The David Pakman Show - 8/30/23: Vivek brutally confronted, Trump's lawyer off the rails in sick interview

Episode Date: August 30, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Dennis Prager, right wing radio host, writer, and co-founder of Prager U, joins David to discuss whether Donald Trump won the 2020 election, his views on transgender rights, the woke culture wars, and much more -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is called out for his lies during an interview with journalist Andrea Mitchell -- Deranged right-winger Stew Peters delivers a bloodthirsty rant that calls for the killing of numerous people, including Dr. Anthony Fauci -- John Eastman, Donald Trump's indicted lawyer, is interviewed on Fox News and it goes horribly wrong -- Donald Trump promises to "lock people up" during a dangerous interview with right wing host Glenn Beck -- Donald Trump attacks Judge Tanya Chutkan, claiming he will demand an "appeal" to his trial date, which is not something that can be appealed -- A mush-mouthed and visibly struggling Donald Trump starts a new vlog in which he shares random musings on video -- Miami Mayor Francis Suarez becomes the first 2024 Republican presidential candidate to end his campaign -- The Eggman calls in with inquiries about Producer Pat's Italy trip -- On the Bonus Show: Hurricane Idalia rapidly intensifying and putting life at risk, voice deepfakes are coming for your bank cash, the last super blue moon until 2037 rises tonight, much more... 🌎 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 💸 Qube Money: Try it for 2 months totally FREE at https://davidpakman.com/money 👕 Laundry Sauce: Get 15% off with code PAKMAN at https://laundrysauce.com/pakman 🌎 Bank with Atmos to fight climate change! Open an account at https://joinatmos.com/pakman ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF a year subscription at https://startmail.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 We start today with 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy rising, but not really surging in the polls after an energetic borderline manic performance during last week's debate. He has a real problem on his hands. The problem is he has said so many things, including completely opposing things about the same issues, some of which sound crazy. And now he's being hit with his own quotes during interviews and he has to figure out how am I going to deal with this? He was confronted by MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell,

and it really didn't go well. Now, one of the things we're learning about Vivek Ramaswamy, and give me a moment to lay this out, is that he's taking an all of the above approach when it comes to being confronted with his own crazy past statements. There's lots of techniques that can be employed. For example, you're confronted with a quote of your own that you don't want to defend. You can pivot. You can answer a different question. You can address something else other than what you're being asked. That's one possibility. You can attack the person asking you the question. You can say, well, you're just part of the woke media mob or whatever. Right. You can attack the interviewer. You can do a gish gallop, which is basically like a word salad. This is what

Cornel West did when Laura Ingraham recently said, do you really owe five hundred thousand dollars in unpaid child support and back taxes? And he didn't answer. He just talked about other things. That's a gish gallop. You can use a selective quoting where you only address a narrow part of the quote that's relatively benign. You can say everybody agrees with me about this. And so that's not really an answer. You're just basically saying, well, you know, it's not just me who's saying this. It's other people as well. You can use ambiguity, which is sort of answering the question, but being ambiguous where you're not really addressing the core of it. There's all these different strategies that one can employ when presented with their own quotes and simple yes, no questions. Do you stand by this or not? Do you have evidence or not? Vivek does all of it. He will use all of

these techniques. Here is Andrea Mitchell confronting him about his claim that converting to clean energy has killed two million people. I was able to find no evidence of that because I don't think it exists here. She is confronting him with the question. See if you can spot which tactic he uses. Can you offer a shred of evidence that within two million people died from converting to clean energy? I can offer clear evidence that the number of climate disaster related deaths is down by 98 percent over the last century. The number of people who died. And you see Andrea Mitchell shaking her head there. Question. You said two million people died from converting to clean energy. Do you have any evidence for

that? What I have evidence for, says Vivek, is that way fewer people are dying today than in the past related to climate disasters. Now, Philip Bump explained this in a recent piece that he wrote. The reason why fewer people are dying from climate related disasters is because weather forecasting has become so much better. There was a time when there would really be no idea that a massive hurricane was coming. And when people mostly evacuate, sometimes a hurricane will kill zero or five people. Nobody knows the things coming and you just stick around. You could have hundreds or thousands of people killed. And then that that dramatically skews the number. The other issue is that there's the conflation of climate and weather, whether people are dying from extreme weather versus people are dying from climate versus people are dying from a conversion to clean energy.

Like, for example, oh, we've switched from, you know, coal to electric to solar. Does that mean that people are dying because of that? It's all of it. He's employing a whole bunch of these different techniques. He's pivoting. He's putting in a straw man and then he's going to continue to do more of it. He means tornadoes, heat waves and other weather related events in 1920. Right.

Why would more people die from heat waves in 1920 than today? Well, we have something called widespread air conditioning today for every 100 that died dead then to die today. And the reason why is more plentiful, abundant access to fossil fuels and technology powered by fossil fuels. I can also tell you today it is a hard fact. None of these things are disputed. Eight times as many people die of cold temperatures than die of warm ones. The right answer to all temperature related deaths is more plentiful, abundant access to fossil fuels.

Speaker 1 Now, we've talked about this before, of course, when it comes to protecting people from the cold or the heat, you can do it with wind and solar and geothermal. And I've even said I'm open to looking at new nuclear because it's so much safer. But that's a topic for a different day. But that is separate from needing fossil fuels and the claim that more people are dying from cold versus hot. We've talked about that before. That's a complex text. And it really depends on where you are looking. Where are you

restricting your analysis? So, again, it's slippery slope talking about we're not going to have any fossil fuels. It's red herring. It's straw man. It's all of these different things. He's doing all of it. One other example of Vivek asking of being forced to sort of like try to address things he said. He is asked by Andrea Mitchell about his whole thing that Mike Pence should have essentially refused to certify the 2020 election unless he could employ some kind of trick to get voter I.D. implemented nationally and changing federal election law, which would never happen. It's a total cop out what Vivek has said. He said, well, I would have certified it after achieving these things, which, of course, would be impossible to achieve in a day. Anyway, he's asked about that. And it's crazy. That means you would not have

certified the results that night before midnight on January 6th. Well, that was your constitutional obligation. What if Kamala Harris did that? What if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to be clear, that night before midnight on January 6th, while that was your constitutional obligation? What if Kamala Harris did that? What if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win? To be clear, you... Would she have that same authority? To be clear, I stand by what I said. But how could you get legislation through, sir, in, you know, that kind of legislation

through in time to... In a day. ...certify the election? You would be violating your oath as vice president. There would have been. So I respectfully disagree, Andrea. I stand by what I said in that interview, not what you just said that I said. I said that that's exactly what I would. So this is denying the quote.

This is one technique, just denial of the quote. Have delivered and then use that as an opportunity for heroism to reunite this country. Because there are two preconditions for the health of our constitutional republic. One is the peaceful transition of power. The other is public confidence in our elections. And when those come into conflict, that was a rare opportunity for heroism that I think Mike Pence missed. Yeah. Listen, the idea that Pence was going to change federal election law is just radically ridiculous, naive or dishonest. And in a normal world, the more lies that a candidate would tell, the more extreme positions that a candidate would put forward, they should lose support. But we're dealing with the modern Republican Party here.

So we don't know that that's going to happen. And Vivek Ramaswamy may end up being rewarded for his extremism and his dishonesty. But here it is very plain to see the techniques and tactics that we know about to avoid dealing with your own past statements, Vivek employing the gamut of them. And Andrea Mitchell at some points left literally just shaking her head. We talk about stochastic terrorism so much on this program, stochastic terrorism, the idea that if you have an audience and you start feeding the vague notion of committing real world violence, even if you direct no individual to commit such violence, that it starts to become statistically likely that someone will indeed commit violence.

We've talked about examples of this before. People like Glenn Beck in the past, ranting and ranting and ranting about the dangers of the Tides Foundation. And eventually there was a guy stopped by California Highway Patrol armed on the way to attack the Tides Foundation. Glenn Beck didn't direct that particular guy to do it. But given a large enough audience, given enough repetition about someone should really do something about this Tides Foundation, it starts to become likely that such real world violence will take place. This gets us to Stu Peters. This is one of these right wing.

You know how there's all these right wing channels that are sort of obscure and they have this reawaken America tour where they go out in person. It's kind of like a circus tent revival type atmosphere. And they say really crazy and dangerous things. Stu Peters delivered what can only be described as a bloodthirsty rant during which he calls for the killing of people. This is really worth looking at and understanding how they do this. Let's take a listen right now. Drag Tony Fauci out of retirement. We're going to put him in the docket. We will force him to confront his lies about gain of function research.

We will read off every single one of the emails that he sent exposing the research that he funded at that bioweapons lab called the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We'll expose all of the emails he sent organizing and promoting the lies that covered it all up. And we will hold him accountable for the millions of lives that his illegal research cost. And when he is convicted after a short and fast but thorough trial. He will hang up from a length of thick rope until he is dead. And this, if you're not watching, generates a standing ovation. Let's kill people, including 80 plus year old doctors who have devoted their careers to public health.

What? And they stand up and cheer. And when we talk about stochastic terrorism, it's you're in that crowd. You stand up and cheer, but you see the approval of the people around you standing and cheering the idea of killing Fauci. And someone in the room says to themselves, hey, you know what? I could be the guy to do it. I could be the guy to go out and do it.

And then this entire room would be cheering for me instead of for Stu Peters. That's how stochastic terrorism works. Then we will put Hunter Biden on trial. Oh, not for tax evasion, not for some phony gun violation or money laundering. No, we're going to put him on trial for the real crime that he committed. Treason. What? Now, remember, not only is there no evidence for Hunter Biden committing treason, there is also no investigation into treason by Hunter Biden. This is totally fabricated. Selling this country off to rich oligarchs in China and Volodymyr Zelensky's Ukraine.

And when he's convicted for those crimes, he will get the punishment that traitors like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg received before him. Death! Alejandro Mayorkas is a treasonous traitor. And in the world that we are going to build, traitors will hang. This is another standing ovation. And as you can see, they are quite literally in what is almost like a circus tent. You really have to understand that this stuff has an impact. Yes, these are lunatic extremists.

Yes, this is horribly dehumanizing rhetoric. This is calling for violence. It's calling for discrimination. It's divulging and spreading misinformation. The language is disgusting. All of it. It's bigoted. It's all of those different things. But we really need to take this seriously because the group of people, broadly speaking, not necessarily the people in this tent, although maybe we don't know, but we know that these are people who are willing to do violence. We know. I mean, go all the way back to whatever year it was, 2017, 2018, when that Trump supporter was caught with a bunch of pipe bombs and he was going to be bringing them to different

locations. Remember when, you know, we we we see the examples of everything that led to January 6th and the hundreds of people, hundreds of Trump supporters that were willing to commit crimes on January 6th. These people are genuinely willing to go out and do violence. The vast majority of the left is not willing to do that. It's just the reality. And you don't have to take my word for it. Take a look at the statistics on those who go out and commit domestic terrorism, politically motivated terrorism. You see that it is almost exclusively right wingers. Is there the occasional so-called eco terrorist? Yes. Are they often committing crimes never against people,

but against property? Yes. Almost exclusively. That's not a defense, but there is a difference between committing acts of violence against people versus, you know, an empty oil rig or piece of a pipeline or who knows. I'm not defending it. It's still a crime. It's still going to be prosecuted. But this is a group that these people speak to that we know is willing to go out and commit real world violence. Now, should Stu Peters be prosecutable for the things he said there? I don't think that that's what the law says. I think that everything he says there is still very blurrily on the line of just legal speech. But we need to recognize we can recognize that it's a danger without saying that these words are crimes. And I know people will say, David, you're trying to violate his free speech rights. No, no, I'm not trying to violate any. I'm telling you, I'm pretty sure that everything he said is legally completely fine.

The problem is he's speaking to a political constituency. That we know is willing to go out and do violence, and this is really dangerous stuff. Fauci needs security. That's how we know these people are really in danger when people like Stu Peters go on these bloodthirsty rants. Horrible, disturbing stuff. One of our sponsors today is Cube. Cube is a budgeting and banking app combined. No more guessing if you have money for the things you need and want. No more having to categorize each transaction to keep up with your budget. It works like this. You split your money into budget categories called cubes, groceries, car, etc. Let's say you've budgeted a thousand dollars a month for groceries. You have the grocery store. Your bill comes to

two hundred and fifty dollars. You select your grocery cube in the app that'll make your grocery budget available on your debit card. Make the purchase. And as soon as you run the card, what's left for your grocery budget goes back into the grocery cube. And that is it. The cube card has zero available balance unless the cube is open, which prevents theft.

Every purchase is logged by category automatically in the app. You can share it between family members. Cube offers cards for kids so you can stay a step ahead of your budget instead of always spending from one big pot, not knowing where you are. The average cube user saves four hundred and forty dollars a month by eliminating mindless spending. You can try the cube premium or family plan free for two months at David Pakman dot com slash money. The link is in the podcast notes. Our sponsor, Laundry Sauce, has created the world's best smelling laundry detergent in

simple to use high performance pods that get the job done. I love the sense you've got your Australian sandalwood Egyptian rose. They've stripped away all the unnecessary ingredients and the artificial dyes, and they maximize the hardworking stain fighters and enzymes to ensure your favorite clothes really look brand new. I love laundry sauce because they smell so much better than the stuff you get from the grocery store. You know, the usual suspects you get at the store.

There's a weird, cheap, chemically type of smell. All of the different scents from laundry sauce have a luxurious, smooth, natural scent, not too strong. You can especially tell when your clothes are coming right out of the dryer. the David Pakman Show to laundry sauce dot com slash Pacman. Use the promo code Pacman at checkout for 15 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Remember that the real meaning of MAGA is making attorneys get attorneys. One such lawyer is John Eastman. This is the evil genius, as some are describing him, who came up with this memo suggesting, hey, I don't know, maybe Mike Pence just kind of like rejects the whole 2020 election results and creates a constitutional crisis. I don't

know that guy, John Eastman, Trump's former lawyer, has been indicted in Georgia. He was interviewed last night by Fox News's Laura Ingraham, and it is bonkers stuff. I really wonder whether Eastman's lawyer signed up, signed off on this interview. I can't imagine that he did because it seems like a disastrous idea. And as we know, these interviews can and seemingly will be made part of the evidence that is presented at trial. Here is Eastman arguing we didn't do anything wrong. There was fraud as far as we believed it, and we were challenging the results. That is it. Which for a lawyer to make this argument, given that that's not why he got indicted, really is something else. Let's take a look at this.

And again, I can only imagine Eastman's lawyer is not thrilled with this. Why did you decide to speak out tonight knowing that anything you say to the media or to this program could then be potentially used against you? Well, Laura, first, thanks for having me on. Look, I've been speaking out all along. We did nothing wrong. We were challenging the election for what even Vice President Pence described as serious allegations of fraud and numerous instances of officials violating state law. Now, remember, this is not a defense of Pence, but saying that Pence acknowledged there were serious allegations of fraud. That's true. There were people saying the fraud is so serious

that Biden didn't really win. Trump won and it's been stolen. Just because someone makes a serious allegation doesn't make your allegedly criminal actions any more legal. And again, he is not. And Trump has not been indicted because they believed it was stolen and they were asking for redress of those grievances. They are being indicted because of their actual fraudulent conspiracy to disenfranchise those who voted for Joe Biden in Georgia, including fake fraudulent electors, strong arming public officials and other crimes.

He is issuing a defense, which is not actually why he has been charged on Fox News. Maybe it gets you somewhere in court. It's not going to. And if we can't speak out about that, then our freedom of speech, our right to petition the government for redress of grievances are gone. Why? But also importantly, I'm an attorney and you know, the people that I was representing had a right to counsel.

And what's going on here with the bar complaints against. OK, let's address that. This is another argument that they're putting forward. These are lawyers. These are. Are you saying by indicting them that Trump didn't have a right to counsel and for Eastman to give him the memo telling him, here's what I think you should do? And of course, this goes out the window. The crime fraud conspiracy makes it so that attorney client privilege, if the lawyer is participating in the conspiracy to commit a crime, then attorney client privilege, if the lawyer is participating in the conspiracy

to commit a crime, then attorney client privilege goes out the window. Secondly, it is believed that Eastman knew what he was suggesting Pence and others do was not legal. That's a problem. So they're again going out there going after the lawyers. This also is not going to fly in court. Everybody involved in any of the litigation, this Fulton County complaint, the unindicted co-conspirators in the federal action, they're trying to stifle people from being able to get representation in election challenges. Wrong.

They've made that very clear that that's what they're up to and we can't allow it to happen. OK, so these are not arguments that are going to get them very far in court. Now, here's one other clip I want to look at. This one is almost Kafka esque. Apologies for using that phrase again. Laura Ingraham says, you know, it's almost like they think you knew this entire plan was phony and it was just a plan to overturn the election and you knew that it was phony and it wasn't legal.

And Eastman just says, I challenge them to find an email that supports that, to which I think investigators are saying we're going to try. Well, the amendment that the founders specifically designed it that way so that the president wouldn't owe his job to Congress. It's a core separation of powers principle that the founders adopted, and he just doesn't, he ignores that in his analysis. So the notion that this is well settled is crazy. On the RICO side of the Fulton County case, that would require findings of bad faith on the part of all the co-defendants that were engaged in this RICO conspiracy, according to this Fannie Willis. So on that score, John, that would have to be you all basically agreeing implicitly, explicitly that you all knew that this was all phony and that your effort, your your your decision amongst yourselves was to advance

a plan to overturn the election. Right. And to that, you say, well, they've got all the evidence. They've got all my emails. My phone was seized over a year ago. So they've got all that stuff as well. And I challenge them to find a single email or communication that supports that implausible theory. Well, I think challenge accepted by investigators.

But it seems to me when I hear Eastman say that, that their conversations about this were heavily restricted to in-person conversations certainly might make it more difficult to prove. But he's actually helping the investigation. Disastrous interview. And even lawyers are now making arguments in their defense that aren't valid legal arguments as defenses to the charges that are on the indictment. That's an important element here. The stuff they're saying, maybe they count as defenses to other hypothetical charges

that have not actually been made. But to what's actually in the indictment, these are not valid legal arguments. We'll see what they make in court. The failed former President Donald Trump, four times indicted, twice impeached, civilly liable rapist, was interviewed by Glenn Beck of the Blaze. Remember that this is a political movement that says they are for law, order and due process. And Trump said to Glenn Beck yesterday, I'm going to have to lock people up, just lock them up willy nilly. If I become president of the United States again, this is the authoritarian nightmare we are all afraid of. If Trump or DeSantis or any of these

authoritarians become president. Listen to this. This is truly the stuff of horrors. I have to tell you, I don't know how you how you do it every day. I really don't. I would have lost my mind a long time ago. You said in 2016, you know, lock her up. And then when you became president, you said, we don't do that in America. That's just not the right thing to do. That's what they're doing. Do you regret not locking her up? And if you're president again, will you lock people up? Well, I'll give you an example. The answer is you have no choice because they're doing it to us. You have no choice but to lock people up because they're doing it to us. I always had such great respect for the office

of the president, the presidency. And but the office of the president and I never hit Biden as hard as I could have. And then I heard he was trying to indict me and it was him that was doing it. You know, I don't think there is no evidence that Biden has been involved at all to think about much. But he was there and he was probably the all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all.

I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all.

I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. I'm not going to say that he was involved at all. He put his top people, I don't know if you know this, he put his top person into the office of the Manhattan District Attorney.

They've been in total coordination with Fannie Willis. The woman that I never met that they accused me of rape, that's being run by a Democrat, a Democrat operative, and paid for by the Democrat Party. You know, so many of these things, I have a couple of other lawsuits all funded against me by the Democrat. These are sick people. These are evil people. And it actually it's an amazing thing. We talk about the public. The public is smarter than anyone can imagine because they understand what's happening. It's really actually true that I was doing very well before this stuff, but it's really driven my poll numbers up. And you look at these, you know, that basically they're saying I don't have a right to challenge an election.

That is not what a single one of the indictment says. And we're going to make America great again. You watch. It's going to happen fast. It's going to happen fast. And I appreciate it very much. And you're a brave voice. You are a very brave voice and have been for a long time. There you go. So the key part here, I mean, listen, of course, it's riddled with lies. The indictments aren't going after Trump because he challenged the election results. The indictments aren't going after Trump because he said that he won. Whether that's true or not, he's allowed to say that he's allowed to lie.

The indictments are not going after him because of the court cases that he put forward trying to challenge election results in a variety of different states. None of the indictments are for those reasons. We have talked about it before. But the really scary and authoritarian part here, it's chilling. It's almost cliche to say it, but it's chilling is when Trump says, well, we're not going to have a choice but to lock them up. Now, can Trump actually order people locked up?

No, as far as the country has operated so far, is there someone Trump could call and demand a lockup of somebody if he were president that would that would do it? I hope not. I hope not. But the critical part here, remember, is that due process is exactly what we are seeing. I'm not calling for Trump to be locked up unless he's convicted or pleads guilty. And then I only want him to be sentenced in accordance with sentencing guidelines. I don't want any special treatment to throw this guy there, throw that person there, deny them any of the rights. He gets a trial. He's innocent until proven guilty. But what we have seen is due process. That is not this.

Well, on the one hand, on the other hand, Biden got me arrested. So I'm going to have my political enemies arrested. If anyone can put forward evidence and I've said it before, if anyone can put forward a shred of evidence that Joe Biden was involved in the arrests or indictments of Donald Trump, I will be the first to say that is completely inappropriate and you will hear me screaming about it. Trust me, it is not a partisan issue for me. However, there is no such evidence. One last legal note.

Donald Trump is not only attacking Judge Tanya Chutkan, he is claiming that he is going to appeal something that is not subject to appeal. Donald Trump is loudly screaming, I'm going to appeal my trial date, even though there is no way to appeal the trial date. It's not subject to appeal. This goes back to something we talked about yesterday on Truth Social yesterday. Truth Central. talked about yesterday on Truth Social yesterday, Trump sent Donald Trump posted in response to Judge Chutkin setting his trial date for March 2024. Remember, Trump wants April 2026. The judge

said, no, it's March 2024. Your trial will start. Donald Trump posted, 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, had 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 him. Election interference today, a biased Trump hating judge. No evidence of that. A biased Trump hating judge gave me only a two month extension.

Just what our corrupt government wanted. Super Tuesday. I will appeal. Legal experts have now looked at that. It is not a thing to appeal your trial date. This is so funny because he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Legal. This is from a salon. Legal experts quickly pointed out the order cannot be appealed. It's not a thing. Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told the messenger,

adding that there is a zero percent chance of the move succeeding. He cannot appeal the trial date, agreed former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers. He can continue to request that it be moved back. And ultimately, if he is convicted, he can try to argue that the decision to try the case when it was tried deprived him of the ability to prepare adequately. But that is an uphill battle. Also, interestingly, former Trump's Trump's own former White House attorney, Ty Cobb, warned that the post could get Trump in trouble for other reasons. Sanctions are in order as the attack on the court is specifically out of bounds. Cobb told the outlet, predicting that an appellate court would reject any attempt

to force Chutkin to grant him an appeal. It's just there's not a process for appealing. They can go back and say, hey, we have another request for a delay. But the idea of we're going to appeal Judge Chutkin's decision to someone else is simply not a thing. Later, as is pointed out, if Trump is convicted, they could mount an appeal to the next court. And part of the appeal could be on the grounds that Trump wasn't given an appropriate time to prepare for trial. It's going to be a very difficult argument to win, according to legal experts.

And this is just it's just another one of these funny little details, constantly, constantly claiming that you are going to use legal means that don't actually exist. It is what it is, my friends. It is what it is. Today we're going to be speaking for the first time, maybe not the last time. We'll see how it goes with Dennis Prager. Many of you may know him from Prager U from his radio program. He had a conversation not too long ago with our friend Anna Kasparian from the Young Turks. Dennis, welcome. It's great to speak to you today. Well, thank you for having me.

Just to start, and this can be so quick. And then we move on just as a sort of sanity check. I've started to ask guests in this year, last year, the following question. Is there any way to accurately say that Donald Trump won the 2020 election? Just a simple answer. If there is one and if not, it's fine for you to explain. I have I have a relatively simple answer. I've given it from the election day to this day. Yes, sir. I am agnostic, which is satisfied neither the left nor the right. OK, my colleagues on the

right want me to say it was stolen and people on the left want me to say we are certain it wasn't stolen. Well, and half of the right also wants you to say that, right? Half of the right wants me to. Oh, I wouldn't say half. I would say most people on the right believe it was stolen or that there was a good chance it was. I don't know what that gains us, but it's fair that you ask. See, it's funny. You regard that as a sanity check. I do. So OK, so let me offer my sanity.

Please. Do you believe that men who say they're women can compete with women in women's sports? I think in a lot of sports that does not make sense. So how do you was that the answer you expected? Because you did a little bit of a look to the side there. But did you think I was going to look to the side because I took off my earphones? Understood, sir. I didn't I realized that I don't need them. But this is a different topic, Dennis. I'm sorry. It's a different topic. Did do we want to close on the election? Well, you said you would just want to ask that question for a sanity check. OK. And you're agnostic is the answer. Yeah. Yeah. So I am agnostic because so many things happened

that are that are that were odd or unique, like it was the first time that a president had ever, an incumbent president had ever gotten more votes than he did in his first election and lost. That all the swing states went in his favor. That 17 of the 18 counties that are considered bellwether counties went in his favor. We, those who think something bad happened are not out of their minds. Speaker 1 OK, I mean, we don't have to make this the subject of the conversation, but

things sometimes happen for the first time. I guess the question I would ask as a follow up would be, did you see compelling evidence from any one state that suggests that Joe Biden lost it even though he was given the win? Is there a single state where you feel confident it was stolen? Georgia might be one of them. Pennsylvania might be one. And of course, people say because I love to have people I differ with on my show. And so I am I read the left. I only wish the left read the right as much as I read the left. Well I tried to. But what evidence was there in Georgia.

I think I think if you do your your atypical but but in any event. Yeah. What's the Georgia evidence all the time that courts dismissed the all these cases. That's true. But that's the tragedy. See, if I were an America loving Democrat and there are 11 America loving Democrats and there are America hating Democrats, if I were one, I would say, please let us air all of these complaints. Let us have some type, as close as we can to some neutral authority, not rule on it, just allow the American public to hear what evidence there might be. And I'll add another thing. If one believes and I'd love you to respond to this. Yeah. If one believes that Donald Trump is a a neo Nazi fascist. Something I've never said, but we could maybe find someone who believes that. Yeah. Well, well, OK, I believe you haven't said it, but it's not germane to my argument, whether you said it or not. It's said

often that he is a fascist, excuse me, that he is a fascist is constantly said on the left. And so if you believe that, aren't you morally bound to cheat on his behalf? For example, if I were in Germany in 1932 during the elections that brought Hitler to power, I tell you, I would have cheated on behalf of any other party than than Hitler's party. Yeah. Aren't you morally bound to cheat if you believe the man is a fascist? You'd have to ask someone who believes that. I don't know. I mean, it's I think. Listen, we only have a half hour and we're five minutes. So look, let's talk. I think what I would say is the audience can judge. Is there evidence out of Georgia that's convincing to them? Is your answer to did Trump win logical into them in any way?

Let's let the audience decide on this section of the conversation there. I'm really interested in talking to you about woke, anti-woke cultural issues, etc. Now, you and I could pick one thing like cat litter boxes in bathrooms or, quote, men and women's sports or drag shows or whatever. And we could just talk about that for 25 minutes. But I want to zoom out a little bit because you've been in this for a while and I've been following many of the things you've said about these issues. Here's my curiosity. If you look at polling, if you're going to just reject polling, then we'll talk about that. But let's assume that we have some polling that tells us something that is relatively close to what the country believes. Record support for same sex marriage today.

Record number of people saying I'm moving away from religion. Highest in the Roe v. Wade era of the country says abortion should be legal in most cases. Sixty percent says we haven't gone far enough on making trans people feel welcome. OK, I could go on, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Do you feel as though this is a lost cause and the country has clearly gone in a different direction from where you would like to see it? Or what do you think might happen that would turn around this 30, 40 year trend of moving to the left culturally that I believe we are seeing in the polls?

There's no question we're moving to the left culturally. The first thing people have to do is recognize reality. You may not you may or may not be happy with it. Just parenthetically, I just did an hour of radio, because I do a lot of hours that are not politics. And it was about a subject, because I'm writing a commentary on the Bible, and I'm finishing volume four, in which I discuss on one verse, is there luck in life, or is everything God's will? I'm a believer in God. And of course, I believe there's bad luck because that's reality. If you've got a kidney stone and I use that example, I don't believe God placed the kidney stone in your kidney. I believe that it was your crappy luck that you got a kidney stone. But let me let me just dig it not to interrupt, but I want to make sure we know what we what

you mean by luck. Do you mean by let's imagine the prevalence of kidney stones is two percent just for hypothetical for our conversation. God created a world in which there's a two percent prevalence of kidney stones. You had the bad luck to be in the two percent. Is that what you're saying? That's correct. OK, now, why did God create the kidney stones to begin with? Because God God did not create a perfect nature. I mean, trees can fall. Avalanches can happen.

OK, it is our task to fight cancer and to and to be able to live with avalanches. Got it. I don't I would. The human being wanted to leave the avalanches. Got it. The human being wanted to leave the Garden of Eden. That's my take on the story. We rather live in a free universe than in a perfect universe. Okay. But I'm glad you went to theology with me. Anyway, the only reason I raise this is I am not happy to acknowledge the power of bad luck or good luck, but it is the reality. I am not happy that 40, uh, that 45% of, uh, of young Americans say,

uh, according to Pew, uh, that, uh, uh, they believe in free speech, but not for hate speech. A, it shows you how incoherent young people's thinking is that they don't understand that the whole point of free speech is to allow speech that you can't stand. Okay. I'm a Jew. If you don't think the Holocaust happened, you're a liar. You are sick. You are perverted, but you are allowed to say it. By the way, you're not allowed in most European countries. You can be in prison for denying the Holocaust. Yeah. And to be clear, I'm a Jew as well. And I believe exactly what you just said.

I believe you. I had a feeling you would. But but just know your side is as opposed to free speech as more opposed than ever. Any segment of Americans has ever been. We are living through the greatest crisis of free speech in American history. That poll is an example. Here's another one. 25% of Americans aged 40 and over have never been married, as opposed to 8% in 1980. We went from eight to 25 percent in 40 years. Can we talk about that one a little more? That one I find interesting. I'm not 40, but I'm in a long term relationship.

I have a baby. I'm not married. It's a conscious decision I've made evaluating what is marriage in 2023? Is that the sort of contract I'm interested in? Do I need that to mediate my relationship with my girlfriend? Are there protections that I find necessary? I don't know that for me and for so many other people I know that are probably in the group you're sort of describing here. I don't know that it's any kind of moral commentary or a commentary on the nature of relationships, but more about for most of human history, this sort of contract didn't exist. There was a period where it peaked. I think it was the 50s or 60s or 70s. It seems to be in decline. It's sort of a blip. I don't know that it's that indicative of the broader point you're trying to make, Dennis. Speaker 3 It's funny you should say this. I went to a wedding last Sunday night and my wife just spoke

to the woman who got married. Yeah. And they had lived together for about four years. And she said everything feels different. And I always explain to people, you use the word girlfriend. So you'll just have to take my word for it. Please. That you would be conveying a very different image of yourself and your relationship. If you said my wife. I agree. Oh, okay. I think that that is a worthy commitment that human beings should make. I would like your you have a child, I believe. Yes, indeed. Like child to believe mommy and daddy are husband and wife, not just boyfriend and girlfriend.

It's better for the kid, better for you and better for the world. But why do you think then that this marriage thing was the sort of more prevalent status for such a tiny blip in human history. Well, I mean, now it's already diminishing. Well, I mean, the Bible was written 3000 years ago and everybody got married. I don't know why you call it a blip in history. It was it's universal. People got married in virtually every civilization.

Well, if we consider modern humanity, 250,000 years for most of time, humans were not getting married. All right. Look, if I can't talk about, you know, pre Stone Age or pre pre excuse me, pre Bronze Age man. OK, fair. OK. Since the Bronze Age, people have gotten married. And you know what? We've done better by every metric. Marriage makes a better a better person and a better world. Yeah. What I see is commitment between two parents and probably a fair amount of economic stability are really the ideal circumstances. But I think I don't want to get away from your broader point, Dennis, which I think is you're recognizing the reality of the situation. Speaker 1 And you're fighting it. Speaker 2

And I'm fighting it because I, I believe that graduating high school, getting a job and getting a mat, getting married and getting married before you have a baby, that is almost the perfect recipe for a better life. But going more broad on the other culture war issues I mentioned, you're 75, you've been at this for a while. Don't you think that maybe it's simply being lost? Or let me ask it in a different way.

What catalyst do you think might happen that might turn this thing around so that the so-called kind of anti woke side wins or resurges? Well, it's a great question, and I don't have a perfect answer. movement that people support the removal of girls breasts when they're 18 or even sometimes younger or boy boys getting castrated because they say they're girls this has alarmed a fair number of people even on your side of the spectrum they realize this is madness we have gone out of our minds and i i i know why we've gone out of our minds. I don't think you would agree with my analysis, but it is in, I could put it to you in one sentence. It is a quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton, but we can't verify he said it. I am only saying that because I didn't come up with this. When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing.

They believe in anything. And and this trans movement is the proof. I said on Bill Maher's show four years ago. Yeah. Right. For you saw that it's gone viral. I saw it. He said he said, oh, Trump lies.

It doesn't compare to the lies of the left. America is systemically racist and men menstruate. And he cracked up, the whole audience cracked up and the whole panel cracked up. They were all laughing at me. And Bill Maher said, this is why it's gone viral. There are like 10 million views of this particular scene. Where he says, Dennis, where'd which come up with that one. And that was 2019 of the fall of 2019. And people go nuts. Who says men menstruate within two years? If you denied men menstruate, you were considered transphobic. Let's pause my conversation with Dennis Prager there. The full interview is going to be on our YouTube channel

later today. Part two will be on the podcast tomorrow. Quick break right back after this. Think of your most personal emails. If you're using a free email provider, you should know that they're scanning every email you send and receive even after you delete it. They're usually using the data to build a picture of your life, to show you ads, which many find creepy. Our sponsor, Start Mail, never scans or tracks your emails. Privacy is what comes first. And unlike other email services, when you delete an email and start mail, it is gone forever. It also protects The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. every time. bucks a month. That's S.T.A.R.T. Mail dot com slash Pacman for 50 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. Donald Trump has announced a new vlog, a video blog, and he put out a bunch of super short, mush mouth confused looking videos yesterday. Here's

Trump announcing it on Truth Central, saying, quote, I am pleased to inform you that periodically I will be doing videos on truth social that will be discussing many project, many subjects in many time frames. You will be able to choose the video and policy that you like and you may want to reply on truth, social and joy. He's doing a vlog. That's essentially what this is. This is Trump's new project. Here is one.

I'll give you some examples. Here is one about Joe Biden. How dare lowlife prosecutor deranged Jack Smith. That's right. He's deranged. Break into my former Twitter account without informing me and indeed trying to completely hide this atrocity from me. What could he possibly find out that is not

already known? Just like the early morning raid of Mar-a-Lago. Why isn't the DOJ raiding crooked Joe Biden's house? Why aren't they raiding his phones? He's the most corrupted and competent president in the history of the United States. That's the one they should be looking at. And they do end very, very abruptly. Of course, the reason that they're not raiding Joe Biden's house is when Joe Biden's lawyers found a few documents, they immediately turned them over and there was no reason to rate it because there is no evidence that Joe Biden is obfuscating or obstructing or doing any of those things.

Trump then bemoaning Joe Biden's economy, which I have to tell you is pretty good. One of the most important issues in this campaign will be who can rescue our country from the burning wreckage of Bidenomics. And what evidence do you what? What metric can you point to, sir? Which shall henceforth be defined as inflation, taxation, submission and failure. Under my leadership, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world. In fact, we did it twice.

And when I get back in the Oval Office, we will do it again and it'll be bigger and better and stronger than ever before. Speaker 1 Well, I would love to have one explanation of here are the five metrics under Biden's economy that prove it's going really, really terribly. Trump claiming in another one of these strange blogs that Joe Biden put a bounty on the heads of American citizens abroad. Crooked Joe Biden just agreed to pay a six billion dollar ransom to the Iranian dictatorship in exchange for hostages. This is yet another Biden surrender and a further blistering humiliation of the United States of America to the world stage.

But even worse, this decision will be extremely deadly. Biden is giving $6 billion to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, just as when Obama sent the Iranian regime pallets of cash for hostages in the dark of night. Remember, plane loads of cash. As you can see, Trump really struggling to enunciate. And with the diction, you can have a discussion as to if and when ransoms should ever be paid. Serious, intelligent, thoughtful people have varied opinions about that. But the idea that we're going to go to mealy mouth Trump to tell us what makes sense when it

comes to hostages is, of course, laughable. Trump then doing another one of these mini vlogs about his polling. Great polls just out, leading by 40, 50 and even 60 points. Who expected that? I did. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, all very strong, but also leading Biden very big. The sanctimonious is crashing. Perhaps the party should come together. People should drop out of the race. We unify and we beat Biden and the Democrats. They should be easy to beat because our country has never been in worse condition. There you go. I love the idea of thinking what goes on behind the scenes. Like, does Trump call down and say, hey, write me up some stuff and put it on the teleprompter and I'll be down in a minute to read it and to read it really strangely.

Here's one last funny one. It's almost like Trump's doing cameos. He did a happy birthday to Ben Carson's wife. Hi, Candy. It's your favorite president. And I could not pass up the opportunity to wish you a very, very happy and very special 30th birthday. I hear 70, but I'm not saying that because I don't believe it. I hope you enjoy your celebration and many, many more. All right. So I don't know if Trump is formally bookable on cameo, but there it is. Trump's new vlog, as you can see, no shortage of things for him to do. Francis Suarez has ended his campaign to be the Republican presidential nominee, who if you haven't heard that he was running.

Then this may come as a shock. The mayor of Miami, Francis Suarez, was running for president. He wanted to be the Republican nominee. He has suspended his campaign for president, gained no traction, didn't even make it onto the campaign stage. Here's the moment I knew he was doomed when he was asked, how's the fundraising going? And he's like, listen, I know we've raised thousands of dollars. Take a listen to this. Can you tell me how how many dollars you brought in so far?

I don't have the exact number because it's happening. It's a lot. It's a lot. It's in the thousands for sure. It's in the thousands for sure. Now I am as big a critic as anybody of the campaign finance system we have in this country. But thousands is not exactly going to get you a presidential nomination, unfortunately. And one other really bad moment for him in late June when he said to Hugh Hewitt, what are Uyghurs? Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign? What are the what? The Uyghurs. What's a Uyghur? OK, we'll come back to that.

So two really bad moments from Francis Suarez raised almost no money, got no polling. He was literally polling zero point zero in a number of different polls. It's ironic that he's almost getting more attention from ending the campaign than he got from starting it. And as some people who wrote to me said, now that I'm hearing about him, it's actually a little bit interesting, but it is too little too late for Francis Suarez. We bid him adieu and he is the first of many. Listen, he's the first, but there are going to be many dropping out over the next months. Who will be next? Let me know in a comment. Let me know in an email. We have a voicemail number. That number is 2192 David P. Producer Pat sending shockwaves throughout the media world yesterday when he returned from his trip to Italy and said he was so overcome with emotion at some of the Vatican sites in Vatican City that he actually prayed.

The Eggman wants to know what was the nature of that prayer? I'm glad Pat had a good time in Italy and didn't have to kick anybody in the back on the train. Yeah. When Pat was praying in Italy, who did he pray to and what did he pray for? I'm so curious. Shalom. And why do you guys always go to the cities, big cities when you go to Italy, go to the country, go to northern Italy, go to the Alps, those thing called Italian Alps, the mountains is beautiful.

Get out of the city. That's all tourists and junk. Shalom, brother. Yeah, well, listen, Pat did talk about his his time in a number of different Italian cities. But I love the Italian and Spanish and French countryside. And I think it's a really great thing not to just be in cities, as we've talked about before.

There's a real similarity in terms of the culture in New York City and London and Paris and Madrid, obviously different languages and there are different cultural norms. But I think it is true that as an American city guy, I have more in common with city folks from Western European countries than I do with country folks from South Dakota. So I think it's very valuable to spend time in more rural areas. I've done it in the UK. I've done it in Spain. I've done it in France. I've done it in the UK. I've done it in Spain. I've done it in France. I've done it in Italy. I agree with the Eggman, but let's not shame Pat that his trip was heavily focused on the

cities. OK. All right. We have a fantastic bonus show for you today. We will talk about Hurricane Idalia. Idalia. I actually don't know how it's pronounced. I've watched no television coverage of it, but we will discuss it.

Secondly, the new frontier when it comes to scams may be voice deep fakes that are coming for your money. We will discuss. And lastly, the final supermoon until the year 2037. Think of it. It's going to be 14 years until the next supermoon is tonight. Does anyone care in the audience? Will you be checking it out? We will discuss all of those stories and more when I am joined by producer Pat, hopefully no longer blurry

on today's bonus show. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. David Pakman membership costs six bucks a month. Well, it's a lot less if you use the coupon codes. Coupon code tetradited will save you money. Coupon code four years for indictments will save you money. Any coupon code will get it down significantly. I hope you'll sign up. It's our primary means of supporting the show.

We will see you then. And then I'll be back here. you you