor, former federal prosecutor Nima Rahmani said to Newsweek Newsweek, he was not surprised about the date set that the U.S. district court judge's reputation is that she moves cases quickly. You know, there's a bunch of interesting things to discuss here. Trump and his lawyers want 2026.

And also they've been furious about how long it took to bring charges. And they seem to sort of want it both ways. They want their cake and they want to eat it, too. The charges should have been brought far more quickly. This all should have been adjudicated and wrapped up far more quickly. They delayed it to their advantage thanks to the schedule of the election or whatever. No evidence of that, by the way. But it all is taking too long. And now they're stomping their feet and saying we don't want a

quick trial, which, by the way, remember how many times has Trump lauded quick trial in China during his recent speeches? But now all of a sudden he wants the slowest possible trial. He wants it both ways. But there's another detail that's an interesting one to consider. If indeed these cases against Trump are so weak, if Trump has so much exonerating evidence that he's going to be presenting at trial, wouldn't he want to get this to trial as soon as possible so that he can rise victorious in exoneration and acquittal and use that to prove that the charges were unfair and political and say, look, I was right. They are trying to keep me down. Come and vote for me. Let's show

them we're not going to tolerate this. You would think that that would be a great thing to be able to do. Quickly exonerate yourself, get an acquittal, except he wants to delay the trial as long as possible, casting more doubt about his guilt or innocence. It doesn't really make sense. Everyone should want a trial before the Republican primary is over. Especially if you think Trump is innocent, if you think Trump is innocent, you should want him exonerated as soon as possible. At the same time, if you think he's guilty, you should also want him convicted quickly because there's the risk that you choose him as your nominee. He later gets convicted and that torpedoes his chance of winning the general election. The only reason I can think of that you would want to delay this as long as possible is

if you think there may be a conviction, but you still want the guy to win and you believe the conviction will hurt his chances. We are going to find out soon from a very practical perspective. Is it possible to be a defendant in four criminal trials at the same time in different jurisdictions and also successfully run for president at the same time? Is it humanly possible? It's sort of like David Blaine spending days in a box or whatever he claims to have done. Is this something that can be done? Can you run for president successfully while being a defendant in four criminal trials, putting aside just the presidency part of it. It would be a lot for anybody to be a defendant in even two

criminal trials, even being a defendant in one serious criminal trial often consumes one's life until that trial is over. And Trump is going to be a defendant in four trials and running for president. And this is why he flipped out last night after this declaration was made by Judge Tanya Chutkan. Let's talk about that next. Donald Trump wanted one of his trials to happen in April of twenty twenty six. Judge Tanya Chutkan decided yesterday it will start in March of twenty twenty four. We are only a few months from Trump's one of Trump's criminal trials. Trump flipped out total mental breakdown yesterday, clearly terrified about what he is facing here.

It is clear that someone got to Trump and said, just so you know. If you are convicted in some of these matters and you're sentenced to something middle of the road, it could mean life in prison for you. It actually could based on your age. Trump taking to truth social truth central and saying about the decision on the trial, quote, deranged Jack Smith and his team of thugs who were caught going to the White House just prior to indicting the 45th president of the United States. An absolute no, no. Have been working on this witch hunt for almost three years, but decided to bring it smack in the middle of crooked Joe Biden's political opponents campaign against them. Election interference today, a biased Trump hating judge gave me only a two month extension. Just what our corrupt government wanted. Super Tuesday. I will appeal.

Trump saying he will appeal the decision on the trial date. Trump arguing that this is all being done to help Joe Biden. No evidence of that. No evidence that that trial date is even the most useful to Joe Biden. Again, the most useful thing to Joe Biden may be timing this so that it actually interferes with the general rather than the primary. But OK, put that aside. Trump continuing to explode on Truth Central, saying, quote, Page two, how do you have an indictment that is based almost entirely on the findings of the January 6th unselect committee? It is not based almost entirely on that committee of Marxists, fascists and political hacks. Remember, they still aren't able to prove there's even a single

Marxist involved here. Trump continuing when these same lowlifes who have been caught lying for years about Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, FISA, the fake dossier and much more purposely and capital I illegally all caps destroyed and deleted all of the capital E evidence, capital F findings and capital P proof of the January 6th committee. When will deranged Jack Smith criminally charge the committee? Here's the bottom line. Trump is not happy that he may have to go to trial in March. Trump is not happy that he may go to prison for the rest of his life. And Trump is saying, send me more money, because always with this stuff, there's a fundraising appeal wrapped up with it. The

emails are going out constantly. Fundraising emails help us fight this, that the other thing, the mugshot is now being used in Trump reportedly raising seven million bucks in the immediate aftermath of the mugshot being taken and the arrest in Georgia. Trump is terrified. Trump is having a meltdown. Is this going to get him to change his behavior? Are we going to see a different Trump? I doubt it, but this may not be the end news today that Trump may soon face a fifth indictment and arrest and potentially even a sixth indictment and arrest. Truly incredible. Let's take a quick break. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. We're approaching two million YouTube subscribers, which will be quite a day when we achieve it.

After the break, Mark Levin, furious that there may be accountability in our justice system. Quick break and back with that. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. You also get access to our entire archive of every episode dating back a really long time and plenty of other awesome membership perks. Go to join Pacman dot com. Join Pacman dot com. All right. Fox News propagandist Mark Levin went on a furious tirade about if you're really going to do all of this stuff to Trump, maybe just hang the guy to which a whole bunch of people said, you know, Mark, that doesn't sound terrible. Now, of course, I'm for law and order. I'm actually for due process.

So it's not interesting to me to say skip all of it and hang the guy. But there are certainly people out there who would say, listen, let's skip the four trials and just put it all together and not hang. But how about 15 years in prison, which is almost certainly a death sentence for Donald Trump? We're not going to do any of that stuff on this show. I want each of these cases adjudicated on the merits one by one. But let's listen to Mark Levin completely lose his mind.

Steam coming out of the guy's ears. Epic meltdown. Take a listen. Here's the crap indictment that all the legal analysts says this Epic meltdown. Take a listen. Here's the crap indictment that all the legal analysts says this is where the problem is right here. Not if we're a republic with a true rule of law. That's crap.

Then we have, here's another one. Here we have the January 6th case. And I've told you before, what did he do? Mr. Smith, 1871 Klan Act. What? The Enron Act. The guy loves the Enron Act on obstruction and a financial fraud statute.

Look right here. Oh, my God. Crap. Mr. Smith goes to Washington. And for people who are only listening, a big part of the visual interest here is that Levin has the different indictments, I guess. Like we don't know what's on these pages, but he's got stacks of paper that he's holding up. And Mr. Smith blows up the place. You know what this is? 100 pages of book. I could take one section out of here. Let me ask you a

question. Are you allowed to challenge a campaign and open and count its legitimacy. According to her, no. So put Rico aside. Wrong, wrong, quite literally incorrect. Trump is not being indicted because he believed he won or used legal means to challenge the election results. This guy's lying. He can yell as much as he wants, but that's not true. Every other charges side, she just charged somebody with a felony under state law for exercising their federal First Amendment free speech right. Incorrect. In the indictments, it says that he is lying. That's part of this ancient Rome believed in attorney client privilege. Modern day America does not. Can you name one targeted victim during the Stalin regime who was indicted in four different jurisdictions?

Can you name one who is facing ninety one charges? Can you name one who is facing almost a thousand years in prison? Now of course, the reason Trump's being indicted in four different jurisdictions is there is evidence that he committed different crimes in four different jurisdictions. It's really very simple. No, this is worse. Thousands of subpoenas. His kids were, were all brought in hundreds and hundreds of witnesses and so forth.

They had nothing all intended to sabotage his presidency. That's a police state. He's charged with crimes relating to election activity. He's charged with crimes relating to documents. He's charged with crimes relating to nondisclosure agreement. Yeah, the alleged crimes are extremely widespread. Trump is an allegedly prolific criminal. He's charged with crimes relating to campaign activity in one state. Ladies and gentlemen, why go through the motions of justice? Just hang the guy. I don't know why I find that so damn funny. Just hang the guy. Listen, Mark Levin is shocked at all of the charges against Trump. I'm shocked, too. I mean, it's incredible the amount of alleged criminality that one guy and

his inner circle were able to get up to in a relatively short amount of time. The reason for the multiple indictments is alleged criminality in multiple jurisdictions. The reason for the multiple indictments is alleged criminality in multiple jurisdictions. The reason for the indictments under so many different statutes is alleged crimes violating so many different statutes. And they have this righteous indignation about how dare they, how dare they do this. And to some degree, do we really believe Mark Levin is this angry? Like what I mean is I'm sure on a personal level he thinks the charges are wrong or whatever. But these guys act enraged to make their viewers

enraged. And this is what you know, it's sort of like if you as the host are really upset as well. Great. But if you can just pretend that's good, too, because they traffic in anger and fear as a currency, anger about what they're doing to Trump and fear that they might do it to you. I actually I have a clip. I was going to use it, but I didn't use it. Maybe we'll look at it tomorrow. It was somebody on Fox making the case that they might go after random Trump supporters next. They're just going to go after random Trump. Well, that's ridiculous. If you rioted on January 6th, you're being prosecuted if they found you, if there's evidence. But the idea that they're just going to go, oh, you voted for Trump. Let's find charges against you. It's fear mongering.

And so it's anger and it is fear. And I don't know if after this completely unhinged rant, Mark Levin calms down, has a scotch on the rocks and goes right to bed. Or if he's actually, you know, is this a character that he's playing? I don't know. And I don't care. I'm not accusing him of dishonesty. But the point here is this is the currency that right wing media is currently trafficking in. And he is doing a hell of a job. Send me your thoughts. Curious to hear what you think about whether Levin is genuine in his anger. My pillow CEO, Mike Lindell, known to us just as Pillow. It's like Madonna share pillow. Mike Pillow appeared yesterday with former Trump propaganda, Steve Bannon, and says the bank has pulled his credit line. My pillow is quite literally in shambles and it is a

shambles of pillows own making. He has made his bed and he is now going to have to sleep in it. Pillow previously telling us that they were doing a fire sale on everything from industrial pillow machines to those sprinter vans that are kind of cool. I was looking into getting one actually for for producer Patty might want a sprinter van. The latest from Mike Pillow is the bank has pulled his line of credit. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Mike, real quickly, the company, they're trying to put you out of business. People have to understand they're hitting people from wherever we have Rudy on here. Lady Carrie Lake. They're coming after everybody.

They're particularly trying to shut down the employee owned company. My pillow. Tell me. Tell me about what are you guys doing to combat that? Well, and this just happened over the weekend. By the way, they are trying to shut down my my pillow. Give me a break. Or actually last week where we were getting money for I was personally and the bank stopped it on

the guy that we were where we were getting it because they deemed it political. And this is for my company, for my pillow. And Steve, what we're combating it with, we have all of our towels that are in their back in stock. He's holding up towels now, folks, and we're doing a 50 percent off sale for these six pack sets. Use promo code war room. All these colors are and we've been with folks. This is not sad. This is real.

It's not satire for about a month and a half. And it's the biggest savings on it. You're ever going to get on it. They are right now on a six-piece towel set, you get two washcloths, two hand towels, and two of the bigger towels. And we've got everything else there on sale, too. If you go to MyPillow.com, go to the square set keeping us going. We're an employee-owned company. I just am the biggest shareholder.

We have families, grandchildren, children, all my employees. They have to sit and worry every day because he's attacked. The one last week was disgusting that they stopped another person's bank from giving us money because the big bank held it back and said it was political. Because why? Because I want to have secure elections in our country. All people want that. Yeah. So there you go. There is my pillow, Mike Lindell, saying the bank has cut him off from his line of credit because it's all political. He's doing politics. Now, I have to tell you.

Any bank, if if if I went to a bank and I said, listen, I need a line of credit, the reason I need the line of credit is we, you know, imagine that in our business. OK, I have friends who have businesses where they get paid off in net 120 or sometimes even like net 180, which means after the work is done and they submit a bill, it might take four to six months to get paid. Sometimes with really big companies, they have these slow payment cycles. So my friend has had to get a line of credit because he might do a year of work for for these projects. He's got to pay a year of payroll. And then four months after the project is done, he gets paid. So during that interim period, he needs the line of credit. If instead of using it for payroll, which is what he says he's going to use the line of credit for. He instead uses it to do a cyber symposium to try to prove an election was rigged.

The bank is rightly going to go to him and say, you're not using the money for what you told us you were going to use it for. We're not going to bankroll this. We don't believe that you spending the money on this is actually generating the return out of which we are ultimately going to be paid back. We're cutting off the line of credit. Anybody would be cut off from their line of credit by their bank if they so publicly flouted the requirements and the purpose for which that line of credit was originally created. It's ridiculous to suggest they're targeting pillows specifically.

Anybody who did this is going to have their line of credit cut. But it's very sad. It's very sad because there are people who could lose their jobs if my pillow goes under. And so we'll continue to monitor. I'm not getting the pillows. I'm not getting the towels. I'm not getting the slippers. I'm not getting any of it. I mentioned a couple months ago we got a request on one of our ad platforms that my pillow wants to advertise with us. We just said, no, I know some people said you should have taken the money and it would be so funny, but I just I'm not. It's a no for me, dog.

OK, it's a no for me. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. I am going to play a voicemail that is extremely disgusting, but here's the vision quest I want you to come on with me right now. Close your eyes as I get ready to play this voicemail and imagine someone sitting in their armchair watching Fox News, drinking Bud Light or whatever. Right. I mean, it doesn't matter. Maybe they don't drink Bud Light anymore and saying, hey, you know what? I have something to say to David Pakman.

I'm going to get on the phone with David Pakman. And then this is what they say. Woke pussy, woke pussy, woke pussy, woke pussy, woke pussy, woke pussy. Grow the fuck up. OK. It's hard to feel anger for someone whose life is clearly in such a sad place that that is what they decide to do. It is it is I feel more empathy than any anger because that's got to be one life gone wrong. So I hope that that gentleman is able to turn his life around and maybe behave in a less childish and humiliating way. By the way, that's not a kid. We actually know exactly who this guy is, who calls.

Yeah. Best of luck to you, sir. On the bonus show today. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Right. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Producer Pat is back and we will hear about his Italian adventure. Yes. Italian adventure. Speaking of Italy, we will also talk on the bonus show about how the pope says that backwards U.S. conservatives have replaced faith with ideology. We will hear from Pat whether he went to the Vatican. Did he meet with the pope? That would be interesting. All of those stories and so much more at join Pacman dot com. Remember that you can get the children's book about critical thinking at David Pacman dot com slash book. Nearly 12000 copies now sold paperback, Kindle, whatever you

want. The book is available. Go to David Pakman dot com slash book. We will see you on the bonus show. We will be back tomorrow. What a week. What a week. That's my.