The David Pakman Show - 9/18/23: Trump brain breaks in new interview, Russell Brand brutally accused

Episode Date: September 18, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace is again asked for evidence supporting Joe Biden's impeachment inquiry, and is able to provide none, and then Congressman Michael McCaul also faceplants on the same question -- Russell Brand is accused of sexual assault of a minor, in addition to a number of other sex crimes by multiple victims, and his denial is not exactly a profile in courage -- Failed former President Donald Trump is interviewed by Kristen Welker, and it goes so poorly that there is speculation of Trump setting up an insanity defense for his criminal trials -- Failed former President Donald Trump appears mentally gone at a speech in Washington DC before the Concerned Women for America 2023 Summit -- Self-proclaimed pro-family Christian Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is caught publicly fondling the genitals of her date at a performance of Beetlejuice -- Donald Trump issues an ominous warning to Jewish Americans sparks horror and outrage -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is asked why people find him annoying, and he says it's because he is doing well -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy comes out against H-1B visas, which his companies used 29 times, and attacks George Soros-funded scholarships, which he accepted when he was in college -- Voicemail caller asks David who he trusts more, Dr. Anthony Fauci or David's personal doctor -- On the Bonus Show: California lawsuit says oil giants downplayed climate change, Texas Senate acquits AG Ken Paxton in impeachment trial, Bill Maher says show will return despite writers' strike, 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 🌎 Bank with Atmos to fight climate change! Open an account at https://joinatmos.com/pakman 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 We start today with the impeachment of President Joe Biden, which, of course, is not happening for right now. Republicans are launching an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. Congresswoman Nancy Mace went on CNN last week, was asked for evidence and said, we don't have it. That's why we're doing the inquiry to look for the evidence. This made no sense. She was roundly humiliated. Hundreds of thousands of you watched our clip on the matter and widely thought this is a very strange way to pursue the truth by saying we don't have evidence, but let's investigate someone and see what we find. Well, Nancy Mace apparently

has not gotten any better talking points over the weekend because she went back on TV yesterday, was interviewed on ABC, and she still has no evidence nor any semblance of evidence. Let's take a look at what she had to say. This is difficult to watch. Let me also ask you before you go, the impeachment inquiry that McCarthy announced, even though he had said he wouldn't do it without a vote. And then a few days later, he does it without a vote. I want to read you something that Ken Buck, one of your Republican colleagues,

had to say in a Washington Post op-ed of the impeachment inquiry. He said, Impeachment is a serious matter and should have a foundation of rock-solid facts. Trump's impeachment in 2019 was a disgrace to the Constitution and is a disservice to Americans.

The GOP's reprise in 2023 is no better. He says these allegations against the Biden family are part of an imagined history and a fictitious version of events. Was this premature going all the way with an impeachment inquiry? I don't believe so. The facts are everywhere. There are text messages. There are emails. There are witnesses. There are whistleblowers. There are meetings. There are phone calls. There are dinners. And you can't say, hey, there's a little bit of smoke. We're not going to follow the fire. And the inquiry, my understanding is, as you said earlier, gives us expanded subpoena powers. I want the bank records of Joe Biden. All of that should be on the table to prove out the allegations in the SARS reports. We're talking about a significant sum of money. We are talking about bribery. And in the Constitution, Article two, Section four, I mean, there's no basis. There's no evidence of bribery. There are witnesses.

The 1023 form. There are you know, and you've been investigating. You're on the oath. You know. It would take us an hour to go through all of the lies. You know, there are witnesses in the 1023 form, which witnesses they can't find or who, upon being found, said, I actually never spoke to Joe Biden. The bottom line is the analogy she's using is there are all of these examples of smoke.

And so at some point you've got to wonder, is there smoke because there's fire? Except imagine that it's not really smoke. It's water vapor. And you go, oh, water vapor actually isn't indicative of fire. It's water vapor. That's what's going on here. Now, I promise to you and I have made this promise before and I will make it again proudly and strongly if they find evidence against Joe Biden, either through the fishing expedition, even if it's through the fishing expedition or outside of it, I will tell you Hunter Biden is now being prosecuted again. Good go. If there's evidence, go and prosecute the guy. I'm not looking to stand in the way of justice, but the evidence so far is missing. And there is no reason

to believe that what Republicans doing, what Republicans are doing now is justice. And there is no reason to believe that what Republicans doing, what Republicans are doing now is justice. It appears that what they are trying to do now is revenge. Here's another guy, by the way. This is Congressman Bonus, Congressman Michael McCaul. He also went on TV and he also says we don't have evidence, but maybe we'll find it. I don't know. We might come across. That's right. Well, first of all, I've been tasked by the speaker to assist the oversight and government reform with respect to foreign policy decisions the president may have made or vice president at that time with respect to money coming in to try to tie the two. We don't have the evidence now, but we may find it later. Yeah, we're trying to tie random phone calls to bribery. We are trying to tie text messages

between a father and his son to illegal influence peddling. We are trying. We don't have the evidence right now. We don't have it, but it's possible that we will get it. And I hope I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I hope that if they don't find the evidence, they won't make it up out of thin air because that would really be inappropriate. But it is not beyond modern MAGA Trump ism. So that's where we are right now. It's sort of like the search. The search for Nicole Brown Simpson's real killer continues to go on. The search for the evidence against Joe Biden will continue. But, you know, if they don't actually find it, maybe it's something that they could concoct some other way. I hope that they don't stoop to that. We know they're capable

of it. We know they're willing to do it. But let's let's wait and see before we get to that. Everyone is, of course, presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that applies to Russell Brand, now accused of rape, sexual assault of a minor, multiple alleged victims. But I have to tell you, I'm going to give you my opinion because this is not a court of law. This is just a podcast. It's me sitting in a room with some acoustic foam panels, a microphone and a couple of very low end lights. I we operate in the court of public opinion here. And Russell Brand's defenses against these explosive allegations are not feeling particularly strong. So let's go back to the beginning. Let me tell you what's going on. Dozens of you, literally dozens, if you can imagine writing to me about this story over the weekend, the Guardian reports,

Russell Brand accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse claims related to a seven year period or detailed in The Times and Channel 4 investigation after the actor had already denied allegations. These allegations relate to the time period 2006 to 2013. Five alleged victims for anonymous were interviewed in the dispatches documentary aired Saturday night. The Times titles said that they contacted the media personalities, representatives with details of the allegations, as well as information to help them recall the incidents in question in advance of its planned publication, giving them eight days to respond. Brand's lawyers initially claimed they were to be unable to do so because of the large litany of questions and the decision to agree to the women's requests to anonymize them.

According to the paper's report, one of the women said Brand entered into a relationship with her while she while he was 31 and she was a 16 year old school girl. She reportedly said he referred to her as the child during an alleged emotionally abusive and controlling three months relationship. She told dispatches the presenter once forced his penis down her throat, making her choke, which led her to punch him in the stomach to make him stop. This is very serious stuff. Another woman alleged brand raped her in 2012 in his Los Angeles home, adding she received treatment at a rape crisis center the same day. So listen,

the allegations are endless. We don't need every lurid and prurient detail here. Suffice it to say, multiple alleged victims, very specific allegations. OK, so where do we go next? These are allegations and allegations alone are not guilt. We all know that in the American justice system, you are presumed innocent until you have been found guilty. However, I also give my opinion about things and it's just not the biggest shock to me when I hear this. I don't go, no, it cannot be. It cannot possibly be Russell Brand. And two things I find particularly odd are the strange cuts during a video where he denies everything and also his suggestion that they are worried about him and need to take him down a peg. Those allegations also don't make a

lot of sense. So let's dig into it. And every single one of you can form whatever opinion you want. Remember, you're going to write to me saying, David, you're denying him due process. He's not even been charged with a crime. This is all in the court of public opinion. So let's simmer down emails saying, David, you're denying him due process will be flushed 10 to 15 times. Don't even bother. OK, we're all just giving our opinions. Here is the denial video from Russell Brand.

Hello there, you awakening wonders. Now, this isn't the usual type of video we make on this channel where we critique, attack and undermine the news in all its corruption, because in this story, I am the news. I've received two extremely disturbing letters, or a letter and an email, one from a mainstream media TV company, one from a newspaper, listing a litany of extremely egregious and aggressive attacks, as well as some pretty stupid stuff, like my community festival should be stopped, that I shouldn't be able to attack mainstream media narratives on this channel. But amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations

that I absolutely refute. These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies. And as I've written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous. Now, during that time of promiscuity, the relationships I had were absolutely always consensual. I was OK. Now there was a cut there. If you are listening and not watching, you might not realize that between always and consensual, there is a cut. That's a really weird place to cut and stitch together videos. We'll get back to that. OK, transparent about that then almost too transparent. And I'm being transparent about it now as well. And to see that transparency metastasized into something criminal that I absolutely

deny makes me question, is there another agenda at play, particularly when we've seen coordinated media attacks before, like with joe rogan when he dared to take a medicine that the mainstream media didn't approve of and we saw a spate of headlines from media outlets across the world using the same language i'm aware that you guys have been saying in the comments for a while watch out russell they're coming for you you're getting too close to the truth russell brand did not kill himself i know that a year ago there was a spate of articles russell brand's a conspiracy theorist rus Russell Brand's right wing. I'm aware of news media making phone calls, sending letters to people I know for ages and ages. It's been clear to me, or at least it

feels to me like there's a serious and concerted agenda to control these kind of spaces and these kind of voices. And I mean, all right. So listen, there are two things here that just don't make sense to me. Two things that don't make sense. First of all, why is there a cut between always and consensual? The audio is totally fluid, but the video is not. Personally, I would have redone the shot rather than have quite literally a jump cut between every relationship I've been in has they all of the relationships have been always consensual. It's a really weird place to cut it. Let me play that for you again. Relationships I had were absolutely always consensual.

OK. And you can see the trees in the background are waving in a different way. It's a very strange cut. So that to me is not just number one. It's a weird thing. It's not proof of anything. And remember, he hasn't been charged with any crimes. But then there's this other thing where they want to silence me. It's just they don't. I'm having too much of an influence. It doesn't make sense. Russell Brand's channel is notably smaller than mine. But by in terms of views like he gets 35 percent fewer views than I get.

Would any of you find it credible if five people accused me of sexual assault, rape? And I said to you, you know what? They're coming after me because I'm getting too influential. My political opponents want to silence me. I have too big of an audience. If I said that, you would rightly say, David, no, you don't. And his audience is 35 percent smaller. So it's all very strange. Now, Tucker Carlson says that all of these women are accusing Russell Brand because he's anti-vax and he doesn't support Ukraine, which is a certainly equally strange thing to say. Tucker tweeting, criticize the drug company, drug companies, question the war in Ukraine, and you can be pretty sure this is going to happen. Same

idea. He's just saying all the things you're not allowed to say. Alex Jones says he's become friends with Russell Brand over the years, and he says women throw themselves at him. Why on earth would he have to sexually assault anybody? I know Russell Brand personally. I knew him back when he was married to Katy Perry. He's women throw themselves at him? Why on earth would he have to sexually assault anybody? I know Russell Brand personally. I knew him back when he was married to Katy Perry. He's come on the show a few times. We've hung out some in Austin. I've never seen women throw themselves at anybody like with him. And I mean, I've seen the old footage of Elvis with women pulling their panties off, throwing them. Right. It's like that. OK. At restaurants, at one of his events I went to, it was literally women jumping at us. And he's a big guy in person.

Big, strong guy, burly man. No one ever accused him for the last 15 years of assault. He's a big sweetheart. And now because he comes out against big pharma, there is not against the globalist. He comes out. There you go. He's against the globalist. He comes out. He's against the globalist, globalist, internationalist, Trotskyite social. OK, you know, this is one that's been tried before and it's very shaky. Why would any famous man ever need to sexually assault anyone when there are so many women throwing themselves at them? OK, well, that that we actually have an answer because some of those men have explained, oh, it actually gets boring having women throwing themselves at you.

So you need a rush in a different way. So then you may go over the line into sexual assault or whatever. It's a very weak defense. And then Elon Musk, lastly, I guess guess suggesting that whoever accused Russell Brand must be doing it because they are actually the rapists and sexual assaulters and they want to monopolize rape. Elon Musk tweeting, of course, they don't like competition. Really weird stuff. So everybody judge for themselves. None of this is evidence of criminal guilt. None of this should be used to deny Russell brand due process if indeed he is charged. But some really strange defenses, very strange jump cuts in the denial video. Our sponsor, SaneSmart, 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. Speaker 1 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

and use the code Pacman. That's David Pakman dot com slash engrave. Use code Pacman for 10 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. The failed former President Donald Trump seemingly setting up an insanity defense for his forthcoming criminal trials admits to crimes in one of the worst interviews I have ever seen him give. It has been years since Donald Trump gave an interview even remotely this insane. The interview was conducted by NBC's Kristen Welker. Not a particularly great job by Welker, but that's sort of a side story.

Let's start here. Welker asking Trump when you go to bed at night, there is a nightmarish thought for all of you. When Trump tucks himself in in his jammies at night with his phone to send out troth's, does he worry about going to jail? And Trump says, no, I don't. Let me ask you this, Mr. President. They indicted their political opponent. I just want to hear from you. I did everything right and they indicted me. On this, I want to know what's in your head when you go to.

Mayonnaise, that's what. At night. when you go to mayonnaise. That's why at night, do you worry about going to jail? No, I don't really. I don't even think about it. I'm built a little differently I guess because I have had people come up to me and say, how do you do it, sir? How do you do it? But were they crying when they asked you is the question. I don't even think about it. Let me ask. There you go. It doesn't even cross his mind. The whole jail thing, an incredible moment, but not nearly as incredible as the moment where Trump admitted the entire plot to steal the election was his decision. Kristen Welker asks, lawyers told you this, that the other thing.

Ultimately, he says it was his decision. He confesses and takes full responsibility. This may indeed be quite the exhibit at Trump's forthcoming criminal trial. Most senior lawyers in your own administration and on your campaign told you that after you'd lost more than 60 legal challenges, that it was over. Why did you ignore them and decide to listen to a new outside group? Because I didn't respect them. You'd hired them. Sure, but that doesn't mean, you know, you hire them, you never met these people, you get a recommendation, they turn out to be rhinos,

or they turn out to be not so good. In many cases, I didn't respect them. But I did respect others. I respected many others that said the election was rigged. You called some of your outside lawyers. You said they had crazy theories. Why were you listening to them? Were you listening to them because they were telling you what you wanted to hear? You know who I listen to myself. I saw what happened. So this is Trump's ego getting him in trouble.

He has to start talking about how he's the decider. He's in charge. He knows everything. But it gets him into big trouble. I watched that election and I thought the election was over at 10 o'clock in the evening. You were listening to your instincts. My instincts are a big part of it. That's the thing that's gotten me to where I am, my instincts.

But I also listen to people. There are many lawyers. I could give you many books. There are books, books he's not read, but are written on how the election was rigged. There are numerous books that were written on how the election was rigged. Just to be clear, were you listening to your lawyer's advice or were you listening to your own instincts? I was listening to different people and when I added it all up, the election was rigged.

There are books that are written. Were you calling them shots though? In fact, Molly Hemingway wrote a great book. Were you calling them shots ultimately? Excuse me, Molly Hemingway, who's highly respected and you calling the shots? Ultimately, Molly Hemingway, highly respected and great. She wrote a book, a best selling book called Rigged. Were you calling the shots, though, Mr. President, ultimately, as to whether or not I believed it was rigged or sure.

It was my decision. But I listened to some people. Some people said that like guys like Bill Barr, he was a stiff, but he was. It was my decision. It was my decision. Ultimately, Trump is to blame for every piece of that plan that went down. Shockingly, in a subversion of the rule of law and due process, Trump says he would consider pardoning Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boy leader convicted and sentenced to more than 20 years. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in jail.

Now that you know what the sentence is, 22 years in jail. Will you give him a pardon? Will you give other proud boys? I don't know him. I never met him. I never heard of him until I started reading this. You pardon him. But I want to tell you, he and other people have been treated horribly.

Will you pardon him in Minneapolis? I'd certainly look at it. I'd look at that and I'd look at all the other people that have suffered. There you go. So Trump would consider pardoning an individual who has been clearly adjudicated fairly by the justice system just because I don't know, I guess he was a Trump supporter. Here is Trump.

And this is a truly stunning moment. Trump lying about everything regarding what happened on January 6th, 2021. See if you can find even a kernel of truth here. No. Who you by the way, on that day, Nancy Pelosi. I don't know. Why would I tell you that? Listen, now I want to talk about that was in charge of security.

Nancy Pelosi was not in charge of security. She turned down 10,000 soldiers. She did not turn down 10,000 soldiers. If she didn't turn down the soldiers, you wouldn't have had January 6th. Did you call military or law enforcement? What did you call military or law enforcement? What? Did you call military or law enforcement at the moment the Capitol was under attack? I'm not gonna tell you anything.

I'm not telling you. Let me put it this way. I behaved so well. I did such a good job. Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 soldiers. Lied. If she didn't do that. And now I understand- Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the authority

that you have as commander in chief though. I understand that the police testified against. Listen authority that you have as commander in chief though. Listen to me, Kristen, listen to me. I understand that the police testified against her, the chief very strongly against her, Capitol police are great people. They testified against her and they burned all the evidence, okay? They burned all the evidence. That I don't even know what he's talking about, burned it.

Burned all the evidence about Nancy Pelosi. What do you say to people who wonder why you you as commander in chief, you have authorities that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have as long as she has authority. Oh, I didn't you send help in that moment, though? Frankly, just so you understand, I assume that she took care of it. This is such an obvious lie because Trump was watching the entire thing on TV and people were coming to him saying, sir, with tears in their eyes, you really should deploy this, that the other thing. It would have been natural to say, oh, but didn't Nancy already do it? And

someone would go, no, she didn't. You should do it. She turned down when you realized that the National Guard wasn't coming. Well, you didn't you don't realize anything until quite a while. National Guard not coming. I guess I asked it to be there three days in advance. And again, Trump asked for security for himself on that day. And that's been a lie that's been often repeated. This is an insane interview. And then the topic of abortion came up. If you thought it was already insane, Trump brings up post birth abortions, which don't exist and quite literally are not a thing. Democrats don't want to be radical on the issue. Most of them, some do. They don't want to be radical on the issue. They don't want to kill a baby in the seventh month or the ninth month or after birth. And they're allowed to do that. And you can't do that. Speaker 1 one important fact check. We do want to highlight abortions later in pregnancy are exceedingly rare.

Speaker 2 Yeah. It also might have been good to mention, Kristen, that a post birth abortion literally does not exist. It's not a thing. It's just ridiculous. And it's a talking point. They are repeating the truth about abortion is almost 60 percent of abortions are before week seven. Another 31 percent are between weeks eight and 13. So you've got 60 plus 31 is 91. 91 percent of abortions are before week 13. Another 8.8 percent are between weeks 14 and 21, all still before viability. So we are now at 99.8% before viability. That's the truth. Now, what about the other 0.2% that

happened after 21 weeks? Those are still heavily skewed to weeks 21, 22, 23 and 24. So the post birth and even the late term abortion stuff, we're talking about one something that doesn't exist after birth. It's not an abortion. And when it comes to third trimester, completely extenuating tragic circumstances that almost never happened. But it doesn't matter. Trump will just make it up.

And Kristen Welker saying that late term is rare. What about after birth, which does not exist? Lastly, here's a bizarre word salad from Trump to round this entire thing out. Something about Biden flying airplanes. Why are they doing it? But here's what they did. They saw this happening and he went to the attorney general of the United States and he told them indict Trump.

There's just no evidence of. Oh, what do you mean? Let's let's say indict Trump. There's just no evidence of that, Mr. President. Let's stay on track. Look at all the lies he's told. Mr. President, I want to talk about you. Wait, wait. Could I say one thing? Look at all the lies he's told over the last couple of weeks.

He said he was at the World Trade Center, and he wasn't. He said he flew airplanes, right? He didn't. He said he drove trucks, and he didn't. Everything he says is like a lie. It's terrible. Mr. President, I want to stay focused. Even his handicapped and rough. He said he's a six he didn't. Everything he says is like a lie. It's terrible. Mr. President, even his handicap. I want to say he's a six.

He's not a six. I want to stay focused on you. Right. For the purposes of this interview. Well, but Trump wants to talk about Joe Biden whacked out interview. And if you're shocked by this, just wait until you see Donald Trump's weekend speeches. Donald Trump appeared mentally gone at multiple speeches this weekend. So bad that new concerns about Trump's brain health are surging. There are two different events here. One is Trump speaking at the Pray Vote Stand Summit.

Another is Trump speaking at the Concerned Women for America 2023 Summit. We're going to dip into both. These are completely off the wall speeches. I dare you to decipher this bizarre word salad from Trump where his brain just seems to be completely malfunctioning. As you know, Crooker Joe Biden and the radical left thugs who have weaponized law enforcement to arrest their leading political opponent, the leading by a lot, including Obama. I'll tell you what, huh? Obama glitch.

What? And now he just gets confused. He doesn't know what he's saying. You take a look at Obama and take a look at some of the things that he's done. This is the same thing. The country is very divided. And we did with Obama. We won an election that everyone said couldn't be won. What you ran against Obama. What are you talking about? Beat Hillary Clinton. You know, I used to I used to call her Hillary as you know, unintelligible. And when Trump let loose of that line, heads turned like, what is wrong with this guy?

Then Trump at the Concerned Women event insisting you need I.D. to buy a loaf of bread. I saw it on television. One of these characters, there shouldn't be voter I.D. Now you have voter I.D. to buy a loaf of bread. You have you have I.D. to buy a loaf of bread. You have you have I.D. to buy a loaf of bread. You have every what? Now, of course, this isn't really a big deal. I once tried to buy frozen mango and I had to submit to a full TSA pat down. It was crazy. Trump keeps saying this. He continues to say if you buy cereal, you need I.D.,

if you buy bread, you need I.D.. buy bread, you need ID. What is he talking about? The most charitable interpretation would be Trump is talking about when you write a paper check to buy groceries, which almost no one does anymore. They might ask you for ID if that store policy. That's like the most possibly charitable explanation of this. It makes no sense whatsoever. Trump then said and again, you it sounds like this is made up. Trump told the crowd that he's protecting them from demonic forces that are in the room.

But I wanted to and had to stand up to the communists, the Marxists, the atheists and the evil and demonic forces that want to destroy our country. They're destroying our country. I took their fire and I did it gladly. I'm protecting the people in this room. I'm protecting the people of this nation. And I have to tell you, it's not easy, but it's something that's such an honor to be doing. If you are in the room with Trump, he is protecting you from those demonic forces. Trump then again floats the idea that if he were to win, he would indict his political opponents without any evidence.

Why not? Right. So we're going to have a little bit of a fun with that, I think, because that's a tough one. Can you imagine? So we have somebody weaponizing. We have this incompetent president put somebody in to essentially rig the election just like they did before. And what this does, it sets a tremendously bad precedent because you look at what's happened with this. Now, if I win and let's say somebody comes along on the Democrat side and they're looking very strong, I can call my attorney

general, I guess. Am I allowed to call him and say you have to indict him on something? Just write anything. You can indict him for anything you want. Just now the crowd laughs, but Trump's not joking. This is exactly what he will do when they tell us what they plan to do. We should believe them rather than assume it's just a joke. And then lastly, as if we needed this, they did a prayer for Trump at the concerned women's speech. They did a prayer.

Trump as usual, when people pray over him, looks very awkward. Speaker 4 If you'd like to join me, lift your palms up to the Lord and join me in prayer for this president. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you so much that we live in a nation where we get to choose our leaders. Right. Thank you, God, for giving us a president that was willing to do the hard thing to make America strong, to make our military great again, to support innocent life. All right. I'm going to stop it because it is very vomitous. But I wanted to just give you a little bit of a sense of it.

What a weekend for Donald Trump. And you know what? If there's any if there's any saving grace here, speaking of prayer, it might be that soon he'll be embroiled in four criminal trials and we'll have to be shuttling between courtrooms across the country. Maybe it'll make him too busy to give these kinds of nauseating speeches. That's the one thing we can hope for. Make sure you are subscribed to the YouTube channel.

We are just below one point nine million subscribers. We're heading to two million. Come on with us. We'll take a quick break. We are constantly seeing data breaches in the news. It never ends. Verizon had a breach this year exposing millions of users data. T-Mobile had two big breaches this year, exposing the personal data

of 37 million people. It's a disaster. These companies have a record of everything you do online. And after these breaches, almost anyone can access your data. The real solution is don't let the company see what you're doing in the first place. And that's why I use private Internet access, keeps my data hidden from my Internet service providers, from hackers, from others. I can use it on all of my devices with one account. Most VPNs log your Internet activity. Private Internet access is the only VPN to prove multiple times in court that they don't.

This makes them unique. Works with all major streaming platforms, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon to access content not normally available in your country. Private Internet access is giving my audience a huge 83 percent 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. I hope you're sitting down for this one.

Thirty six year old pro family Christian grandmother Lauren Boebert publicly fondled the genitals of her date, who happens to be the host of gay drag shows at the bar he owns. And she is really worried about a tearing of the moral fabric of the United States of America. This is the insane coda to last week's Lauren Boebert getting kicked out of the Beetlejuice performance story. Now, I want to be really clear with all of you. The issue here is the I'm going to use a word sanctimonious nature of Boebert and her ilk about everybody else's behavior and moral codes and values and behavior, while she herself behaves in a completely inconsistent way and also the hypocrisy of

those who vote for her, although they'll get another chance to weigh in in November of 2024. As many of you now know, Lauren Boebert was kicked out of a performance of Beetlejuice in a theater last week because she was reportedly vaping and screaming and photo videotaping the performance and doing all sorts of different things. The continued fallout is now that video has caught her both being fondled and we're playing the video now being fondled by the guy she's with and fondling his genitalia, which is really amazing stuff. She, of course, is pro family. She is pro life. She's in favor of decency. She doesn't want young, you know, youth corrupted. And, you know, is pro family. She is pro life. She's in favor of decency. She doesn't want

young youth corrupted. And, you know, there's kids all around her, as you can see here. This is her engaging in fondling in a public place. She's also a 36 year old grandmother. And we've talked about the relationship between that and so-called family values. And there's hypocrisy here, her hypocrisy, voter hypocrisy, et cetera. This is wacky, wacky, wild stuff. We actually have just like a still image of maybe the most insane moment of this entire thing. This is where we are today. Now her defense is she was very eccentric during that and that this is all actually

a distraction. She had eccentric behavior, which was wrong. It's weird to call public fondling eccentric. I mean, it is eccentric in a way, but it's too it's it's too too basic a term. And also that, you know, we're trying to impeach Biden here. You're talking about what I did. Here's an interview she gave to OAN. Just had Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, announce an impeachment inquiry

yesterday. We're facing a government shutdown and trying to fund the federal government. We have a wide open southern border. We have Zelensky threatening to send refugees here. And what's the top story? Lauren Boebert getting kicked out of the theater in Denver, Colorado. What the media does. It's what the media does.

So what? What? I was a little too eccentric. I am. I'm very known for having a animated personality, maybe overtly animated personality. I was laughing. I was singing, having a fantastic time, was told to kind of settle it down a little bit. What about the genital fondling, though, Lauren? What about that? So I go back to the issue of hypocrisy and there are two issues here. These are members of a political movement and a political party that claim to have a monopoly on ethics and how people should live and what is the right and wrong behavior.

They claim to be worried about, oh, drag shows, indoctrinating our kids. And there she is in a theater on camera fondling the genitals of a guy whose bar hosts drag shows. She claims to say the problem is, you know, that the children are being recruited by promiscuous whatever's on the left. And here she is engaging in this behavior in public. And of course, it's not just her hypocrisy. It is also the hypocrisy of the voters. Now, I'm going to remind you again, she has an opponent in Colorado. His name is Adam Frisch. He almost defeated her in 2022. There is seemingly going to be a rematch of that exact race in November of 2024.

The voters who claim to also subscribe to this pro-family Christian, very moral, ethical worldview, as Lauren Boebert claims to subscribe to, they will get a chance to vote in November of 2024. Will they vote for the public Fondler, 36 year old grandmother, or are they going to vote for Adam Frisch? We will see. But it's extremely important to understand that as loudly as they go around saying LGBT people are groomers and you've got to be careful because of the drag shows and the books they're

using in school and whatever. She's in a family theater fondling the genitals of her date, who happens to be a guy that runs drag shows at his bar. These people are pathetic. These people are hypocrites. They have no business anywhere near legislation. But for as long as Republicans ignore the hypocrisy, which they seem to be very comfortably do at this point in time, people like Lauren Boebert are continuing to get elected and it's going to keep happening.

Donald Trump has issued an ominous warning to Jews again, and this is sparking global horror. Donald Trump posted to Truth Social Central. He posted a a truth where all there is is an image with Trump's picture, a drawing of Trump. And it says the following. And this, by the way, this was a it was Rosh Hashanah. So this this is the Jewish New Year. This is a beautiful and inspirational Jewish New Year greeting to Jews where it says the following. Just a quick reminder for liberal Jews who vote to destroy America and Israel because you believed false narratives. Let's hope you learned from your mistake and make better choices going forward. Happy New Year. Now,

remember the concept of saying to the liberal Jews as if liberal Jews are an outlier. That's a red herring. Almost all American Jews are left leaning and vote for Democrats. Jewish Americans are the most left wing voting bloc, just slightly behind or equal to black Americans. Sometimes it's a couple points behind or as liberal voting as black Americans. So the idea that this is targeting those heathen liberal Jews, that's basically all Jews. OK, there are, of course, some prominent right wing Jews that supported Trump, but very few and far between. Trump's declaration that he posted goes on to say, Wake up, sheep.

What Nazi anti Semite ever did this for the Jewish people or Israel? By the way, Nazi is misspelled. Number one, Trump moves the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which is Israel's true capital. No other president had the balls to do it. Remember, moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a symbolic gesture. It does not change that nationally. Internationally, Jerusalem is not seen as the capital of Israel. It only inflames tensions and actually prevents really seriously getting in the direction of peace. Number two, Trump recognizes Israel's

sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Did nothing practical to change or affect the conflict in a positive way. Just it just didn't. Number three, Trump recognizes Israel's sovereignty over settlements in Judea and Samaria, contrary to international law. Many of those settlements violate international law in flame tensions prevented going in the direction of peace. Number four, Trump signs executive order

for Judaism to be a nationality in addition to a religion. Yeah, that's actually not a crazy thing. We've talked before about Judaism, really more of an ethnicity, ethnicity than a nationality. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but not any kind of major accomplishment. And number five signed the never again education bill, which allocates allocates is misspelled millions of dollars to expand Holocaust awareness. That's fine. Unfortunately, Trump also worked to prevent students from learning about other historical wrongs that were deemed inconvenient to Republicans. So Trump has no idea what any of this stuff is.

It's riddled with misspellings. But most importantly, it is an ominous warning to Jews. You'd better get in line and vote together as a bloc rather than simply voting for whoever you think is best. And if you look up YouTube elsewhere, there's sort of I guess you'd call them biographies, documentaries about Mussolini. Watch one of them and tell me it doesn't remind you of the way Trump approaches politics. It is truly scary stuff.

And we actually need to understand that if Trump gets back into power, he's trying to get back into power, certainly to stay out of prison. He sees it as it will help him stay out of prison. But this is going to be another level if this guy gets back into power and we cannot understate the threat. I know people say, oh, David, you got to chill with this or that. It's not that serious.

No, no, no, no, no. It is that serious. And we need to treat MagGA the same way we would treat other radical groups that the line between MAGA and Proud Boys or MAGA and these extremist patriot groups or MAGA and the groups tracked by the Anti-Defamation League. There is increasingly less and less daylight between them. And we need to treat it as such scary times, scary times. People in my audience trying to quit smoking or vaping, this is for you. You can't vape or smoke inside. You're tired of people seeing you put those little pouches in your

lip. There is a nicotine alternative that people won't notice to help you quit. Zip. X nicotine toothpicks are sponsors. Zip makes the only nicotine toothpick on the planet that is FDA registered. You can use it anywhere. Work, restaurants, airplanes, sporting events after a meal. The toothpicks stay in a convenient little tube that goes in your pocket or on your key chain. It's way more convenient than carrying around a huge can of pouches all day or a whole bunch of

gum or whatever the case may be. Zipix nicotine toothpicks come in flavors like peppermint, watermelon, sweet wood, cinnamon, whiskey. If you're not a nicotine user, try out their B12 toothpicks with caffeine instead. A quick and easy alternative to coffee. Do your lungs a favor. I'm David Pakman, the David Pakman show host. and 10 at checkout. That's ZIPPIX.com. Use code Pacman one zero for 10 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Let's talk a little bit about the candidacy of Vivek Ramaswamy. He had a funny little interview where he was asked, why do people find you so annoying? Which is a really funny question, because one of the big feedbacks about Vivek after the first Republican presidential debate was, man, this guy's annoying. He seems manic. Why is he so annoying?

Vivek says people are finding me annoying because I'm doing so well, which is also really, really funny. Let's take a look at this video. It's from yesterday's Fox News Sunday. And here is Vivek Ramaswamy trying to explain to the host why are his unfavorables going up? Your profile is growing, but as it does, our polling also shows your unfavorables are up. This is the latest polling up 12 points since we pulled this in August.

One recent opinion piece puts it this way. Of all the descriptors attached to Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old political tyro enjoying a bizarre surge in the Republican primary race for second place. The most common one seems to be annoying. Why do you think if more people have gotten to know you, you're unfavorable? Well, look, we have been taking intense criticism, Shannon, over the last several weeks since I performed well on that second debate. And this is part of the process. So I invite the open debate. The reality is part of the process. So I invite the open debate. The reality is many people are annoyed by my rise and believe that a

38 year old is too young to be us president. Right? The fact of the matter is Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old when he wrote the us declaration. If you're wondering how we're on Thomas Jefferson when she asked, why are you being found so annoying? It is a really good question to which I don't have an answer. Of independence. He also invented the swivel chair while he was out it, by the way. And so I think we need to revive that spirit. And I believe, Shannon, it will take someone whose best days ahead. Yeah.

Why do people find you so annoying? They're annoyed because of my rise. Now let's be serious. I'm going to give you a bunch of different realities here. Number one, his rise is extremely modest. If you're looking at the chart I have on the screen and you see, wow, someone has just seen a huge rise in the last few months from 43 all the way up to now 57. Who is that? That's Trump. Trump is now polling better in the Republican primary than he has dating all the way back to July of last year. OK, for in the last 14 months, Trump is doing his best

today. DeSantis is in the toilet and Vivek Ramaswamy is bouncing between six and seven. Yes, he started at one. Yes, he's gone six to seven times that now up to six or seven. But the rise that is claimed to be going on seems to have stopped about a month ago. Now, I also want to just be super upfront about something. MAGA Trumpists are not going to select as their nominee a minority. They're just not going to do it. It's not going to be Vivek Ramaswamy and it's not going to be Tim Scott. Now you might say, well, but David, they might select Nikki Haley and she's a minority. She is a minority.

And I agree that Nikki Haley, in my mind, actually has a better shot at ultimately being the nominee than Vivek Ramaswamy or Tim Scott or even Ron DeSantis. But Nikki Haley, by virtue of using a different name than her birth name and just generally her appearance. Right. I mean, a lot of this is remember Obama was half black in society. He was black. A lot of this is the way that you are perceived. Nikki Haley is not perceived as a minority in the way that Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy are. If you want to show me any data that points to the same people that selected Trump based on his coalescing of xenophobia and racism are going to then go to Tim Scott or Vivek Ramaswamy. Find me that data. I don't see it. And the truth is that this primarily is a tool for Vivek Ramaswamy to promote himself.

That's annoying and that's nonsensical. And he's also not doing that well. But I want to talk just a little bit more about some Vivek Ramaswamy defiantly and courageously wants to end the H1B visa program, which his companies use 29 times to hire people. And he is against George Soros funded scholarships, which he received when he was in college. Wait a second. Is it another story of Republican hypocrisy? Yes, indeed it is. Political reports. This is so good. Ramaswamy wants to end the H-1B visa program that he used 29 times.

GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has vowed to gut the system for H-1B temporary worker visas if he wins the White House. Oh, all right. Well, that's policy. I mean, we like we like policy. However, Politico writes it's the very system he used in the past to hire high skilled foreign workers for the pharma company that built much of his wealth. What happened to hire domestically? What happened to this is a bad visa program from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty three. Immigration services approved twenty nine applications for his former company Royvant Sciences to hire employees under H1B visas, which allows U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in tech and other specialized jobs. Yet the H1B system is bad for everyone

involved. Ramaswamy stepped down in February of 2021, but remained the chair of the company's board of directors until February. So he was involved either directly or through the board up until just a few months ago. You got to be kidding me. You got to be kidding me. Well, here's some more doublespeak from Vivek Ramaswamy. He's against identity politics and he's against George Soros funded scholarships for minority students, except he received one of those very scholarships. This is from

Mehdi Hassan's interview with Vivek last week or the week before. Check this out. You say you are anti identity politics, anti affirmative action in a party that hates the Soros name. You accepted a Paul and Daisy Soros scholarship at law school that law school that was specifically set up for the children of immigrants. It was an affirmative action scholarship. And your defense identity politics for that is that you didn't have the money to pay for law school, even though you'd already made over a million dollars at the time. And my defense of that is my defense of that is somebody gives you a merit scholarship

at the age of 24. You take it at the age of 24. Somebody gives you a merit scholarship at the age of 24, you take it. At the age of 24, if somebody gives you a merit scholarship, you take it. Even if it's blood money, if you need the money, you take the money. I didn't say I didn't have the money. I said at a time when I had a lot less money than now, $50,000 was still useful to me. You keep forgetting your quote. You said, when I didn't have the money. So, Mehdi, I've made this really easy for everybody. And I did this in the early weeks of the campaign.

I released 20 years of tax returns. Yes, something that no presidential can notice that this is a redirection. He is not being criticized for hiding his finances or not releasing his tax returns. The criticism is he's against identity politics, against Soros funded scholarships and against the combination of the two. Yet he gladly accepted such a scholarship. It's not about his tax returns, let alone somebody who's successful in business has done.

I challenge Democrats and Republicans alike, including the Biden family, to do it. And we know I released it so that you could look at them so we can thank you so much. I appreciate that. I do appreciate that. Yes. And I think that transparency appreciate that. I do appreciate that. Yes. And I think that transparency is important. So here's his. So it's already open and everybody can see it.

Exactly. We have two thousand. But the fact of the matter is, and now what Vivek is doing is trying to simply talk over METI so that METI can't clearly present the evidence. You know what I would advise every 24 year old should take two. 2009 and 2010, you made $750,000. You had the money to pay for law school. You didn't need a Soros Affirmative Action Scholarship that you now criticize. None of this is worthy, but if you think it is, let's get to the detail.

That was actually the first big piece of money. You say you're anti-affirmative action. You took a scholarship for immigrants and their children. I'm anti-affirmative action. So why did you take a scholarship for the children of immigrants? Which falsehood would you like me to address, the financial one or the one about my views on affirmative action? Because I can go in whichever order you'd like. Did you not make $750,000?

On the financial piece of it, not at the time that I had applied for the scholarship, that fall. Yes, you did. That December. Yes, you did, Vivek. This is awkward for you because you did. I've got the tax returns in front of my face. No, it's not awkward for you. Yes, on December 31st, when the application for the scholarship was that October. This is awkward for you. Believe me, I've got the tax returns. It's not awkward for you. Yes.

On December 31st, when the application for the scholarship was that October, many you're wasting your time on childish details in October. Details. I'm against affirmative action scholarships. And I took one. Many. This is a detail. You're sandbagging me.

People don't care about this. Now let me tell you what the theme is in both of these situations. There's lots of stuff Vivek Ramaswamy is against, except if he or his companies benefit from it. Full stop. End of story. You need go no further. Really nice job by Maddy Hassan. Check out the entire interview.

I do look forward to seeing what the dynamic will be at the next Republican presidential debate. I believe it's on the 27th of this month. Yeah, Wednesday, which I plan to be live for once again, if if if I'm allowed. I want to see whether he is the subject of more attacks at the next debate or whether the other candidates are also just annoyed with him and they'll just ignore him. It'll be a very interesting thing to see. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Here is regular caller one or known to some as one. He is calling in about which doctor do I trust more? Take a listen to this 4 All right. I have to bring this up again. Who do you trust more, Dr. Fauci or your doctor? Oh, don't people say always consult with your doctor? Yeah. Instead of listening to whatever

I have to say on YouTube or, you know, some nobody on the street. OK, listen, this is a false choice. Who do I trust more, Dr. Fauci or my personal doctor? It's this is the height of nonthinking one with peace and love. Who do I trust more about, you know, pandemics, infectious disease at the top level, public health vaccination programs at a population level? I trust Dr. Fauci because that's his area of expertise. That's what he speaks about. Who do I trust more to know my personal health situation

and give me tailored recommendations to my priorities that are right for me and for my family and my personal health situation and my health records and history? Well, my personal doctor, because that's who has not only knowledge about me as an individual, but also clinical instincts about specific people's choices based on treating his panel of patients throughout the pandemic. Fauci's guidance is more population level. My doctor's guidance is more individual level. This these are not mutually exclusive. This isn't a gotcha. The idea from some of these, I don't even know at this point whether Juan is vaccine skeptical or ivermectin friendly. I don't even know what his whole thing is, but they try to frame it as well.

On the one hand, they say, listen to the CDC and Fauci. On the other hand, they say, always check with your doctor. The CDC and Fauci aren't your doctor. These are not mutually exclusive. Trust is not mutually exclusive. Trust is not a zero sum game. You can trust the expertise and the guidance of Dr. Fauci on certain population level issues. And then you trust the judgment and the recommendations of your personal doctor. Now, some personal doctors are pretty nuts. Someone I know the other day told me, you know, my doctor warned me about the new booster saying this one could give me covid. And I said, listen, you either misunderstood or your doctor's nuts. The vaccine can't give you covid. There's not a single instance of the vaccine

giving anyone covid or you just misunderstood your doctor. So there's no rule that every doctor knows what's going on. Doctors are sometimes stripped of their licenses for malpractice or whatever the case may be. But there's a false dichotomy here. And it's the type of question that creates an artificial divide. Do you trust Fauci or do you trust your doctor? And it pits national health advice against personal medical advice. And that's just simply not the way that things are supposed to work. I, you know, an example, there are broad guidelines for who should take Paxlovid and when

fine. I have a friend with a very similar situation to me who got COVID. Her doctor said, take the Paxlovid. I got COVID at a different point in time. My doctor said, don't take Paxlovid. We're the same age, but there were particular differences in our family situations, differences in the seriousness of our cases, differences in work life situation, health status, et cetera. And we were infected with different variants. So even though you have this population level guidance on Paxlovid, her doctor said I would start Paxlovid right away. My doctor said we're going to save Paxlovid in case we need it if you get worse or whatever the case may be. So could either recommendation have been wrong? Sure. But

we're also taking the general guidance and applying specific situations to the situation, specific situations to the guidance. You don't have to pit Fauci against your personal doctor. And this is exactly the sort of black, white, false dichotomy type thinking that leads to bad decisions and people falling for who knows what kind of conspiracy theories. We have a great bonus show for you today. We are going to talk about a California lawsuit against oil giants. Why are they suing? You can probably guess, but we'll delve into it in detail.

Number two, the Texas Senate has acquitted Attorney General Ken Paxton in his impeachment trial. What a shock. What a surprise. And lastly, Bill Maher will return to his show despite the continuing writers strike. Who's furious? Who's happy? Is this the right decision?

Wrong decision. We will discuss all of it on today's bonus show. Join Pacman dot com. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. That's right. If Alex Jones hates it that much, it must be something worthy of checking out. And as a reminder, membership prices have been level for a decade. When the new website launches, membership prices go up. What better thing to do than get the lower price today

and let everybody else get screwed by inflation in the future. No, in all seriousness, prices will be going up. Join Pacman dot com coupon code four years for indictments saves you 50 percent. We'll see you then. I'll be back tomorrow. you you you