The David Pakman Show - 9/12/23: Biden impeachment thumbs up, Trump threatens dictatorship

Episode Date: September 12, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy will endorse an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden -- Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace admits that Republicans have no actual EVIDENCE against Joe Biden in support of impeachment -- President Joe Biden makes a deal with Iran and Republicans predictably attack him and criticize the deal -- Failed former President Donald Trump openly threatens to become a dictator, and Republicans cheer it -- Failed former President Donald Trump melts down on 9/11 over President Joe Biden -- Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is completely off the rails about Donald Trump's indictments during a recent Joe Rogan appearance -- Radical Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says states should consider secession if they don't get their way -- Donald Trump enters the next stage of grief as his Georgia criminal trial will be televised globally -- Donald Trump is likely doomed by a stunning new development in one of his criminal cases -- Voicemail caller says that David's videos are sickening, devilish, and satanic -- On the Bonus Show: Georgia grand jury recommends charges against three US senators, California moves to decriminalize magic mushrooms and other psychedelics, outrage over New Mexico's temporary gun ban, much more... 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 💥 SainSmart: Get 10% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://davidpakman.com/engrave 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David -- 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 today, we begin with the impeachment of president Joe Biden. What? Why would they impeach him? Don't worry. Republicans also don't know. And that's where we start today. The breaking news this morning, Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy will formally endorse an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Now they are going to hedge and hem and haw by saying, we're not saying we are impeaching.

We're just investigating whether we want to impeach. Some will tell you that when you start an impeachment inquiry, it's because you know you're getting to impeachment. Others will say, no, this is actually a politically safer way to threaten impeachment and maybe get some of the political benefit they might associate with an impeachment without actually having to impeach, which they really can't do because they don't have any evidence to which I would say, oh, no, I think they actually could impeach Joe Biden, even without any evidence. So here is the NBC News report. Kevin McCarthy plans to formally

endorse an impeachment inquiry into Biden. McCarthy plans to tell lawmakers this week that it's a logical next step into the GOP led investigations into the Biden family that have been going on for months, according to two Republican sources. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy will endorse this impeachment inquiry in an effort to seek bank records and other documents from the president and his son, Hunter Biden, will say it's a logical next step. Punchbowl News first first reported this. McCarthy has signaled for weeks that the House could take up an impeachment inquiry, which would provide additional legal power to the House's investigations into the Biden family. Notably, the GOP led investigations have not uncovered evidence of wrongdoing by the president

or connections between the president and Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings. Fox News reporting about this impeachment inquiry news this morning and new this morning, Pete Ainslie and Brian, we've learned that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is later on this week going to embrace the idea of launching an impeachment inquiry, meaning the ball is starting to move a little bit closer to that potential goal line that some Republicans say they want secure. Do they have the votes for it? For the impeachment inquiry to be launched, I would imagine that they would have the votes to do that. Of course, whether or not they get to the full measure of an impeachment, that's to be unseen.

But I would imagine with the speaker saying, let's launch the inquiry, I can't imagine that he would do that if he didn't feel like he had the support. Right now, a better question than do they have the votes would be, do they have any evidence? What are we? Great. We've decided to do an impeachment inquiry. Why? Why are we doing it? Well, who knows? Is it bribery? Well, those allegations lacked any evidence. Is it Biden changing official U.S. policy as vice president in order to benefit those who paid Hunter Biden? Well, unfortunately, there is no evidence there either. The issue, of course, with those in the I was going to say the left, but connected to the real world. The problem when those of us connected to the real world demand evidence is that what we count as evidence

and what they count as evidence is very, very different. None of their so-called evidence withstands even the slightest scrutiny. Well Joe Biden allegedly got on a phone call with someone that Hunter Biden was doing business with. Oh, and what was said, well, we don't know. Is there any evidence of wrongdoing? Well, not exactly, but he got on that phone and that's a problem in and of itself. A witness is on tape saying Biden did bribery and got millions of dollars. Oh, OK. Do you have the tapes? No, we don't have the tapes, but we have a witness. Oh, have you spoken to the witness? Well, we haven't heard from one witness for three years and the next witness we got a hold of.

And that guy said he's never actually spoken to Joe Biden. This is all the way it's gone down. My friends, this there's a couple of ways that this will go. They do an impeachment inquiry and move on to an impeachment and there's no evidence and it completely debases Republicans, sort of like when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and it hurts them in twenty twenty four the way the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision hurt them in twenty twenty two. That's one possibility.

Second possibility is they do the impeachment inquiry and they uncover a treasure trove, a veritable treasure trove of evidence, actual evidence against Joe Biden. And this is the beginning of the end of President Joe Biden. All right. It's possible. I don't think it's likely, but it's certainly possible. Third option. They do the impeachment inquiry.

They find no evidence. They say we really can't move forward with impeachment and it hurts them in 2024. Those are the three most likely scenarios. And we are next going to look at what happens when a Republican who wants to do the impeachment inquiry is actually confronted with, do you have evidence? Have you seen evidence? This is what we are going to see a lot of. Let's take a look at that next. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace was humiliated last night on CNN, admitting she doesn't actually have any evidence against Joe Biden, despite the fact that she supports and Republicans will be

moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden. Here is Nancy Mace last night being interviewed by CNN's Caitlin Collins. The questions are very simple. Have you seen any direct evidence related to President Biden in any of this? Well, here's what Nancy Mase had to say. You support it. I'm just saying if you can see what I have seen and I believe you should, you deserve to see have you seen direct evidence? I have seen it because that's what we have not heard. Well, we have to connect the dots and that has to be through the bank records. If his bank records show nothing, the American people should know that, too. And you think it's worth launching that to get to that? I do.

Yeah. Have you seen evidence? Well, everybody has a right to know about it. And if we get those bank records, that's where the evidence well may be. OK, so right now you don't actually have any evidence. And so why are you doing the impeachment inquiry? Well, it's basically a fishing expedition. Caitlin Collins continuing. So there isn't actually any evidence. So why do this? And Nancy May says, oh, because we want to subpoena people is astounding. You would be shocked. It would you would blush, Caitlin, if you knew if you saw what I'd seen. You've said this before and we spoke with you after you went to the Treasury Department and looked at those reports. But I mean, you as a member of Congress do have access to those

reports. You went and saw them yourself. So I think a lot of people ask, you know, you've been home for six weeks. There's been no new evidence that's been uncovered or brought forward. So what is the basis now for having? Well, I think, I mean, the basis is politics, right? I mean, I would love for her to just be honest and go, oh, the basis is politics. They impeach Trump. We're determined to impeach Joe Biden, period. That's it.

There are more people to subpoena, whether that's Hunter Biden, whether that's the bookkeeper, whether that's getting Shoken in to testify. There are a lot of witnesses out there that saw things that were part of meetings that Joe Biden was a part of that, that were part of the transactions that were potentially part of the bribery scheme. Part of the transactions that were potentially part of the bribery scheme. Remember, for which there is not currently any evidence. That's a key appendage to this. I mean, all that evidence the American people should be able to have and see if it exists, if it exists. Caitlin Collins actually doing a good job here and pointing out

again, shouldn't you have evidence to support the impeachment inquiry? In other words, if the impeachment inquiry would logically be started with no evidence, there would just constantly be impeachment inquiries to see if there's any evidence. The evidence should lead you rather than the other way around. Oh, no, she doesn't care. The people deserve the truth and nothing. But isn't it supposed to be the evidence that leads you to pursue impeachment and impeachment inquiry? Well, that's what the inquiry is for. But there's more investigations. I think that's where people are confused because it's not like we don't have Joe. We don't have Joe Biden's bank records yet. And so one way to do that,

my understanding would be through an impeachment inquiry. So that's what get us gets us those bank records. And I'm going to support it. Right. Listen, guys, we don't have any evidence, but we need an impeachment inquiry in order to obtain the evidence so that then we can know what's going on. Oh, OK. But do you even know that such evidence exists? In other words, what is even the probable cause for the inquiry? Well, we don't know.

We need to do the inquiry in order to know whether the inquiry is warranted. It is a vicious circle of stupidity. Here's just one more clip. And it's endless. It just goes on and on like this the entire interview inquiry is an investigative tool. That's the difference between an impeachment vote and an inquiry. You're talking about the subpoena power. I mean, you have that now.

I don't think we've issued enough subpoenas. But isn't that a leadership problem? Shouldn't you be talking to the chair of your committee about that? I talked to you. I talked to our leadership in our committee all the time and they're being judicious in how they do it. They're being deliberate. I want it now. But there is a deliberative process. I think that they are going about it at the right pace, at the right speed. But it takes time. It takes money. You can't go and just so if everybody we should be issuing more subpoenas. Well, why don't you talk to the people who could issue them?

Your party, the Republicans that control the House? Well, actually, I think that they're issuing subpoenas at the right pace, but we need an impeachment inquiry to get the evidence. Oh, but what about maybe first obtaining evidence through subpoenas? She's like, well, I don't think we've issued enough subpoenas. But shouldn't you talk to Republican leadership about that? Well, yes, but they're doing everything fine. It's a loop. You're not confused. We've the last five minutes have not been me showing you the same clip over and over

again. It's circular reasoning, not circular clips, although the entire thing is circular. This is going to be the new way to distract if they can from the reality that they have no policy, that they've lost large swaths of the country, including an important and critical swing states because of we're anti woke and we oppose Roe v. Wade and we oppose teachers deciding what should be taught and we have nothing left. This is how they're going to distract from it, from as yet imaginary Biden crimes. And the reason I say as yet is we you can't really prove negatives. So where we have to rest is we don't currently have any evidence that Joe Biden did any of the stuff they're saying he did.

I can't tell you he didn't do it, much like I can't tell you Trump didn't kill anyone. But right now we have no evidence that Joe Biden did bribery or that Trump killed anybody. That's as far as we can go. Should the evidence change, then, of course, I will tell you that. Meanwhile, Joe Biden continues to be president. Let's talk about that next. Whoa, as I punch my mic out of exuberation and exuberance. OK, Joe Biden has made an Iran deal. He's the president. He's doing things as he should be. And Republicans are absolutely furious with the typical and predictable talking points you would expect. The Associated Press reports the US moves to advance a prisoner swap deal with Iran and releases six billion dollars in frozen funds. The report explains the Biden administration has cleared the way for the release of five American citizens detained in Iran by

issuing a blanket waiver for international banks to transfer six billion dollars in frozen Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar without fear of U.S. sanctions. So the trade is the U.S. gets five American citizens back from Iran who have been detained. Six billion in frozen Iranian money is released from South Korea to Qatar without sanctions. Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the sanctions waivers late last week. The outlines of the deal were previously announced. The waiver was expected. This is the first time the administration said it was releasing five Iranian prisoners who have not yet been named. The waiver drew criticism of President Joe Biden from Republicans and others who say this is going to help the Iranian economy at a time when Iran poses a growing threat to U.S. troops and Mideast allies, Republicans

hate it because Biden did it. Republican Chuck Grassley going to Twitter. It's now called X. So instead of tweets, I guess we're now calling them excretions. It's sort of I can't think of anything else to call him. Senator Chuck Grassley with an excretion on X, quote, It's ridiculous for a U.S. to be blackmailed into paying six billion for hostages, which will help indirectly finance the number one foreign policy of Iran terrorism.

Last time it was one point seven billion traded for hostages. Next time it will probably be 10 billion. The price keeps going up and up. Republican Senator Tom Cotton weighing in on X with an excretion of his own, saying, quote, First Joe Biden used 9-11 as an excuse to flee Afghanistan. Now he desecrates this day by paying ransom to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. Shameful. So listen, you can disagree or have differing opinions about whether this deal made sense. So let's talk about the pros and cons of striking such a deal.

The pros of this deal are obviously if you have humanitarian concerns about American citizens detained in Iran, not a place known for particularly hospitable conditions or a functional justice system, particularly as it relates to American citizens. Getting American detainees released is an issue of human rights, period. And that is a good thing. Diplomacy over war, the signal that we can engage diplomatically with Iran to achieve something we want rather than military conflict is arguably a positive thing. Reducing sanctions on Iran reduces the harms caused by those sanctions, which is arguably good for Iranian civilians, at least to some degree.

Now, remember, I'm only giving you the pros now. We'll look at the cons in a moment. And then after Donald Trump really debased the United States as a negotiating partner, remember, Obama did the Iran deal. As far as we knew, Iran was abiding by the Iran deal and Trump just came in and bailed on the Iran deal. That hurts our credibility when it comes to being a treaty partner, a negotiating partner. The fact that there was a successful negotiation arguably might help to rebuild some trust after Trump simply said, oh, we're out of the deal. I don't like the deal, even though Iran, as far as was sticking to it. So those are the pros of such a deal.

Now, on the other side, it is true that the perception of paying a ransom could encourage future detentions in order to get concessions and further ransoms from the United States. It is arguably true that if Iran sees, hey, by detaining American citizens, we ultimately get goodies, whether it's unfrozen assets or whatever the case may be. It's arguably an incentive to just find American citizens to detain in order to get further deals on the counterpoint of some of the six billion could improve circumstances for civilians in Iran. You could also make the argument that the six billion will be an influx into this regime, which does so many things that we criticize. You could be supporting the Iranian regime

by releasing sanction free the six billion dollars. You could indirectly signal to Iran, hey, you did this. Now you get money. And then the economic boost from the six billion could actually be used to fund anti-American activities. Of course, all of these potential negatives are completely valid and worth considering. The problem is that Republicans Republicans reflexively say it's bad and it's basically bad because Biden did it. Had Trump or another Republican been able to get the exact same deal, they would be saying this is a good thing. We are now bringing five American citizens home who have been held unfairly by this authoritarian regime.

These right wingers aren't going to analyze or evaluate this in any serious way. There are pros to such a deal. There are potential cons to such a deal. There are potential cons to such a deal. Now the question will be what comes next when it comes to Iran, the potential broader reinstallation of an Iran deal and the bigger picture foreign policy implications. I'm open to hearing from you. Did this deal make sense or did it not? It can't be denied that while Republicans are looking at how can we impeach Biden, how can we install a dictator in 2024? Joe Biden is being the president and he is getting things

done. Our sponsor, Sane Smart, has everything you need for doing your own engravings and 3D printing at home from CNC machines, laser engraving machines, FDM 3D printers, resin 3D printers. SaneSmart really has you covered and they are ready to answer your questions. Truly unparalleled customer service. SaneSmart is super beginner friendly. Trust me, I don't know anything about this stuff. SaneSmart sent me their newest machine. It's their Genmisu 3030 Prover Max, which is a desktop CNC router. Basically, it carves different types of materials from metal to wood with extreme precision. This thing is awesome, super easy to set up and just jump right into engraving. The machine is

dependable. I love it. I used it to make these metal and wood engravings of our logo, which just look amazing. Getting into CNC engraving or laser engraving, 3D printing. This is an awesome hobby. The machines are small and can go in your garage or on a table somewhere. You can make really cool, unique gifts for friends and family. And it's just fun. That's the bottom line. You'll get 10 percent off almost all products when you go to David Pakman dot com slash engrave. Use code Pakman for 10 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Staying healthy and feeling generally good is all about habits that are sustainable,

finding what works for you, something you'll stick to, and it might be different for everybody. That's why I keep my routines really simple. Before I have my morning coffee, I'll have a scoop of AG one. AG one is just this tasty green nutritional supplement. You can mix it into water or other drinks or smoothies. You get 75 high quality vitamins and probiotics from whole food sources. It's just a scoop of AG one. You're covering everything you would need for the day. I just don't have time to be dealing with 10 different vitamin supplement bottles or combining all these

things. It's also really expensive to do that. It's just a single scoop of AG one in the one plus a free one year supply of vitamin D. I've talked about vitamin D many times. That's drink a G the number one slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Let's go back to the plan for Republicans to install a dictator in the Oval Office in January of twenty twenty five. Republicans have this plan regardless of who is their nominee. And if they win in twenty twenty four, Republicans want to install a dictator. This is what Project Twenty Twenty Five is. We've talked about it before. We will talk about it again.

But there are two particularly pernicious elements to this. Number one is that while Republicans may be a little more tight lipped about the desire to install a dictator, Donald Trump is being very forthcoming about it. Donald Trump is saying, I will be a dictator if you vote for me in November of twenty twenty four. But when Donald Trump does do it, when Donald Trump does say it, Republicans cheer. Let me refresh. Last week we talked about Chauncey DeVega's great article in Salon

called Trump plans to become a dictator. Denial will not save you. And the article talks both about Donald Trump's desires to become a dictator, as well as Project 2025 conceived by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank and supported by many other groups and organizations. And so there is a sort of two tiered approach here. There is an undergirding of sorts, a foundation of this dictatorial. Pipe dream of sorts that comes from the Republican establishment. But then you also have Donald Trump publicly saying things like the following, which he said in South Dakota over the weekend. We looked at this clip yesterday. I'll play it again here. Donald Trump said straight up saying, if I win, I will just call the attorney general and say, indict this person,

indict that person. Take a look. Take a look. Take a listen. Ninety one fake and phony charges. Ninety one. How many charges are there? But we're going to ask for dismissals of a lot of it. Most of it is just you ask for dismissal. It's called dismiss the charges. But remember, it's a it's a Democrat charging his opponent. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. That means that if I win and somebody wants to run against me, I call my attorney general. I say, listen, indict him. Well, he hasn't done anything wrong that we know of. I don't know. Indict him on income tax evasion.

You'll figure it out. And you know, the good thing with me is I have a big voice, and people know me, and you know me for a long time. But people know me, and I'm able to speak. But if you're a regular politician, a really good politician, an honest politician, and you get indicted, you get a subpoena and that gets reported in the paper and the news, you have to leave office. And the Republicans in the Senate and the Republicans in the House cannot let this go

on because people are being destroyed. There you go. So Donald Trump openly saying he is going to just say indict this person, indict that person. There's a very interesting CNN article from Stephen Collinson written yesterday called Trump is explaining exactly how wild and extreme his second term would be. I don't have to read the article to you, but suffice it to say it goes through in quite a bit of detail. Donald Trump's justification for the fact that he is going to become a one man wrecking

crew that some of us might call a wannabe dictator. And the justification is things are so bad. It's a dark time for the United States. It used to be great. It's no longer time for the United States. It used to be great. It's no longer great. You need me to make it great. And the way I'm going to do that includes by going after my political enemies and getting them indicted and arrested. So there are two layers here. And this is the takeaway. Once again, it is bigger than Trump's plan to become a dictator. It is Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, many Republicans who plan to install a dictator no matter which Republican nominee is ultimately the nominee.

And certainly if they win the election of Donald Trump was a triumph, reads the Heritage Foundation website, a triumph that offered the best chance to reverse the left's incessant march of progress. They are straight up saying it. The left has made progress. Donald Trump's presidency gave us a chance to reverse it. They are not going to waste this opportunity if they get Trump or whoever elected in November of twenty twenty four. This is one of the most disturbing political movements in American history, certainly in the last hundred years. And it's two parts.

It's MAGA, which has weaponized and debased the Republican Party. And it is now that, you know, one of the things we always said was if Trump were less incompetent, he could have achieved even more destructive things. The Heritage Foundation Project 2025 in concert with all of these other characters and this plan that they are putting in place around Trump or whoever, that is the reduction in incompetence that we've been afraid of. And by the way, you know, they'll they'll roll back women's rights further. The EPA, they want to get rid of rollback environmental restriction restrictions and regulations, whatever censor LGBT and people of color, their history, their existence.

As we know, if you don't say gay and book bands and all of these other things, it's such a long list. We can't even go through it right now. It really requires its own segment, which we will do once again. This is extremely dangerous. At least we know about it. If we want to find the silver lining here, it's at least if they were trying to do it in secret, which it's not in secret because there's a website about this project 2025. But if they were trying to do it subtly or only notify their followers about it, we know about it. We know about it and we know what the stakes are. Let's just hope people vote on 9-11. Donald Trump melts down over Joe Biden. We have context here. There has been criticism of Joe Biden over the last 48 hours, 72 hours. What did he and did he not do on 9-11 over the weekend?

It was what will he and what won't he do? Here's his schedule. His schedule is rude because it's 9-11, 22nd anniversary. And the problem, of course, for Republicans is not only what Joe Biden did do, but what Joe Biden didn't do. What Joe Biden actually did was go to a number of different events as part of a wide ranging trip and get a deal done to release five American citizens being held in Iran. OK, that's what Joe Biden did on 9-11 and also spoke about 9-11.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump melting down and behaving like a child going to truth, social, central, engaging caps lock and posting quote our cities are being destroyed by the invasion of illegal migrants pouring into our country. The USA has become a laughingstock for the world to see. We don't have a president. We have a clown. He's so obsessed with Joe Biden and Biden just keeps being president like him or hate him.

Biden isn't getting sucked into this nonsense. Trump continuing on Troth quote, Crooked Joe Biden is not too old. He is too incompetent. And then Trump continuing the once fabled United Auto Workers of America will soon go out of business under crooked Joe Biden if he is allowed to pull off all pull off his all electric car hoax. China will build the mall, endorse Trump. Likewise, truckers better get on board with, quote, Trump, because the new all electric trucking mandates will quickly destroy the trucking industry.

Vote Trump and make America great again. I have to go back to this. Electric vehicles are not a solve every problem panacea utopia. OK, they are not. We still have to deal with infrastructure, roads, public transit, so many different things on a per mile basis. Electric vehicles are significantly more efficient than gas and diesel powered internal combustion engines. Number two, with electric vehicles. Yes, there may be emissions in generating the electricity used to power them, but there doesn't have to be. We can get off of dirty sources of electricity. And even if you don't, you have the increased efficiency as well as the ability to centralize

the emissions rather than having the vehicles driving around pumping poison out of their exhaust pipes. And importantly, none of this is the death knell for any industry. We are improving charging technology. We are improving charging speed vehicles with a battery architecture that allows for faster charging, even more efficiency. All of these things are developing in five years, certainly in 10 years. We are going to look back at those who said, oh, this electric vehicle technology, it's never going to work. It's nonsense.

We will look at them and say, how could they have been so incorrect and shortsighted? Because it's so obvious the direction things are going. Cars now with nearly 500 mile ranges, electric vehicles charging in 15, 20 minutes. It's wild stuff. Trump is obsessed with it. Bigger picture. Joe Biden spends 9-11 being president. Trump spends 9-11 complaining about Joe Biden. We'll have all of these posts and troths and clips, of course, on Instagram, of course, on Facebook, of course, on Facebook, of course, on Tick Tock and naturally on our YouTube channel.

I hope you're subscribed. Be one of the first two million to subscribe on YouTube, YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman show. After the break, we're going to talk tool C. We're going to talk Marjorie Taylor Greene. Actually, Marjorie Trader Greene is increasingly an accurate nickname for her and so much more. One of our sponsors is Zipix nicotine toothpicks. Don't you think it's time you stopped putting smoke and vape oils in your lungs? Zipix toothpicks are a convenient way to curb the nicotine cravings. Zypex toothpicks are

super discreet. You can use them anytime, anywhere. Smoking and vaping aren't allowed, including flights, sporting events in restaurants. They're available in six different flavors with options of two and three milligrams of nicotine. If you're not a nicotine user, Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 infused toothpicks. Zipix has already helped tens of thousands of customers ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vapes. They might be able to help you, too. If you're a smoker or a vapor, give Zipix toothpicks a try. Your lungs will thank you. Go to Zipix toothpicks dot com today. Save 10 percent with the code Pacman 10 at checkout. Just remember, you must be 21 or older to order. That's ZIPPIX toothpicks dot com. Use promo code Pacman 10 at checkout for 10 percent off. That's Pacman one zero. The info is in the

podcast notes. Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard goes full nut job on the Joe Rogan experience. She is very clearly beyond salvage at this point in time. And quite frankly, it's sad. Let's let's focus on how it's sad when someone gets completely sucked into conspiracy nonsense. This is a bit of an episode from Joe Rogan episode 2032. The guests on this episode were Tulsi Gabbard and someone named BJ Penn. The topic is, of course, the indictments of the failed former president, twice impeached, four times indicted, civilly liable rapist Donald Trump. Here is Tulsi Gabbard weighing in on the indictments. Take a listen. Let's discuss.

I think they are doing. And by they, I mean, Dr. Evil. All of these charges against Trump is not an accident. The fact that they want to hold multiple court hearings for these charges. Speaker 1 They're called criminal trials to say Speaker 2 the day the day before Super Tuesday, which is a major turning point in any candidate's election. They want to kick off these court hearings the day before Super Tuesday. It's not an accident. This is all happening right now. All right. So what when she says the timing is not an accident, what exactly is she saying? Because a lot of times these people talk in euphemisms or at least indirectly, it's not an accident that this is the timing of these

indictments and court appearances and so on and so forth. What is she saying? Is she saying that there was a plan to indict Trump exactly at this moment in order to damage him as much as possible? Because if that's what she's saying, if we care about the facts and what we know, there are a number of important responses that we need to consider. The first should always be. Is there any evidence that what Tulsi Gabbard is saying is true? And the answer is there is no evidence that what she is saying is true. There is simply no evidence that there was any kind of coordinated and specific effort to make these charges, to bring forward these indictments

at this time, to schedule the trials on the dates that they've been scheduled. They've not all even been scheduled. There's just no evidence. Now, if we get some evidence, then we'll have something to talk about. But the first thing is, if we care about evidence, there's none. The second part of it is OK. So an argument is being made about the timing Tulsi Gabbard is making it. Trump has said, oh, why? Why wasn't it sooner or why wasn't it later or whatever the case may be? The question we should first ask is, well, these are complicated criminal investigations of high level people.

How long do such investigations normally take? How long is typical from the time an investigation starts until you get to an indictment and then to a trial. There is no one answer, but it is very common that there's a range from the investigation takes nine to 10 months all the way up to a couple of years, two to three years. It can sometimes take. We are well within that. Now you could say that's a big range, David.

They could have waited or they might have been able to do it sooner. We have no evidence of that. And the amount of time that these investigations went before the indictments is completely typical, the range being nine to 10 months, all the way up to a couple of years. Third, the argument is this was all deliberately timed in order to be as damaging as possible to Donald Trump. I don't believe this is the debt, the timing that is the most damaging to Donald Trump. So by virtue of that, it's also not supported by the circumstances.

We're in a primary right now and quite early in one. Right now, most people who are paying attention are highly engaged, reliable primary voters. A lot of the electorate is not paying any attention. Much of the electorate doesn't pay attention until after the primaries. And for those who do vote in the primary, they typically start paying attention in November, December, January, etc. The indictments right now arguably have helped Trump. Trump's polling has improved since the indictments came forward. If you were

really trying to time this to hurt Trump, you would do it all after he's the nominee. Get Republicans to select this guy, then dump four criminal trials on him. That'll pull him off of the general campaign trail. Even the trial being in March before Trump will be the nominee, if indeed he becomes the nominee, is not that damaging to Donald Trump. So none of this makes sense because there's no evidence and because it also circumstantially wouldn't be the best way to damage Trump. But it doesn't matter in Tulsi Gabbard's world. Let's continue.

Listen to a little more. It's banana republic stuff. It really is. And that's what they're doing is, again, these terrible things that are happening in our country are happening because we have people in power who care more about themselves and their power than they do about the people, this country, our constitution, our democracy. They are setting this incredibly dangerous precedent that now, much like many banana republics in the world, whoever's in power has the ability to politicize and weaponize that power to go after their political opponent.

Again, the suggestion from Tulsi is the Biden administration is going after Trump because Trump is Biden's likely political opponent. There is no evidence of that. And much as they want to say we are a banana republic because Trump has been indicted and now everybody's just going to indict whoever. No, no, no, no, no. You have to really understand that Trump was indicted because four different investigations found evidence that he committed crimes such that a grand jury said, yeah, it looks like there's evidence here.

So we're going to go ahead and indict. Biden had nothing to do with it that we know of at this point in time. If Tulsi has any evidence, Biden was involved. Bring it forward. The idea that now everybody will just indict their political enemy would only become true if in retaliation, Trump figures out a way if he becomes president to get Joe Biden indicted. But that would again be Trump doing the wrong thing. As far as when you when you indict former leaders, it's objectively bad.

That's not true. If there's evidence that they did something wrong, they want you to believe that it is a bad thing, that we might be able to hold a former president accountable. It's actually a good thing to know that nobody is above the law. And that's potentially what we're learning here. We'll listen to a little bit more of this, but it's pretty nauseating, as you can see. That's that's that's the real take away whatever people think about Trump or whatever the consequences and implications of what what is actually happening and what so many of the Democrat elite are

justifying in the name of protecting democracy is actually destroying it. And when you look at the charges, like when he gets indicted, where the day before there's a scandal, it's there's a chart of the revelations about Biden. Yeah. And then day after Trump gets reigned. This is another element to this, which is there are pseudo scandals about Trump and about Joe and Hunter Biden coming out of the right every single day, no matter what day Trump gets indicted over the last several months, almost certainly if it's a

weekday, there's some alleged revelation about Joe or Hunter Biden. This is retroactively adjusting the timing to fit a narrative you've decided is true. So this is vile and disgusting stuff. Tulsi is fully fallen for it or it's a grift or I don't know what's going on, but it does appear sadly it and it is sad. It appears that Tulsi Gabbard is beyond salvage. Let's now move from Tulsi to Marjorie Taylor Greene. There are calls for charges against Marjorie Taylor Greene for sedition or even treason because she is saying states should consider seceding from the United States if they don't get their way from the federal government.

This is wild, wild stuff. Marjorie Taylor Green posted to Twitter now known as X. So she didn't tweet. We can say she excreted on X. She posted an excretion saying, quote, if the Biden administration refuses to stop the invasion of cartel led human and drug trafficking into our country, states should consider seceding from the union from Texas to New York City to every town in America. We are drowning from Biden's traitorous America last border policies. Listen, I would love for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Leave the country. Go to your own new country. Impeach Biden in that country. That would be a great way to get her off of our hands because she's really just exhausting with this

Biden impeachment stuff. But let's actually think about what she's saying here. There is the question whether calling for secession as an elected member of the federal government amounts to treason or sedition or any other criminal offense. The answer is not simple. I'm not going to come here and start yelling. That's treason the way some did in my email inbox this morning. This is a complicated legal and constitutional matter. If if I were, you know, one of those who brought you the insurrection and who insists that the guy who lost actually won and should be president, I'd be careful about calling for secession. But the truth is that there is a difference between advocacy and action, even as an elected official of the federal government,

Marjorie Taylor Greene advocating for secession or saying it might be a good idea in this case. It's almost certainly protected by the First Amendment. And we know that there are limits to what you're allowed to say, depending on the position that you're in and so on and so forth. But just saying, hey, it might be a good thing for states to secede if they don't do if they don't get their way on this. That almost certainly is not criminal. Now, if Marjorie Taylor Greene was actively working towards the overthrow of the government, taking tangible steps to cause harm by encouraging states to actually attempt to secede, then there might be

something there. There's this curse case, Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's a Supreme Court case. And the idea of it is setting a standard when speech could be prohibited. And the court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I don't know that you could successfully argue that Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeting they should consider secession meets that standard. It just doesn't seem like it does. Now, that all being said, states don't have a right, a legal right to unilaterally secede

from the union. That doesn't mean advocating for secession is a criminal act. But we have talked about over time, states don't have this unilateral right to secede. So bottom line, I don't think this is treason. I don't think this is sedition. She's just saying it might be a good idea in certain circumstances. That all being said, though. A country made up of red states would not be economically viable. I've talked about this before. It would be a dead on arrival country economically. As many of you know, red states on average receive more federal funding than they contribute in taxes. So if all

of a sudden the red states leave, right, they take their toys and go home and make their own country. They are instantly economically upside down if they separate from the United States. Who do you trade with? Countries around the world have trade deals with the United States of America. If a bunch of red states leave, all of a sudden they have no trade agreements with the rest of the world. They have to rebuild those. How long does that take? How economically destructive is it for the period of time that they don't have those agreements? What currency do they use if they make their own country and they continue using the US dollar? Their monetary policy is still effectively determined by what becomes a foreign entity, the Federal Reserve. If they make their own country and create their own currency,

that has a whole series of challenges, own country and create their own currency, that as a whole series of challenges, including lack of trust in the currency, instability, etc., economic diversity. A lot of the states that lean red politically have single industry states where a state is almost entirely reliant on one major industry. Could be energy, could be agriculture. The lack of diversified economy will be a problem for this red state country and also lack of economic cloud and migration and brain drain. You know, if you live in Texas and you teach at, I don't know, some

school in Texas and you learn that Texas is leaving the United States, do you stay or do you move to a state that will remain in the United States? So the brain drain aspect of it would also be significant. It doesn't make any sense. But that being said, I don't believe that what Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying is actually criminal. It's disgusting. It's short sighted. It's stupid. It's likely unethical. But I do not believe that it is a crime. If you disagree with me, let me know. Stop letting government and streaming sites control what you can and can't access online. The solution is using a VPN.

Our sponsor, Private Internet Access, is the only VPN that's proven multiple times in court that they are not logging your Internet activity. Something else that makes private Internet access unique is usability. It is lightning fast for streaming and for downloads. You won't have the lags you get with many other VPNs. Private Internet access also works with all major movie and TV streaming platforms. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon. You can change your country to access content not normally available in your country. Super useful for certain sporting events.

Awesome BBC content only available to people in the UK. Private Internet access lets you use IP addresses from 84 different countries and all 50 US states. You can use private Internet access on unlimited devices with just a single account. They also have a 30 day money back guarantee and they're giving you 83 percent off with my discount. You can subscribe for two or three a month and get four extra months for free. Go to PIA VPN dot com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. The failed former President Donald Trump, twice impeached, four times indicted, civilly

liable rapist. That's the guy I'm talking about is entering the next stage of grief as he realizes not only will at least one of his criminal trials be soon. Not only could that land him in prison for the rest of his life, but the entire humiliation is going to be televised globally for all to see. You know, the five stages of grief was originally a concept from Elizabeth Kubler Ross. I remember learning about it in junior year of high school psychology class. It comes from her book on death and dying and the five stages. Dabda was the mnemonic device, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. And originally it was about the emotional journey after the death of someone else or dealing with one's own mortality. But you can apply these

stages more broadly to traumatic events, significant events in people's lives. And with Donald Trump, we initially saw him enter the stage of denial. Trump saying the charges are baseless and they're untrue. They're politically motivated. It's a witch hunt, questioning the validity of the evidence, challenging the motives of those who are bringing forward the indictments. We saw that that took place. We then saw anger. Trump regularly using truth, social and other platforms to talk about how insanely furious he is at all of it. They're coming after you when they come after me and we're going to go after the prosecutor and channeling anger to those who he sees as responsible. Joe Biden, investigators, political rivals, the media, witch hunt, hoax, et cetera, et cetera. And

then we are now sort of getting into the bargaining stage. The bargaining stage with Trump is going to be is there some middle ground? Is there someone else who also deserves to be indicted or maybe impeached? Or is there someone Trump might be able to throw under the bus in order to help himself in some way? And that's where we are right now. And Donald Trump's starting the bargaining phase. Trump posting to his platform, Truth Social Central, quote, in a phony and probably rigged Wall Street Journal poll coming out of nowhere to softened the mental incompetence blow. That is so obvious with crooked Joe Biden. They ask about my age and mentality. Where did that come from? A few years ago, I was the only one to agree to a mental

acuity test and aced it. Now that the globalists at Fox and The Wall Street Journal have failed to push their third tier candidate to success, they do this. Well, I hereby challenge Rupert Murdoch and sons Biden Wall Street Journal heads to acuity tests. What sort of weird bargaining is this? Trump is in some way. This is my reading trying to supplant or replace the criminal process with acuity tests. Don't make me face these charges in court, but I will take an acuity test against anyone who is criticizing me. Trump continuing on truth, quote, I will name the place and the test and it will be a tough one. Nobody will even come close to me. We can also throw some physical activity into it. I just won the senior club championship

at a big golf club with many very good players. To do so, you need strength, accuracy, touch, and above all, mental toughness. Ask Brett Baier, a very good golfer. The Wall Street Journal and Fox are damaged goods after their failed, disanxionated, demonious push and stupid seven hundred and eighty million dollar settlement. Morons. All right. So listen, maybe this isn't exactly bargaining. This might actually be the depression stage of the five stages of grief. Or this might actually be the acceptance stage where Trump has accepted his fate criminally and is instead focusing on golf challenges and mental acuity tests. Listen, I don't actually know what stage Trump is at.

Trump may be going through the stages in some kind of weird or altered order. But what is abundantly clear from Trump insiders is the following. Over the last two weeks, Donald Trump has realized this is extraordinarily serious. I genuinely might spend the rest of my life in prison. Reports that he is considering throwing his kids under the bus if he can save himself when it comes to the business fraud lawsuit reports that he is thinking, who can I throw under the bus in these criminal trials to reduce or even eliminate my possible punishment? It's not clear exactly where Trump is in the five stages of grief, but he is not doing

well and there is a new development in the Mar-a-Lago documents case that is not good for the failed former president. Let's talk about that next. We have a new revelation that suggests Trump is likely doomed in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. This is just one of four criminal trials that the failed former president is now facing. Yet again, one of the major claims that Trump has made has been contradicted by witnesses. There is a Newsweek article which explains Donald Trump is facing legal peril amid reports that one of his lawyers gave him several months warning that the FBI could arrive at his Mar-a-Lago resort to retrieve classified documents they sought, according to a legal expert, legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance

was reacting to voice notes from Trump attorney Evan Corcoran obtained by ABC News, which suggests the former president was told in May of 2022 that federal agents would search his Florida estate for sensitive materials if he did not comply with the federal subpoena to return them. The conversations cast major doubts on Trump's original claims that he was not prepared for the FBI search, which ultimately took place at Mar-a-Lago in August of 2022, which Trump described on Truth Social as, quote, a horrible and shocking break in. This is very serious stuff. And here is the reason why. One of the arguments Trump has made that is part of his legal defense, that he was not really given time to return the documents, that they set him up to show up and raid Mar-a-Lago and didn't give him an opportunity to head

this off. One of Trump's major claims was they just showed up. They didn't tell my attorneys that they were going to do this. They didn't tell me. They didn't ask me for the documents. They didn't give me time to return the documents. It just they showed up. I had no idea this was happening.

That argument goes to the toilet, like many of Trump's legal arguments, and gets flushed maybe 10 to 15 times. Of course, he knew they were coming. Everyone knew they were coming. How did he not know? But we now have contemporaneous voice notes that say we went to Trump months earlier. We went to Trump and we said the feds are telling us if you don't return this stuff, they are going to show up here looking for the documents. So Trump knew that this was a risk that he was facing. And what did he do? He ordered staffers based on witness testimony to move the documents. He ordered lawyers to sign. We've given you everything back,

even though Trump knew that they had not given everything back. That's what he did. Trump has been pretending not to know. But we now have contemporaneous proof that he knew this is what was coming now. Critically, in addition to this, Trump knew the search was likely when he asked for the documents to be moved, when he asked for the boxes to be moved and ultimately turned over fewer boxes than what he knew he had. This is another problem when it comes to Trump attempting

to argue in court that he had absolutely no ill intent when he was ordering people to do this stuff. All of those arguments disappear. The question now becomes why haven't Trump's other properties been searched? And one interesting answer is we don't know that they haven't been searched. What I mean by that is the following. We originally learned from Trump that Mar-a-Lago was searched. So is it possible legal experts are now asking that other properties were also searched, but Trump simply hasn't gone public about it? The answer is, yes, it's possible. But knowing Trump and the big mouth that he has, is it likely he would stay quiet about

an additional search at Bedminster or elsewhere? I think the answer is probably not. So this is yet another devastating hole poked in one of the likely legal defenses that Trump plans to make. It is not looking good. We have a voicemail number. You can call any time if you have something you'd like to say. The number is 2 1 9 2 David P. The voicemail today is not praise. It is criticism, but it is a type of criticism I really could not care less about. Take a listen to this. Yeah.

Hi, David. I'm just calling to say that I just seen a couple of your videos on YouTube. I think they're terrifically lies. It's just a bunch of lies, man. It's pretty sickening. It's devilish. It's satanic. And, you know, maybe you should stick up for the people like the founding fathers did,

stick up for the people like, you know, the Revolutionary War back in the day. Yeah. You know, Great Britain tried to succumb us into nothing, into like we were nothing. Right. So I don't see where we try to act like someone sticking up for the people of the United States is is wrongdoing. I mean, when you got Democratic Party. You know, just crushing this country is a sickening. The founding fathers are sick and I can guarantee that.

Well, it is very difficult to argue with that, mostly because I don't understand it. But I did hear that I am sickening, devilish and satanic in there. And hard to argue, hard to argue with that when you don't know what it's all about. All right. We will discuss on the bonus show today 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. Right. There is a Georgia grand jury now recommending criminal charges against three U.S. senators. Who are they? What are the charges? Incredible story. What's happening in Georgia? California is moving to decriminalize the use

of so-called magic mushrooms and other natural psychedelics. Is this the start of a broader trend? And there is outrage over the New Mexico governor's temporary gun ban. There is a sheriff who says I straight up won't enforce it. Where is the law on that? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. If you aren't getting the bonus show, you are not getting the full David Pakman show experience. We publish one free bonus show a week to YouTube. But to get the daily bonus show, there's only one place and it is join Pacman dot com.

You can use the coupon code four years for indictments, all one word to get instant access at 50 percent off. Sign up. We'll see you tomorrow.