The David Pakman Show - 8/3/23: Giuliani shock audio as Trump faces 561 years in prison

Episode Date: August 3, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to Donald Trump and author of the book "REVENGE: How Donald Trump Weaponized the US Department of Justice Against His Critics", joins David to discuss the latest third indictment and arrest of Trump, Trump's likely state of mind, and much more. Get the book: https://amzn.to/3OeUyrc -- Donald Trump is facing a hypothetical maximum 561 years in prison, and he is attempting to fundraise off of this possibility -- Rudy Giuliani is exposed in stunning audio transcripts, including stereotyping the penis size of Jewish men -- A breakdown and analysis of David's recent interview with 2024 Republican presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy -- CNN's Kaitlan Collins asks Donald Trump's former Attorney General William Barr whether he met with special prosecutor Jack Smith, and Barr refuses to say -- Eric Trump, the son of Donald Trump, is hysterically off the rails during an interview about Trump's third indictment -- Voicemail caller cannot control her laughter in trying to explain to David that his hair is "lopsided" -- On the Bonus Show: Jury condemns Tree of Life synagogue killer to death, leprosy cases spike in Florida, US ban on incandescent light bulbs now in effect, much more... 🌎 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription (rules & restrictions may apply): https://babbel.com/pakman 🧴 Thanks to our sponsor Geologie! Use code PAKMAN70 for 70% off at https://davidpakman.com/skin 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 👍 Use code PAKMAN for 10% off the Füm Journey Pack at https://tryfum.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

. Five hundred and sixty one years in prison. Many of you wrote to me about this number, a number that is being floated around about the potential amount of prison time that the failed former president twice arrested within hours to be thrice arrested. Of course, Donald Trump. We're going to look at that number and talk about what it means. Just as a reminder, indeed, Donald Trump will be arrested and booked today in Washington,

D.C. This is on federal charges. The four felony charges we discussed earlier this week. These are related to the alleged disenfranchisement and defrauding of voters by virtue of trying to push fake slates of electors in states where Joe Biden won the popular vote, trying to put them there. The fake electors to say we declare our electoral votes for Donald Trump, even though he lost. He is not charged for the things he said. His First Amendment rights have not been violated. As we have discussed, we will, in fact, hear from Donald Trump's own former attorney general,

William Barr, who says this is not being arrested for things you said. It is not the case at all. But let's focus on five hundred and sixty one years. Trump, in fact, attempting to fundraise on that number. Media reports five hundred sixty one years in prison. Trump fundraising off of recent indictment with dire warning. You could be, quote, thrown in jail for six lifetimes. The article says this is by Colby Hall. It's not out of the ordinary for a politician to try to spin negative news into a positive while fundraising off of it. But the manner in which former President Trump is spinning his latest indictment for, among other things, allegedly defrauding the U.S. is patently absurd. And it reposts Trump's post in which he talks about how they want to put him in prison

for 561 years over witch hunts, that it's all about making everyone afraid and that it's not about Trump. It's about you. This has been Trump's constant statement. They're not indicting me. They're indicting you and that Trump's willing to risk his life for your freedom. And please contribute money. Send me money. Send me money. The Hill also has a write up about this. Trump says he faces 561 years in prison and fundraising email. So what's the truth of this? There are really two layers to this. Layer one is, is Trump specifically likely to actually have any prison time? And I believe that the answer is probably not. But the latest indictments which will lead to today's arrest are the most likely charges thus far to potentially land Trump behind bars. And notice that I'm not gleefully saying lock him up. I continue to say

if it is the appropriate sentence for Trump to serve prison time, if he is found guilty or takes a plea, then he should be sentenced like any other defender would be if I did the things Trump is accused of doing or if you did the things Trump is accused of doing. That's called due process. That's called law and order. But let's put that aside for a second. Whether Trump specifically is really going to be sentenced is a separate question from what about this number? Five hundred and sixty one years. Now, it is true that if Trump were sentenced to the maximum sentence for every charge against him and those sentences were served consecutively, yes, 561 years is a real number. And this just means if you look at the 78 felony charges across the three criminal cases so far, you go, OK, here's 31 felonies. This one could

get you up to four years. This one could get you up to five years. And you just add it all up. You get 561 or a number very close to it. Now, in reality, in practice, the way these large cases often go is over the process of adjudicating and trying the case and going through it. Sometimes charges will be combined. The number of charges will be reduced. Some charges will be eliminated, either because the prosecution doesn't have an interest in pursuing every single charge individually or they realize that they don't actually have the evidence for every single charge individually. If you get to the point of negotiations around a plea, often charges will be consolidated or dropped or there will be something like, listen, if he pleads guilty to these five charges, we'll get rid of

the other 26, this sort of thing. So the number of charges is often reduced by the time you get to the end of a case, be it a verdict or a plea agreement at sentencing, you often will not get the maximum for every single charge for which you are found guilty. That would further reduce this number from 561 to a much lower number. And then in addition to that, even once you are sentenced, often you will see that some of these sentences will be served concurrently rather than consecutively, meaning if you have one sentence for four years and another for five, the timer starts on both of those on the same day. So it's not nine, but it is five. In five years, you serve

the four and the five. And then, of course, in addition to that, you have the practical consideration, which is that at Trump's age and his health, I mean, he's obese and doesn't eat a good diet, doesn't exercise. Statistically speaking, a 10 year sentence is a life sentence. So that is certainly a practical consideration as well. So five hundred and sixty one years. Is it literally accurate in a hypothetical sense? Max sentence on every charge served consecutively? Yes. Do we really need to think that it is likely or even probable that Trump gets even a 40 year sentence? I believe the answer is no. And from every legal opinion I've read, that's the situation. That's where we are right now. We need much time, much time to see all of these different cases and potentially the future Georgia case and potentially another future case federally. It's going to take a while for this to work itself

through the system. I spoke to a lawyer yesterday and said, hey, my instinct is this certainly will not be resolved by January of twenty twenty five when Trump would take office. What do you think? And my lawyer friend said, absolutely not. There is no way in hell that all of these cases are resolved by the time the next presidential term starts. So that's where we are. Rudy Giuliani in some stunning new audio transcripts reportedly says that Jewish men have small roosters.

I'm trying to be FCC safe here. This is really wacky stuff. Rolling Stone reports the transcripts were filed Tuesday by Noel Dunphy, who is suing the former Trump lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for sexual harassment. Rudy Giuliani and vile new audio transcripts. Jewish men have small penises. Rudy Giuliani and vile new audio transcripts. Jewish men have small penises. Rudy Giuliani sued for sexual harassment earlier this year by Noel Dunphy, a former staffer at his firm. The lawsuit includes a wide array of disturbing allegations from behaving erratically while drunk to exposing himself nonconsensually, to demanding sexual favors, to making various sexist and racist remarks. Giuliani denies everything and smears Dunphy and says that

the sport portions of the lawsuit should be stricken, striked, struck from the records. Dunphy and her lawyer responded by asking Giuliani and his lawyer be sanctioned. They included audio transcripts of Giuliani saying exactly the stuff he denied saying, quote, Jewish men have small penises because they can't use them after they get married, whereas the Italian use them all their lives. So they get bigger. Now, there's a very interesting evolutionary misunderstanding here from Rudy Giuliani. This is this is an instructive example of the difference between natural selection and what's called Lamarck ism. Lamarck ism is the theory of evolution that suggests individual organisms change during their lifetime because of factors, circumstantial

environmental factors. So Lamarck ism would be, oh, if Jewish men don't use their penises after marriage, they shrink during the lifetime. Natural selection would be different, which would be think about what we're talking about. Natural selection would suggest if in general Jewish men don't have as much use for their penises, there would be some evolutionary pressure in subsequent generations to smaller penises. This is all bonkers, but it's sort of like if you think about the polar bear, their natural selection tells us that no individual dark colored bears became lighter colored during their lifetime. But it would be that because the lighter colored bears were more likely to survive by blending

in with the snow, there was evolutionary pressure. So the lighter colored bears were more likely to produce offspring, putting pressure in the direction of eventually getting a white polar bear. Now, I know that this is all irrelevant to what Rudy Giuliani is talking about, but it's an interesting moment to discuss natural selection versus Lamarck ism. OK, Giuliani also railed in these transcripts about how Jewish people, quote, want to go through that freaking Passover all the time. They should, quote, get over the Passover because it was 3000 years ago.

And he went on to say, OK, the Red Sea parted. Big deal. Not the first time it happened. And Giuliani in the transcripts does not elaborate when else the Red Sea parted. He also said Matt Damon is a fag. I'm using the I'm trying to I'm willing to use any words from the transcript. I just want to maintain FCC safety. My understanding is that I can say that. He also says Matt Damon is also five to eyes are blue. Coochie coochie coochie coo. Now, fact check. Matt Damon is believed to be 510. And we don't know why Rudy Giuliani believes Matt Damon is only 5 to at one point. Giuliani says, come here, big T word for breasts. I think I can't say that one. Your breasts belong to me. Give them to me. I want to claim my breasts. This is really bonkers stuff. And quite frankly,

Rudy Giuliani has experienced one of the biggest downfalls in public perception. Mr. New York City, the American mayor, America's mayor, incredible popularity in the aftermath of 9-11 now. Farting in public during court appearances that are bogus, hair dye leaking, sexual assault allegations, lawsuit humiliated time and time again in relation to his defenses of Donald Trump, disbarments, now an unindicted co-conspirator in Trump's latest indictment. At some point. My empathy sort of instinct does kick in, but it is important to remember that this

guy really did it all to himself and people have to be held accountable. This is pretty compelling evidence of sexual harassment. He's going to have to now deal with that. And as far as what other legal problems he may face, it remains to be seen. But America's mayor really saying extraordinarily disgusting things, treating people in disgusting and deplorable ways. And some say it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I don't know that I'd say that. When it comes to taking care of my skin and hair, I never really knew how to have a daily routine. I definitely don't buy into the bogus miracle creams and stuff that's out there. That's where our partner geology changed the game for me. Geology is a 23 time award winning skin, hair and body care company that just gives you simple, effective skin care and hair care routine The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. All right. percent off the skin care trial set and 30 percent off any add on products. The info is in the podcast notes.

All right, let's do a little bit of a review and a Monday morning quarterbacking of my interview earlier this week with twenty twenty four Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Now, I am going to be the first to tell you this guy is an excellent filibuster. And one of the things about dealing with such good filibuster is that it can become really difficult to go point by point by point. And I am the first to tell you, I don't think I did a great job of controlling that interview and there is no one to blame but me. And so for everybody writing in saying, David, you let him get away with this, you let him get away with that. I'm with you. It was a barrage of distortions and filibustering.

For the most part, I do think that his extreme nature presented in an incredibly polished package came through. Many of you wrote to me and said, you know, he's so slick. But if you really listen to the words coming out of his mouth and understand what he's saying, he's pretty bonkers. So what I want to do today is go through some of the claims that he made and sort of fact check or give you the reality of them. These are the things that the most number of people wrote to me about. Now, I'm not going to play every clip. I'll summarize what Vivek said in good faith. If I played every clip, this would take an hour. And a lot of people heard the interview already. So you could watch this, listen to this first, then check out the interview or pause, check out the interview with Vivek and then come back. But I'm not going to

play every clip because I think it'll be repetitive. I'll summarize as best I can. One of the things that Vivek said is that the lack of publication widely of the Hunter Biden laptop story arguably gave the election to Joe Biden. And what Vivek said was that lots of people said they would have changed their vote. And if they had seen the Hunter Biden story fully before the election and that it is a form of election interference. Now, Vivek did not say where he got that polling data, but there is a tip insights poll. They are a right leaning polling outfit. They did a poll from December 7th to December 9th, two years after the election of Joe Biden, asking people about the laptop story. That poll found that among those following the Hunter Biden laptop story, 28 percent would have very likely changed their vote if they knew about the laptop

story not being disinformation. Twenty five percent were somewhat likely, which is a less clear response. But what you have to understand is that, number one, this poll was conducted two years after the election. Exactly whether people remember how they would have changed their vote had they known something two years prior is pretty shaky. And number two, the pool of respondents who answered the question. It's all about among those following the Hunter Biden story, which is a relatively small group of people because it has nothing to do with Joe Biden. And then number three, the respondents were right leaning. So when they say I would have

changed my vote, I guess you have to believe that these right leaning people voted for Biden, but they would. It just is completely incoherent. So that's the only poll on this issue I was able to find. And Vivek completely misstated the meaning of it. At best, it's a nonsense claim. At worst, he was deliberately deceptive about that poll. Secondly, Vivek said that the Burisma payments to Hunter Biden are a deep problem. Five million dollars paid by a Ukrainian company, privately owned by someone who sat on the National Security Council in Ukraine, and that that led to the impeachment of Trump, who said doing more investigation and that this has implications for Hunter Biden and that this implicates Joe Biden and ba ba ba

ba ba ba. And Vivek's point is, if the Burisma story wasn't suppressed, that also could have changed the results of the election. What what we get back to here is something I've said before. If there are allegations that a crime took place, investigate them. Understand that, number one, there's an incredible hypocrisy, even if we assume everything being alleged about Joe and Hunter Biden is true, for which there is currently no evidence. These folks like Vivek are hypocrites because they say nothing about Jared and Ivanka Trump. Remember, Jared Kushner scores a two billion dollar investment from Saudi Arabia, et cetera, et cetera. And there is actually no evidence of Joe Biden being linked to these Burisma payments. There is certainly no evidence of a crime, et cetera. Now, as for the claim that

the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents indictment was timed to distract from the Biden bribery story, that's another claim that Vivek made. They indicted Trump on the documents to distract from Biden accepting bribes. There's just no evidence for that. This is the opinion that's being stated by many. There's no evidence for it. I do think it is a fair debate to have. Was the New York Post story right to be censored on Twitter

or not? I'm willing to have that debate and I have an open mind. Ultimately, it's smoke and mirrors to distract from the original claim that that story altered the 2020 election results. We don't have any evidence that that's the case. Thirdly, on covid, Vivek Ramaswamy said that there was a point at which if you suggested covid came from a lab in China, you were called racist and you got banned. Now, we do know that there was a period during which Facebook banned posts claiming covid was made in a lab. Our accounts even just talking about that, even though we weren't making that claim, sometimes had problems on Facebook. We were flagged for covid disinformation on Instagram

simply for discussing that topic. So Vivek is not wrong that there was a point, maybe not racist, but there was there were limitations on being able to talk about that on social media. I think it's perfectly fair to discuss whether that was right or wrong. The second part, though, where Vivek says we now know it originated from a lab. We don't know that there is no definitive evidence that covid came from a lab. I don't know that we can rule it out. I'm not claiming we can. I've always said investigate everything, but let's only go as far as the evidence takes

us. I think that that's a perfectly fine discussion to have. We have not proven that covid came from a lab. That's another claim that Vivek made. Number four, Vivek Ramaswamy said that my definition of woke, which is woke, means to become aware of problems in society that are bigger than any one person and that require systemic or structural fixes. Vivek said that my definition of woke doesn't support the specificity of policies that follow from wokeness, like racial quotas in boardrooms or Vivek claimed that companies can't be listed

on the Nasdaq unless they have racial diversity quotas on their boards. That is a lie. I had never heard that before. I was unable to re. That is a lie. I had never heard that before. I was unable to rebut it at the time because I'd never heard it. I researched it. Nasdaq requires that companies either comply or simply report their boardroom diversity. You can still list on the Nasdaq if you don't meet racial quotas. You just have to say, hey, we didn't meet that requirement. And here's why. You could argue that that's a problem in and of itself. But again, Vivek misstated the truth of that policy.

Argument five from Vivek. He said, I believe gender dysphoria in kids is a mental health condition and should be treated as such. He cited the DSM four and five said if a child has gender dysphoria, it shows that there's something else happening in their life that must be addressed. He said it's not compassionate to affirm what is ultimately just confusion and says that we will look back at allowing kids to undergo what he called a genital mutilation as an injustice. He says people are going through this because of a fixation on trans in our culture, that there is a contagion of sorts. Now, there's a bunch of problems with what he said. First of all, asserting that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition is not necessarily controversial. In fact, as I pointed out, it is it is dealt with as a mental

health condition, as a matter of protocol. And we'll talk about that. The problem is that the right uses that language to stigmatize trans people and to basically argue that as a matter of obvious principle, no medication solutions, no gender affirming care, period. We are talking about gender dysphoria as a mental health condition. The difference between Vivek Ramaswamy and the doctors that actually specialize in this is that Vivek views trans identity as simply pathological and something to be removed from society and essentially disqualified as a serious thing to be dealt with, period. The medical guidelines have a harm reduction model. This has been studied. This includes initially dealing with it as a mental health condition.

It includes counseling. It includes exploring so-called puberty blockers. It includes exploring surgical and non-surgical interventions. What would have been interesting to delve into more? And this came right at the end of the interview is what does it if we say, OK, mental health condition, at least as frontline, what is Vivek Ramaswamy think the treatment should be? And contrary to what Vivek said, it's compassionate to affirm gender dysphoria in children. That is what the standard of care is. If you look at any serious medical organization in the US or elsewhere, that's the front line.

You assess and you treat and you focus on whether there are coexisting mental health conditions. It's right there in the treatment guidelines. When someone presents with what is apparent gender dysphoria, you explore and evaluate whether there are coexisting mental health conditions. What he says should be done actually is done without taking a position on the good or bad of puberty blockers. The side effects for puberty blockers short term are quite mild. It's headache and fatigue and muscle ache, maybe insomnia can affect mood and weight to some degree. We do need more research on the long term effects of puberty

blockers. I have said there may be some issues there, but we need to do it in good faith, not in this kind of eliminationist rhetoric that Vivek Ramaswamy and others use. And by the way, puberty blockers are not only prescribed for gender dysphoria. And this is something that some of the opponents will never mention. Puberty blockers are also prescribed to cisgender kids who start puberty abnormally early, sometimes in adults. Puberty blockers are used to treat endometriosis or breast and prostate cancer, PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome. So the idea that puberty blockers and their side effects are only relevant or in play when it comes to kids with gender dysphoria, that's also wrong. Medications have risks and it's about evaluating benefits versus risks, etc.

Now, for the general narrative that Vivek put out there about detransitioning and the number of people that regret gender affirming care, those cases exist. We shouldn't pretend that they don't. They are insanely rare. There was a review done of twenty seven studies in the year in the US, Canada and Europe, on average, 1% of those who receive gender affirming care regret it one out of 100. And for some, that regret was temporary. So the number that genuinely over the long term regret gender affirming care is under 1%. If you compare that to the 20 or 30% of people who regret getting a knee replacement

because often the knee is never the same and you deal with a different issue with the knee than the one that brought you in in the first place, 20 to 30 percent of those getting knee replacements regret it. Under one percent of those receiving gender affirming care regret it. So I think that that's an important thing to consider. And then lastly, Vivek argued that there's a social contagion element to gender dysphoria. I was not able to find evidence that supported that. He cited something from New Hampshire, I think, was not able to find evidence that supported that that's a thing. So think about how long it takes me here to break down all of these distortions.

He is excellent at just firing them off. And we actually need and this is what makes fact checking these people so difficult. It's a barrage of falsehoods. And as Sam Harris said, you can very easily set a bunch of small fires and it becomes difficult to chase every single one with a fire extinguisher. So those are some of the main distortions from Vivek Ramaswamy. He's welcome back any time. As I said, I don't know that we will see him back, but that's where we are. So summertime is in full swing. It's hot, it's humid. When you get sweaty, many of us know all too well what it means when you wear traditional underwear. It's the sticking, rubbing and chafing. It is not pleasant. That's why our 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. It's great to welcome Michael Cohen back to the program.

Of course, the former personal attorney to Donald Trump, host of the Mayakulpa podcast and author of the book Revenge, How Donald Trump Weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice Against His Critics, a claim that he is now making Michael against the current Department of Justice, that it is being weaponized against him and he's a victim and it's all a big conspiracy and so on and so forth. Can you just address let's let's take that head on as if maybe it were true. Can we just can we start with the word irony? Yeah, right. It's ironic. But also, is there any evidence that Georgia potentially the New York D.A. Jack Smith. Is there any evidence that these legal instruments and actors are in any way coordinating or working together here, particularly at the

direction of Joe Biden? I mean, that's certainly a rhetorical question because the answer is an emphatic no. It's complete and utter bullshit. And it's basically part of the GOP Donald Trump MAGA spin. I mean, there is no evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden has any. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it is a Republican that was initially, for example, looking at Biden and then turned around and said that there was nothing there. And on top of that, we're now sitting with three indictments, soon to be five, based upon not somebody's whim, like what Donald Trump did using Bill Barr as his bloviated attorney general weaponizer. Instead, we're looking at facts. Do we not know? Have we not seen? Did we not see with our own eyes January 6th, the insurrection? Did we not hear with our own

ears the words coming out of Donald's mouth? How about all of the other stuff? Did we not see the documents demanding that Donald return from Mar-a-Lago, the documents that he improperly possessed? The answer to all of this and more is yes. Is it not Donald who directed me to go ahead and to make the deal with Stormy Daniels to make the hush money payment? The answer is yes. I mean, what fact is he missing that the rest of us aren't? Well, when I say the rest of us, I'm talking about those who actually want to know the truth, not those that are so engrossed into the cult of Donald Trump that they refuse to look at the facts and they refuse to, you know, to read anything that doesn't comport

to the nonsense that they want. So there are some legal experts who, in looking at the three indictments so far, New York hush money, classified documents, federal case, the new 2020 indictment for which Trump is going to be appearing in court today, even though this latest one is only four counts, there are legal opinions that this is the most serious and potentially the one most likely to lead to prison time, at least in a hypothetical sense. Do you agree with that assessment or disagree? I disagree. In fact, I think every single one of these indictments will end up resulting in a criminal conviction. You know, I kind of listen to the same pundits that you do, and they want to, you know, prognosticate which one is the most significant. Let me be very clear on something, right?

This is not a contest of which illegal act that the guy committed that should end up getting first string. This isn't a horse race where you're going for the trifecta. Well, look, I will be the first one to acknowledge, which I have, that seditious conspiracy is by far the most grotesque act whatsoever. Then you have the retention of the hush money payment and the business record violation. But that doesn't mean that the hush money payment or the criminal, you know, you would have already been indicted, prosecuted, charged and doing time for it. Donald Trump should not be given any any special benefit above anybody else. We have one set of laws. At least that's the bullshit that people tell us all the time. In fact, what it appears is that there might be actually a two tier legal system and that doesn't work for democracy. Can you talk a little bit about the significance or the point of the

unindicted co-conspirators listed in this latest indictment, some of whom have been identified as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and others. What is the purpose of of that? What is the meaning of an unindicted co-conspirator? Well, what you have is you have people who obviously Jack Smith and the investigators have determined were part of this scheme. And so they are at this moment, at this moment, unindicted co-conspirators. What I found unusual, and you're right, it's Rudy Giuliani. You also have Sidney released the crack in Powell. You have Eastman, you have Jeffrey Clark, and then you have this

guy, cheese, bro. My understanding is that all five of them are actually lawyers. This to me was very interesting. Why? Because it comports with exactly what Donald is out there saying that he did everything correctly and that he did it after consultation with counsel. Right. So why is this relevant? Because I think Jack Smith, with the brilliant writing on this indictment, has made it crystal clear to these five and who the sixth is. You know, there there's a lot of speculation that it's Boris Epstein. I cannot confirm or deny that, who was also a lawyer, which would also be quite interesting. But what it basically shows is that Donald has already decided that the defense that he or one of the defenses that he will put forth is the defense of counsel, that he did this

under the advice of counsel. So for those unindicted co-conspirators who now know exactly who they are based upon the writing of the indictment, now is probably a really good time for them to have their lawyers reach out to Jack Smith and his investigators to get in, to meet with them, and to basically tell the truth and to spill the beans. Because if not, I promise you, Donald Trump will be throwing them under the bus the same way that he did to me, because Donald doesn't care about any of them. He will do what is necessary to save himself. And the funny thing is, in his whacked out mind, he thinks that they should fall on the sword because that is that is what is necessary to save the king. Now,

if I could bring up one additional thing about the indictment that I think, David, you and your listeners will find very interesting. It's not so much who Jack Smith has included as these unindicted co-conspirators, but I think the real question is who is not included in this indictment. So, for example, Mark Meadows, we all know that Mark Meadows was on top of Donald 24-7. I mean, he was basically his shadow. So I found it odd that he is not mentioned and he is not one of the unindicted co-conspirators in this case. Another person that I find unusual not to be included was the secretary of everything himself, Jared Kushner. We all know that Jared was involved in every single thing. So how is it possible that these two individuals are not included in the indictment as unnamed co-conspirators. And my, you know, my position, and again, simply my position, that they have already been cooperating with Jack Smith in this investigation. And I think it would make a lot of sense in terms of who knew that the documents were where they were, the type of documents who were sharing this information with Jack Smith and prosecutors all along.

So along those lines, we played a clip this earlier in today's show from CNN last night where Caitlin Collins asked William Barr, Trump's former attorney general, have you sat down with Jack Smith? And he said, I'm not going to answer that. And he just sat there silently not saying anything. Many are assuming if the answer was no, he would have just said, oh, no, I haven't had any involvement with that. And thus, the answer must be yes, that William Barr sat down with Jack Smith. Is that a reasonable assumption or is that not necessarily the case? Speaker 3 Not necessarily the case. I think what he was trying to do is to show that he's going to hold on to attorney-client

privilege, even if it's something that would not remain as attorney-client privilege based upon the crime fraud exception rule. But the problem that I have with Bill Barr, the problem that I have with many who are having him come on their programs. Bill Barr was the guy, he was the fixer, right, during the time that he became the Attorney General. He is the guy that Donald Trump used as Attorney General to weaponize the Department of Justice. All of a sudden now, Bill Barr is what, being invited back into polite society to talk about Donald Trump as if he wasn't responsible for so much of the stuff that we are dealing with today? How about the unconstitutional remand of a United States citizen back to prison because

he refused to waive his First Amendment constitutional right? I want your listeners also to think about that for a second, how grotesque that is as a concept that you could be thrown in jail because you refuse to waive your First Amendment constitutional right. If in fact something like that exists and a president or anyone is capable of doing that to you, you don't have a democracy. And that's exactly what Bill Barr and Donald Trump did to me, right? And obviously, you know, that there's a lawsuit that I have right now.

It's on appeal, Michael Cohen versus United States of America, Donald Trump, Bill Barr et al. And I don't think people fully understand just how dangerous that is as a practice, because that's the exact sort of thing that you will see in Russia. It's the same thing that you'll see in Saudi Arabia, in North Korea and in other autocracies. And that's, again, what Donald is trying to create here, an autocracy. Michael, last thing I want to ask you about in your heart of hearts,

we've all seen the headlines. You know, if you get the maximum sentence for every single one of these 78 crimes served consecutively, 561 years. OK, we've all seen it. Trump's fundraising on it as these things work their way through. Charges are dropped. Charges are consolidated. You don't get the maximum sentence. There's a question about what would happen with a former president anyway when it comes to sentencing. In your heart of hearts, does this guy see a single day of prison time? So I believe that he will be convicted. I do not believe and I want to be clear on this, too. I don't want to see Donald Trump behind bars, not because he doesn't deserve it, not because I wouldn't like him to see what it's like behind bars, like what I experienced,

including, for example, 51 days of solitary confinement, again, thanks to the bloviated Bill Barr. All right. I would. However, I don't want to see Donald Trump in prison because let's not forget, for four years, Donald Trump met. And I'm more concerned about national security and the safety of all Americans, Republicans, Democrats, independents, for all Americans than I am about enjoying, you know, hearing about Donald Trump having to take, you know, a crap on a dirty toilet inside of a prison. You know, that's not that's not what I'm looking for. I'm more concerned, again, about our security than I am about Donald behind bars. Michael Cohen, author of Revenge, How Donald Trump Weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice Against His Critics.

Check out the podcast, the mayor called the podcast. Michael, always appreciate your time and insights. It's great to see you, David. Many people know how hard it is to break bad habits, and sometimes you have to replace a bad habit with a better habit. And that is exactly what our sponsor Fume helps you do. Fume is not a vape. I don't advertise vape stuff. There's no nicotine. There's no electronics. Fume is a small cylindrical wooden device that just delivers plant flavored air. It comes in a variety of flavors that people love. Crisp mint, maple pepper, white cranberry. They've got new flavors, sparkling grapefruit, orange, vanilla. Importantly, it just gives your hand something

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

Then use code Pacman for 10 percent off the journey pack. The info is in the podcast notes. We're now going to hear the opinions of two different Republicans about this third indictment and arrest of the failed former President Donald Trump. They are both individuals with whom I disagree politically, but one is very obviously much brighter than the other. I'm talking about Trump's own former attorney general, William Barr, and then Trump's son, Eric Trump.

I'll let you be the judge as to which of the two is brighter. We're going to start with William Barr. There was an incredible moment during William Barr's interview yesterday on CNN with CNN's Caitlin Collins, during which Caitlin Collins asks William Barr, have you spoken to special counsel Jack Smith? In other words, has William Barr himself in some sense cooperated with any of the investigations by the special prosecutor that ultimately led to two different arrests and indictments of Donald Trump? William Barr says, I'm not going to tell you that. And a very delightful but awkward silence ensues. Take a look at this. And then the evidence that has come out since that, you know, the press reports and the indictment and

and his lack of curiosity as to what the actual facts were just that's my personal opinion. That's my personal opinion. That's my personal opinion. We'll see if the government can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You spoke to the January 6th Congressional Committee. Have you talked to Jack Smith's investigators? I'm not going to get into that. We get it. OK, you came out on December 1st.

Now, you know, with all of these situations, we're left to speculate. The initial reaction from most people would be if he had nothing to do with Jack Smith's investigation, sort of like if I was asked, hey, did you speak to investigators in the Gilgo Beach murders? I would go, no, I have nothing to do with that. I don't know anything about it and certainly not. Many people reacting to this by saying the answer must be yes, because if you had no involvement in an investigation, you would just say so. There's no reason to act this way unless the answer is yes.

Yeah, I mean, that sounds reasonable to me, although it's William Barr and he's sort of a weird guy. And I guess we can't be totally sure. In general, the the interview with Caitlin Collins was quite interesting here. William Barr clarifies again as if it wasn't on page one of the indictment. Trump is not being attacked for speech. That is not he is not losing his First Amendment right here. But I mean, when you do look at the indictment, do you think it's something you would have brought? I think I don't know if I would have approved the indictment, but in the sense I may have exercised discretion and not gone forward with the case. I'm also concerned about having this case going on during the election and diverting people's attention from the issues in the election.

I'm also worried about what the impact is if there are acquittals during during the campaign. But as a legal matter, I don't see a problem with with the indictment. I think that it's not an abuse. The Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process. Which is what Trump's attorneys are saying. And they're also saying that he was just exercising his First Amendment right here. Do you think that's a valid argument? Critical question. No, I really don't think that's a valid argument because, you know, as the indictment says, you know, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that that the the election was was stolen when he when he knew better. But that does not protect you from

entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech. So, you know, free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy. So that is crystal clear at this point in time. Crystal clear. Trump's First Amendment rights have not been taken away, attacked or impinged upon in any way by this indictment. Secondly, what is William Barr's advice to Trump's attorneys? Being an attorney for Trump is not without its risks. Many Trump attorneys are unindicted co-conspirators in Trump's conspiracies. They have had to get their own attorneys.

Remember MAGA making attorneys get attorneys. Here's William Barr's advice to Trump's current lawyers. What would you say? He just brought on two new attorneys, Todd Blanch and April John Lara just now. I mean, given what has happened with other attorneys that he's had, what would you what's your advice to his attorneys? Do you have any? Get a lot of insurance.

They'll be spending a lot of time themselves at some point, you know. For grand jury. Yeah. Good advice. I have to tell you good advice. However, I want to remind everybody that even though William Barr, of course, is telling some uncontroversial truths right now, he still continues to say they came down to a Democrat and Trump, even though I think Trump has nothing to do, should have no involvement

with the presidency. I'm not going to rule out voting for the guy. What would be surprised to hear you say that you don't think Biden should be president, but I think you would be surprised that you won't say that about Trump given, I mean, for you personally. I've said, I don't think he, he should be near the oval office and that's why. But that you wouldn't vote for him in 2024. He's called you a coward, lazy, gutless pig, rhino.

I mean, he's called you all of these things. Some other ones, go ahead. Yeah, I know. That's just a handful of the ones that I that I pulled. I mean, what do you say to people who look at what you say about Trump, your criticism, criticisms of him that you don't think he belongs near the Oval Office, but that you don't rule out voting for him in 2024? Because my view is that I have to wait and see what the entire record is, what comes out and so forth. But my view is that if you feel that one of two people is going to be president, in other words, there's no third option, one one of two people are going to be president.

Then at that point, you have to do your soul searching as to which one you think would do least harm. Now what's incredible about this and we'll listen to the last few seconds is Barr has said Trump has no business being near the Oval Office. He's a danger to the country, etc. But I guess what he's saying is Joe Biden's even worse to the country. And that's the analysis that I would do. Would you ever vote for a third party candidate?

That's kind of something floating around. Well, again, it's hypothetical. It depends if I would not throw my vote away on someone who had no chance of winning just so I could feel morally virtuous and say, well, at least I didn't vote for him. My view is I'd I want to participate in a decision if one of two is going to make it. I want to participate in that decision. If there was a third party that actually had a chance and they were consistent with my philosophy or superior to the other two, I would consider that.

All right. There you go. So basically, William Barr, despite all of the horrible things he said about Trump and Trump being uniquely unqualified to be near the Oval Office, I guess he's saying Biden's worse, which is really hard to believe. Last thing on this, William Barr commenting on whether Trump knew he lost the election. Do you think he knew that he lost the election? Do I personally believe that? Yeah, at first I wasn't sure, but I have come to believe that he

knew well that he had lost the election. And now what I think is important is the government has assumed the burden of proving that the government in their indictment takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn't stolen through fraud. And they're gonna have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high bar. Of course, it's a high bar. Now that leads me to believe that they were only seeing a tip of the iceberg on this. You think Jack Smith has more?

Oh, yes. I'm I would believe he has a lot more. And I think that that is almost certainly the case. So William Barr saying some uncontroversial truths, but still saying. Biden's worse, which is getting very difficult to believe from these people. All right. Let's now go from William Barr to Eric Trump. You will notice that Eric Trump, Donald Trump's son and not known to be the smartest of Trump's kids, that's for sure.

Eric Trump is a lot more unhinged sounding than William Barr and immediately is almost in tears while being interviewed on Fox News by Jesse Waters. Here is the start of Eric Trump's reaction to this third indictment and arrest of daddy. What they did to him over Russia. I mean, how about Obama literally weaponizing the IRS against all conservatives? Literally weaponizing that does it. You mean metaphorically weaponizing, don't you? This is what they do. And this is what my father, more so than any person in American history, has shown the American people. He's literally exposed these frauds for exactly who they are.

What? And it's sad. We're no better than some of these third world countries around the world. We are literally trying to imprison political opponents. We're better than this. We are. We are not trying to imprison political opponents. There's no evidence Joe Biden has done anything. What we are trying to do is hold everyone to the same standard.

No one's above the law. And based on the evidence that grand juries have looked at so far, Trump and his his inner circle were a crime wave. That is what the evidence points to so far. Innocent until proven guilty. Absolutely. Eric Trump, much less articulately than some others trying to make the case that they want to imprison Trump for speech. He's exposing them again. People get it. People are seeing a man, the former 45th president, the United States, who's lost his First Amendment right. They see political speech be attacked. I mean, literally they're trying to strip somebody's rights and throw them in jail for the rest of his life over political speech. You know, they're watching presidential immunity

fly out the window all while the statements my father had. And I know this because I was there that day. They were great statements. They were perfect statements. You use the word peacefully ten times all these absolutely perfect statements. Again, how brazen and pathetic are you when you're screaming? Lock her up about Hillary. Lock him up about Joe Biden. Eric Trump has led those chants at rallies before about your political opponents. Absent any evidence your political opponents, absent any evidence of criminality, absent any grand jury voting and saying, I believe that you've presented enough evidence of criminality to indict. None of that. Lock her up, lock him up. And he has the gall to say Democrats are trying to imprison their political opponents for speech. It is ridiculous.

But no one ever said Eric Trump was the brightest guy. Last thing on this, Eric Trump going back to a line he often uses when Trump has legal trouble. Just wait until we get to discovery. And Jesse, let me let me just tell you one thing. My father cannot wait to take discovery on these people. There are a lot of questions about January six. Trust me.

How about all the videotapes? How about all the FBI agents that were in there? There's a lot of questions. I mean, why didn't they call up the 10,000 National Guard Reserve troops that my father, you know, approved? Why didn't they do that? They know what else is happening behind the scenes. They might regret fast tracking this trial before the election.

We'll see how it shakes out. Yeah, I don't think so. And remember, as we speak, Fox News is facing a defamation lawsuit from Ray Epps from accusing him of being an undercover agent who orchestrated a false flag on January 6th. Eric Trump is suggesting that the FBI was also involved in that. Eric Trump is lying about the fact that Trump requested and then also approved. Wait a second. So Trump was both doing the requesting and the approving of the 10,000 National Guard troops. That doesn't make sense. What we have since found out is that Trump wanted National Guard troops to protect him because he thought

he might be in danger on that day. It's completely bonkers stuff. And we can't wait till discovery line. Eric Trump has used this before. The idea of this line is when people are facing legal problems or a lawsuit, they try to project strength by saying, well, we get to do discovery. We get to take depositions from people and we're really going to make them look bad. And the next thing you know, they've settled because they know that actually the facts aren't on their side and starting to take depositions wouldn't actually be good for them. It happened with the Trump University lawsuit in 2015.

It's happened in so many different places. I don't know why Eric Trump thinks anyone would be convinced by this. If you're going to have someone go out there to try to sing your praises, I don't know that Eric Trump is the right guy to be doing it. But listen, I understand if my dad was hit with this number of criminal charges and it became increasingly clear that much of the rest of his life would be spent going from court to court. I'd be upset as well.

I do empathize with that aspect of this, but this is Trump's own doing. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Here's a funny voicemail. This woman who called in can barely hold it together, trying to talk to me about how my hair is lopsided. I know this isn't the most important topic in the world, but the voicemail is funny. And I do appreciate having an opportunity to address what's going on with my hair. Take a listen. Hi, David. I love watching you. You're amazing. Do you know your hair is lopsided?

It's lopsided. The left part is amazing. The right upper part is going too far. Just tell your barber you're still good looking. I can still look at you. You're delicious. Thank you. At top right, your top right is sparked too high. Try to make it symmetrical. All right. Keep doing what you're doing. Bye bye. Listen, it is not a problem of my hair being lopsided. I'm willing to admit what's going on. I've always had this vague idea that I would love to be one of these guys who gets up in

the morning and you do your workout and then you shower and bright eyed and bushy tailed. You get to work already worked out and showered with my hair looking not lopsided and all of this stuff. I just can't do it, folks. OK, I'd rather sleep in a little bit more. And so what happens is I don't shower in the morning. I don't shower before the show. And so just sleeping on my hair because it is this thick Semitic hair that many in the audience are familiar with, it basically just takes on it's almost helmet like it takes on a shape that is immovable. And because of how I sleep, it looks lopsided. After the show, I work out, I shower,

comb my hair, looks perfect and beautiful for the rest of the day. Then I sleep on it and it gets whacked out. The haircut is fine. The haircut is not lopsided. My hair is not lopsided. What transpires during the night is what is causing a problem. And to the extent that it's entertaining, we're going to keep it going. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. A David Pakman membership costs six bucks a month. Thank you, Howard. It does cost six bucks a month unless you use the coupon code thrice indicted. Sign up at join Pakman dot com. Thrice indicted is the code. We will see you then.