The David Pakman Show - 9/21/22: Biden Wrong on Pandemic Over, Trump's Special Master Not Going Well

Episode Date: September 21, 2022

-- On the Show: -- Adam Steen, Trump-endorsed Republican running for the Wisconsin State Assembly in District 63, joins David to discuss his campaign -- Joe Biden wrongly claims that the COVID pandemic is over -- Fox News host Greg Gutfeld casually says that COVID was created in a lab -- Donald Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn delivers a bizarre rant about COVID vaccines altering DNA and author Yuval Noah Harari wanting to turn people into cyborgs -- Despite what Republican Senator Marco Rubio and other Republicans claims, the Martha's Vineyard migrants were in the United States legally, awaiting asylum claims to be adjudicated -- Javier Salazar, the Bexar County, Texas sheriff investigating Ron DeSantis' Martha's Vineyard migrant stunt, is now receiving death threats -- Donald Trump's handpicked "special master," Raymond Dearie, is telling Trump to cut the crap -- Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, during the latest defamation trial, goes on a rant outside the courtroom confirming he has no idea how court works -- Voicemail caller asks whether the Republicans questioning John Fetterman's cognitive state would be satisfied if Fetterman took and passed the same test Trump brags about, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment -- On the Bonus Show: Martha's Vineyard migrants sue Ron DeSantis, $250 million allegedly stolen from pandemic child food program, Joe Biden endorses bill to disclose Super PAC donors, Pakman Finance is live, much more... 👩‍❤️‍👨 Try the Paired App FREE for 7 days at https://paired.com/pakman 🛌 Get up to $350 OFF a Helix Sleep mattress + 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🧻 Reel Paper: Use code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.davidpakman.com/pakmanlive -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.davidpakman.com/pakmanfinance -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 All right. Let's start in a way we haven't started for a while, which is by talking about the coronavirus pandemic. You know, I got a few emails from people saying, David, if you want to be fair, you've got to call out Joe Biden for something that he recently said. Joe Biden recently said the pandemic is over. That's not true. And if you're going to be fair, you can't let that slide. Well, I call out anybody who says things that aren't true. And Joe Biden did on 60 Minutes say the pandemic is over and the pandemic is not over. And I will make that case in a moment, but maybe maybe not in the way you would assume I would make it. So let's first listen to what Joe Biden said. Miss President, first Detroit auto show in three years. Yeah. Is the pandemic over? The pandemic is over. We still have a

problem with covid. We're still doing a lot of work on it. It's what the pandemic is over. We still have a problem with COVID. We're still doing a lot of work on it. It's what the pandemic is over. If you notice, no one's wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it's changing. And I think this is a perfect example of it. This is pretty silly. It really is. Now, there's two interpretations here. When Joe Biden says, listen, the pandemic is over, as evidenced by the auto show is back. There's no masks and everyone here seems to be doing OK. You know, forget about the millions that have died for a second. But this really isn't true. Now, this isn't about me. I am not saying I need to hold on to every guideline we ever had. No, I mean, I'm not wearing masks. I'm out in the world. I'm doing things. This is not a question of of me. My behavior is basically back to normal.

But it's not true that the pandemic is over. When you look at the sort of numbers that we have right now in the United States, you know, an average of somewhere between 60 and 90,000 new cases a day. Would we add 100 cases a day at the start of the pandemic? It was a disaster. We now have 60 to 90,000 that we know of and probably two or three times more from people doing home tests are not getting tested at all. When you look at the death numbers, we still have somewhere between, you know, three and five hundred people dying every single day from covid. So here are the things Joe Biden could have said that would have been true. We've gotten accustomed to the current level of death from covid and we consider it normal and acceptable and a fair exchange to going back to our normal lives,

generally speaking, that would have been an accurate statement from Joe Biden. Or we don't think we really can reduce the number of deaths from where they are right now. So we're not even really going to try. OK, I mean, that that would have been an accurate statement. Um, I think it is true to say that politically the pandemic rhetoric has ended. But there's no real way mathematically to make the case that the pandemic is over. And to be clear, I am not coming at this from I'm trying to get everybody back in their homes and wearing masks and no large gatherings or anything. I'm not to get everybody back in their homes and wearing masks and no large gatherings or anything. I'm not advocating for any of that. I'm part of the group that has said,

you know, it seems like it's going to be like this at least for a few more years. And at a certain point, it's understandable that for the most part, most people have gone completely back to normal. Am I going to large sporting events right now? No, I'm not. But I was already kind of starting not to before the pandemic just because the crowds are annoying and I hate sitting in traffic and all of that stuff. But to say the pandemic is over, you can't really back it up with any statistical data. And so what we have done and it's OK to accept this, it is I mean, a similar thing happened after the flu pandemic of 1918. The pandemic ends culturally and socially in a way before there is any medical end to the pandemic.

And because covid is a little different and we see. Without getting now into the medical part of it, between variants and all these other things, It's likely going to be around for a while, if not longer than a while. The medical end may not come for a period of time. It may not ever come in a sense. But the political and the social and the cultural and we expected would happen sooner. Now, what will things look like in January? Who knows? But that would be a more fair assessment as of right now. So Joe Biden is just wrong. I still agree with student loan debt forgiveness. I still think the Inflation Reduction Act is good. I still think Joe Biden has done a lot more good things than many recent presidents. But on this particular thing, he simply isn't correct. Let's stick with COVID a little bit on Fox News. Right after praising COVID vaccines, Greg Gutfeld very casually segues into covid was created by scientists just without even any hesitation, without any even raising of an eyebrow.

Gutfeld says that. And of course, we have no evidence for that. That's one of the early conspiracy theories that surged about covid. Take a look at this bizarre clip on Fox News. As sick as people were. So I think that's that's the thing that we can still have these conversations. But the president's largely right. And anyone on his team who doesn't believe it, maybe they should look for other work. OK, wrap it up. Well, I got to go with Harold on this. I think that if we we cannot have it both ways, we can't hail Operation Warp Speed and then laugh about the vaccines. Vaccines may not prevent covid, but they certainly reduce the severity of it. That's what it's there for. But the thing that drives me crazy is that we still we have to accept that more than likely it was manmade.

Why? Why? Why would we have to accept that? And when you think about it, it's now the third part of the cold and flu season. I don't think it's ever going to go away. I think you're going to have cold flu and covid. It's like our siblings in sickness got a new little brother like cold in the. OK, so he's reading that this is, I guess, comedy. Gutfeld's a comedian. So he's reading some of this stuff off of his notes, which is fine, but none of it's funny. And it's also not true. So this has been studied. Always remember when a conspiracy theory has attached to it like a parasite and they won't even let us investigate Bing, that should set your alarms up. Is that true? Is that true that we can't even investigate the so-called lab leak hypothesis has been investigated extensively. And there are two versions of

the lab leak hypothesis. One, the most weaponized is covid was deliberately created as a bio weapon and released to kill people. That's one hypothesis. The slightly less cuckoo hypothesis is it was being studied and it accidentally escaped the lab because someone at the lab infected themselves and then left. And then it spread from there. Those are the two kind of layers. Now, the view of scientists is that both of those are very unlikely right now. The most likely scenario. And again, in science, we talk in terms of probabilities. The most likely scenario is what's called the natural zoonotic jump from animals to humans. The entire idea of lab leak is based initially on Wuhan markets is where we were told it came from. And there's a virology lab in

Wuhan. So it's very easy to claim it was from the markets when it was really from the lab because they're both physically in proximity. That's the bulk of why people are talking about this. Now, the truth is there's lots of these types of labs in many places. And that should also kind of make us question whether that makes sense. Now, is it possible that this was being studied in that particular lab and someone was accidentally infected and then they left and then they started spreading it to other people? And that's how it entered the human population. It is, of course, possible. But we have been told no one at that lab was sick at the time covid emerged. But could they be lying? There are claims that that's a lie. Well, you look at the clusters of early covid cases and you see that there are links to multiple markets in Wuhan around the exact same time. And so that supports the idea that some

animals, animal traders brought the virus in animals to the city, brought those animals to a bunch of the markets in Wuhan, sold in many markets and spread from there. Now, you know, we could go further on this. At this point, it's completely irresponsible to say we have to admit the most likely scenario is that this was created by scientists. That is not the most likely scenario based on what we know today. If that changes, I will be the first to tell you. Last thing sort of tangentially related to covid, a number of you sent to me an extraordinarily disturbing video of failed former President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, a guy who was, of course, convicted by after being indicted.

Michael Flynn, it's sort of like it just comes out. He can't even control it. It's like a diarrhea of the mouth. An incredible conspiracy word salad involving DNA altering covid shots and Yuval Harari, the author, wanting to turn people into cyborgs with robotic components. This is really full on. And I want you to remember two things. Number one, at one point, this was the top national security official in the country. And this is the stuff that he is now saying. And number two, they continue the the folks that were initially saying we know the most about this covid thing continue to say things this outlandish.

Listen to this. They are trying to change the very essence of our DNA. And there are people working on this. That's one of them. You've all know Harari, which which is just not going to work now, by the way. Just as a coincidence, you've all know Harari, who wrote Sapiens and who wrote Homo Deus and some other really great books. He just so happens to be Israeli, right? He just so happens that he's Jewish. I know that they often criticize. It's often true that the people they pull into these conspiracy theories aren't Jewish, but a whole heck of a lot of them are. And they mentioned Klaus Schwab and they mentioned George Soros. And now now you've

all know a Harari is the target of it. These people are pathetic. So what do they do? They're going to basically put components of robotics into us. That's one of the other issues that they are looking at. So, you know, everything from you see the robotic arms, which can help somebody or robotic legs, which can help somebody who lost their legs or somebody who lost their movement of their arm or an arm to be able to do things and to live like a normal life. But those are that's different than what these guys are trying to do. They're actually trying to change inside the internals of something that is unchangeable, unmovable, immovable because they're designed by someone other than them. And thank God that God designed us the way we are.

You can't even possibly unpack that. I mean, I'm not even going to try to unpack the substance of it. That is bonkers stuff. This is a guy who should be in a psych ward or in prison. Now, he he was pardoned by Trump. So he was the national security adviser of the United States. Understand that. Understand the teetering over the brink position that the United States was in with guys like this. And Trump claimed he would hire the best people. He needs professional help. And Trump put him at the top position for national security in the country. This guy is leading anyone.

We have a serious problem. And now it is just a word salad of DNA, COVID, Yuval Harari, cyborg robotic components. God designed us scary stuff. We should consider that we dodged a bullet in a sense that Flynn didn't last that long as national security adviser. Let me know what you think. Find me on Twitter at Deepak. The paired app is a really great tool to develop happier relationships and to spark meaningful conversations using thoughtfully designed questions and activity prompts. Paired is designed to be a fun and entertaining way to learn more about yourself and your partner. That's what it is. Quite simply, the app uses research backed games, questions, quizzes to reinforce and grow your relationship.

It's simple and it's an effective way to inspire really deep discussions with your significant other. This is not couples therapy paired is like going to the gym, but for your relationship, it's like a daily exercise for your relationship. And all of the exercises were developed by academic psychologists and expert relationship therapists as well. The apps daily prompts like describe your partner's job in four words or questions about intimacy or money. These can help start some of those difficult to have conversations and really bolster your relationship. I've been trying it out with my girlfriend and it's really interesting and it generates some really interesting insights. You can try paired for free for seven days at paired dot com slash Pacman.

That's P.A.R.E.D. dot com slash Pacman to download the paired app and try it free for seven days. Use the link in the podcast notes. Remember that the David Pakman show is a audience and audience, I should say, supported program primarily through something called the membership program. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code Obama. Beautiful code Obama, OBA, M and A to get a sizable discount. And of course, you will get daily commercial free streams, audio and video of the show much earlier than we release them publicly every single day. You'll also get access to the bonus show, an extra show every day for our members. And we also are doing the members only town halls. The most recent one was a couple of weeks ago,

I believe. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. Get that discount. Would love to welcome you into the ranks of membership today. Let's continue following up on the Ron DeSantis Martha's Vineyard immigrant stunt. One of the biggest I hesitate to call it a confusion. One of the biggest misstatements that's being made about the entire thing is that the 50 or really 48 migrants who were flown to Martha's Vineyard by Ron DeSantis on the tax dollars of Floridians. The claim is being made that they are here illegally when that is actually not the case. And the casual nature with with Republicans are now claiming this is causing it to spread like wildfire. Those migrants were not here illegally. I will explain that in a moment. Here is Marco

Rubio. Just one example. He was on Fox News yesterday or maybe this was this morning, this morning, in fact, saying these are folks who were here illegally. And of course, they were not. Well, think about this. OK, people came into this country illegally, violating our laws. No. OK. And the first thing they do is get lawyers and use our laws to sue an elected governor. That's after they were lured, arguably illegally, to get on a plane to send them to Martha's Vineyard. They are only now suing. And we will talk about that lawsuit on the bonus show. So a state, I mean, just think about that. They just got here. They're not even here legally. They didn't enter the country the proper way. And they're immediately in court demanding rights and claims under our laws. This is outrageous. What other country in the world

would that even be allowed? What other country in the world would even tolerate that? So I think this is, you know, we have a this is not immigration. What we're seeing, this is mass migration. That's a very different thing. And and but to think about the fact that somebody just came here illegally and within a week they're in court and they have lawyers representing them in court. Well, that's thanks to Ron DeSantis, my friend. Suing the American government that whose laws they just violated is unbelievable. It's outrageous. It angers me and it should anger everybody. So let's take this step by step.

The picture painted by these Republicans lie constantly. The picture that Rubio is painting is a bunch of illegal immigrants come to the US. They're here illegally. And within days, they're using our court system to sue others demanding rights and demanding money. That could not be further from the truth. First of all, as our friend Anna Kasparian tweeted, quote, asylum seekers awaiting a decision from immigration judges are not in the U.S. illegally. Also, Cubans like Marco Rubio, who benefited from amnesty after the revolution, Rubio's family, to be clear, should maybe be more considerate and self-reflective

when weighing in on Venezuelan migrants. So when you think of the story that Rubio tells illegal immigrants for no reason using our courts to demand stuff, well, first of all, they're not illegal immigrants. When you are awaiting an asylum decision, you are here legally in the sense that you are pending a legal decision. Now, asylum is discretionary, meaning sometimes individuals claim asylum and it is denied to them, even if they technically meet the definition of refugees. This has to do with the adjudication. But when you do the right thing, you come to the border, you request asylum. It is awaiting a decision. You are not here illegally. So the first piece of Rubio's story here illegally for no reason, just filing lawsuits actually

not here illegally. The second part is the civil suit that has now been filed by these migrants who are not here illegally has only been filed because of what Ron DeSantis did. Ron DeSantis is now under criminal investigation, the state of Florida and the DeSantis administration under criminal investigation for what is tantamount to human trafficking. They lied and deceived these migrants, lured them to get on these planes saying you're going to go to Boston and get expedited legal status and jobs. Didn't take him to Boston, took him to Martha's Vineyard. And that is why there is now a civil suit. The story that Marco Rubio and Republicans are telling doesn't have any truth to it.

I mean, they're mentioning that some of the migrants are from Venezuela. That's true. Right. I mean, if we want to find something that is accurate. So they are lying and we should be aware of that. But unfortunately, the lies spread like wildfire. It may or may not surprise you that the Texas sheriff who is now conducting a criminal investigation into the Ron DeSantis Martha's Vineyard migrant stunt, which I told you about yesterday, is now receiving death threats.

Vice has a very good article about this by Paul Blast, Texas sheriff getting death threats after saying he'd investigate DeSantis for migrant plane stunt. This is the party of law and order, remember the people who are issuing the death threats. So the way it went is as follows. Ron DeSantis had the bright idea to use Florida taxpayer money to fly 48 migrants awaiting asylum decisions from Texas to Martha's Vineyard, an island off the coast of Massachusetts with a very small population and limited resources. We learned after this took place that the migrants were lied to. They were lured there with false promises of jobs and other things. This led to questions as to whether this was even legal, what Ron DeSantis did or might

qualify as human trafficking. We now have lawyers who are representing the migrants who have filed a civil suit. We will talk about that on the bonus show. And we have this Texas sheriff named Javier Salazar, who is criminally investigating DeSantis. I told you about that yesterday. The Texas sheriff said, I'm going to investigate this. It seems that these individuals were lured and that crimes took place. And now he has received and his office have received, quote, numerous threats. On Tuesday, a spokesperson told the Vice News there have been numerous threats, an influx

of calls to our dispatch and administrative offices, along with hateful emails received. Additionally, as in any instance, when our office receives threats, precautionary measures will be made for safety of all personnel. These are the people who claim to be for law and order. They are cheering the possibly illegal stunt of luring migrants to Martha's Vineyard. But they claim to be for law and order. They are then threatening the guy investigating the possible criminality that took place. It is wild to see these law and order people losing their minds after calling themselves

the party of law and order for decades and saying comply with law enforcement, let them do their work. Well, that's what Sheriff Salazar is trying to do. And now they're threatening his life and the life of officers that work in his office. And remember, this is only over the investigative process. There hasn't even been any indictment or charges. And that this is related to the Trump stuff as well. The maggots are going bonkers merely over the fact that Trump is being investigated. Understand that the search warrant execution is part of the investigative phase. We haven't gotten to the indictment part. We don't have any charges yet, and it remains to be seen whether we will. Even the investigation is enough to get them to abandon the very law and order that they cling to

almost religiously when it's a tool or a cudgel with which they can attack the left and attack Democrats. What's important here to the Trump is law enforcement officers and the Trump is members of the military. But for the most part, the law enforcement officers, you should be aware that these MAGA people, as much as they claim to support you right now, they will turn on you in an instant if you don't support their level of delusion. One hundred percent. We saw it happen with the Capitol Police. Oh, back the blue, thin blue line, support law enforcement, fund the police, all lives matter, all this different stuff. Oh, wait. All of a sudden, the Capitol Police were trying to stop the Trumpists

from getting into the Capitol. Well, write them off. We mean support the police, but not those police. Oh, the FBI, which is also law enforcement. They did everything legally to execute a search warrant at Donald Trump's home. Well, yeah, I mean, we back the blue, but not them. I mean, that's different. They're now they're they're becoming political. The principles don't matter. They abandon them whenever it is not convenient. And if you were in law enforcement, they will abandon you if you don't live up to their delusional expectations. We'll have all the clips we played here on our Instagram, which you can find at David Pakman show. One of our sponsors is Helix Sleep. I have been sleeping on a Helix mattress for years,

and I always recommend it to friends. You'd simply take this Helix sleep quiz. It asks you about your body type, your sleep position, whether you have back pain, and then Helix will match you up with the mattress that is personalized to your needs and they ship it to you for free. Another reason I went with Helix is that unlike a lot of mattress companies out there, every single Helix mattress is made in the USA by a skilled production team, which means when you buy a Helix mattress, Thank you so much, David. Healix mattress comes with a 10 or 15 year warranty. You can try it 100 nights and send it back for a full refund if you need to support the David Pakman show by getting your next mattress from Healix sleep and you'll get up to three hundred and fifty dollars off any mattress plus two free pillows when you go to Healix sleep dot com slash Pakman. That's H.E.L.I.X.S.L.E.E.P. dot com slash Pacman.

The link is in the podcast notes. We're continuing our interviews with all sorts of different 2022 candidates. And today I'm going to be speaking with Adam Steen, who's a self-described America first candidate endorsed by the former President Donald Trump currently running a write in campaign in the 63rd District for the Wisconsin State Assembly. Adam, I really appreciate your time today. Thanks for having me, David. I appreciate it.

So indulge me. I know this. We may get through this first question in one word and then we can move on. But it's just a good gut check. Who's the current president of the United States? Donald Trump. Oh, the current president is Trump. No, right. Right now, it's Joe Biden, sir. OK, did he legitimately win? Do you think does his presidency reflect the will of the voters? I believe, especially here in the state of Wisconsin, we have some major questions that

we'd like to ask, and we have not been able to bring those before a judge here in the state of Wisconsin. Who is preventing you from doing that? Right now, the only person that we can find is my opponent, Robin Voss. He has said multiple times that he is going to do a full forensic cyber audit when he got off the plane with the president back August of last year. And he has done absolutely nothing of the sort in order to find out really what people want to know. David, they want to know that their ballot counts, their vote is actually counted.

That's all they want to know. And what reason do we have right now to question the results in which Joe Biden won that state by 20000 votes? What specifically do we have in Wisconsin? Yes, let's go. And so we have the Supreme Court announcing their ruling back about a month and a half ago that the ballot drop boxes are and were illegal. There's two methods of delivering your ballot in the state of Wisconsin Constitution by statute. You can deliver it in the mail, or you can deliver it in person to the clerk. The Wisconsin Election Commission decided to add a third option, which is a ballot drop box, which is not clearly defined in the statute. So when the Supreme Court ruled, they said those

drop boxes are and were illegal. So there were about 250,000 votes cast. But Adam, hold on a second. Hold on. I know I know you're too too good to do this to us. You know that if you read that decision, what they found was that there were some locations that were not accessible to individuals with mobility issues. And they did. They said nothing substantive about fraud related to the final count or anything of the sort. No, no, no, no.

I was simply giving you the reasoning. You're exactly right. I would not mean to admit that. OK, fair, fair. Very correct. David, fair, very correct. David, very, very correct. The amount of ballots that were cast by that method in lieu of the fact that it doesn't follow the method to deliver the ballot by the Constitution.

Yeah. Would would, in my case, bring to question the fact that those ballots, whether legal or not, were cast in an unlawful manner. You're exactly right. OK. And do you also admit that while it is totally within your right to extrapolate whatever you want based on that decision, the justices who who wrote the dissenting opinion say when people say the types of things

you're saying, you're fanning political flames in a way that is not good. You're making people think you're talking about fraudulent results when all they said was some of these weren't accessible to people with disabilities. That's all they said. So what what they said, if you read the final decision, yes, that they they're the method of delivery is to serve. Right. So there's two methods of delivery in the statute.

Yes. The Wisconsin Election Commission introduced a third without going through this the legislature. So that to me is an extremely scary position to be in. The Supreme Court said that those those boxes that were used were not under the method of which delivery was described in the Constitution. So you are correct. I'm not trying to say that the Supreme Court said the elections are valid. None of that. Good. They just said they should have all been

accessible to individuals with disabilities. Yep. So, OK, the next thing that I'd like to point out is we had Justice Gableman's 139 page report. And I would really like for that report to be put before a judge. And I would like the judicial system to actually make a ruling on the findings of that report. Okay. So the Wisconsin Election Commission decided to remove special voting deputies, right? They said they were not necessary in 2020, and I believe from the bottom of my heart, my great-grandmother died at 102 at our house. That they were.

That they were that that they were removed. And we had people that were executing the elections and collecting ballots that were not under the Constitution. They were not followed. OK, so you've you've raised a couple of concerns. That's that's fair. But you're also conceding that on that first one, it's really about disability rights.

Let me ask you this. What is a forensic election audit? Because and the reason I ask is everybody I ask has a different explanation. And when I point to audits that have that have been done, folks will invariably say that's not really the type of audit I'm talking about. Got it. That's a very fair question because you're exactly right, David. Let's go across the country. Right. You look at Arizona.

Yeah. We'll look at Georgia, even here in Wisconsin. The the audit that that we'd like to find out is what what happens to your ballot when it goes through the machine? I'm not telling you the machines are fraudulent. I can't tell you that, David. You can't tell me that. OK, I certainly can't tell you the machines are fraudulent because I have no reason to

believe that. Yeah. And I can't either me that. OK, I certainly can't tell you the machines are fraudulent because I have no reason to believe that. Yeah. And I can't either. Right. So good. Can I can I maybe reframe this discussion a little bit so you can reframe it. But I would love an answer to what you mean by a forensic election. I apologize.

I mean, so a forensic audit is when when your ballot is cast. Right. Yes. The process by which your ballot is cast. Once that ballot goes into whether it's scanned through a machine, goes into a box in a county courthouse, gets counted. Yes. And the total results are finished. I believe that process should be clear to the public.

So a forensic audit, to me, is understanding every step of that process without equivocation. OK, now let me see if I understand it. And you tell me the elements that are missing. Right. Because I voted with these types of machines before. I have a ballot. There's two options. I have a ballot.

I take my felt Sharpie and I sort of like connect two little black things and make it a fixed line. I feed it in through a machine. Presumably, the machine identifies which line I drew and credits that candidate with a vote. And then my ballot goes into a pile. And then later you could go back in and count up the pieces of paper with the lines and compare it to the results from the machine. Is that a fair process? Speaker 4

That that process. Yeah. Is part of the audit. Speaker 1 OK. Right. Yeah. OK. And what else is there? Speaker 4 Well, for me in Wisconsin, we have a process called early absentee voting, and that's 47 days. That starts September 22nd for the general election. In my opinion, based on the, I'd say the evidence, if you will, that has never been presented before court, that we have men and women here in Wisconsin. There was a case yesterday that they heard the DOJ brought against a man by the name of Harry Waite. Harry Waite requested a ballot, an absentee ballot, for five people with their birth date and their first and last name. That's the only thing you need to request their ballot if they voted absentee in the past. There's no ID required because they've already submitted a request for an absentee ballot. The problem that I have is, let's say that what you and I just described is perfectly

flawless, right? I'll concede that. Let's say it's perfectly flawless. If you and I would like to request ballots from an individual who has voted one out of the last 15 election cycles, and we submit it being an absentee ballot in a mailbox or drop. There is no way for you and I, based on the process you just defined, to confirm or deny whether or not that ballot was cast by that individual. So a few things on that, because I've heard and read about this many, many times before. There's a few different things. Number one is even if what what you're saying is true, in theory, someone could do that. I could find someone who hasn't voted in a really long time. I'm admitting you're right. I could I could try

to figure out who hasn't voted in a really long time, request a ballot in their name and then fill it out and send it in. Fine. In order for us to be able to say it's worth X, Y or Z audit investigation, whatever I would want to, number one, have evidence that that happened in numbers that could have swayed the results. And in order to believe that, I would have to have reason to think that one side rather than the other was disproportionately doing it, because even if I grant that what you're saying could be done and was done, if it was done equally by Republicans and Democrats, it doesn't actually change the outcome. Does it does my math check out at least, Adam? In other

words, if 10,000 Republicans do that and 10,000 Democrats do that with these people who haven't voted in a while, Biden still wins by 20,000 votes, right? The math checks out at least. Oh. And is he was that question too tough? I can't believe that was why he left. Adam, where are you? Oh, my. I think he bailed because of that question. What on earth? Adam, don't tell me that question was too difficult. Adam, you're back. We were on hold. Yeah, you put I thought you bailed because that you didn't like the question. No, sir. OK, so my question was, I'm glad you're back. My question was, if 10,000 Democrats and 10,000 Republicans do the thing you described, it doesn't change the margin of victory. So the question I have is, what evidence do we have that what you just

described as possible was not only done but was done by so many more Democrats than Republicans that it would change the outcome in Wisconsin? I would like to contend that your your premise of your question is wrong. OK, I won't argue with your question. Tell me how it's wrong. Well, so my grandfather was in 82nd Airborne Division. We have men and women who have died for this country so that we can have the right to vote.

Yes. I personally believe that if if you use the line of questioning that you've so chosen that if both sides do it, it's OK. That's not the that's not what I said, though. OK, so it's a two part question. First, what evidence do we have that this was done in large numbers at all? Because that's been investigated in Wisconsin. And part two is if it was done in large numbers, was it done disproportionately by one side?

So I would love absolutely love to hear, first of all, the premise of the investigation that happened, because this is the perfect crime, David. OK, you say that someone voted absentee and their ballot was determined that they actually did vote absentee and it was found that they really didn't vote because that would take a canvas. When I say a full forensic audit, that would take a canvas of the people that actually were elected or voted in this election. So you're saying go door knocking all the people who supposedly voted and say, did you

really vote? Well, no, no, no. I'm asking your question. You said that that was investigated. Please tell me how was that investigated? Because that's the only method I know to verify what you just said. Well, you do it with a sample. It was in that you I mean, so again, if the standard is you want to look up every

absentee vote and then go and check with the person, did you vote? It could be done. It would require an insane amount of resources in when we when we talk about science, when we talk about mathematical significance, you can take a sample of those and investigate them. And when we do that, when we take a representative sample, we find a combination of things, you know, usually a few people who were alive when they sent in their absentee ballot and died by Election Day. They didn't do anything wrong. Sometimes people die. You find examples of like junior senior confusion where that, yes, a junior voted as

their dead father, but the dead father didn't vote. So it doesn't it's still just one vote. It was just counted for the wrong. You get to this point where there's really nothing there when you test a representative sample. So, again, for me to say, let's check everyone, I would want to have a sample that raises concerns. And that that hasn't happened when it's been looked at in Wisconsin. So so just to be clear, I did not know. And you're you're telling me that we did actually sample a county because we did canvassing here in Wisconsin and Racine County. Yeah. We found 400 people voting from a single family household. OK, in the 2020 election. So if if you have different evidence, let's talk about that. But right right now, I would love, love to

do some digging, but I'm not going to sit and argue with a fair, fair. OK, I think I've raised enough questions for you to understand the origins of my skepticism. And you've pointed out what you are. So I think we can we can move on. But you have questions that you don't feel have been answered. Just just one more thing, sir. Seriously, with with regards to our election, to me, the issue is really can be solved in eight words. It's simple. I would like our election process to be done in person, on paper and count one day. And that would apply to Donald Trump as well, right? Because he voted earlier months early by mail.

He wouldn't be able to do that. Every person except the military and our elderly that are unable to get out and vote. Because to me, the men and women of this country that have given their lives so that you and I can have the freedom to even have this conversation. Right. Right. Vote. They died and gave their lives so that we could take the responsibility that we have to make sure we go vote in my election process. Right.

In just my little district. Yeah. Less than 10 percent voted in the primary. Yeah, that's depressing. And that's common. It's sadly low voter engagement. I want more voter engagement. It is.

But I guess to me, the solution is I would like transparency. A lot of the questions that you and I are discussing, our system has been set up so that you and I can't come to a conclusion. We can't come to a realistic idea that we know that our vote was counted and cast clearly and no one was. Adam, listen, I got it. I want to get some some other topics. One of the things I found super interesting was at one point you wrote you would outlaw contraceptives if you were given that opportunity. Do I have that right? And why would you do that? Well, conveniently enough, you don't have it correct. OK, that was the New York Post, I believe it was.

Was that where the this I don't have the source in front of me. I read a bunch of stuff before I interview. Yeah, I did not write that. They asked me what I believed personally. Yeah. And I said very clearly that I believe that life begins at conception. Your body is your choice and you make a decision before conception happens. You and I are adults. We know how children are come to this world. And if you make a choice, there's a consequence for that choice. I personally believe

that stopping the natural progression of life, which you again made a decision in order to engage in sexual activity as a person, as an individual. That is something that I believe is wrong to stop life as a as a representative. I'm not going to put the lid back on Pandora's box. OK, so you wouldn't move to ban contraception, but you're against it. You in other words, you believe even a condom is stopping the process of life. Personally, yeah, I'm talking about you personally. I know it's just you personally.

Well, there's a difference between policy and personal. Yeah. So personally, yes, I believe that you are actually just making a decision to engage in an activity and you want to remove the consequence. And this applies not just to oral contraceptives and Plan B, but you're saying even a condom is interfering with is it is it God's will that you find? Is it religiously based or where are you coming up with this? No, I'm saying you're trying to remove the consequence for your decision.

You want to enjoy an activity that you have a physical pleasure. Yeah. And you are moving the consequence. That is what that apply also to, for example, wearing a seat belt in a car where the natural consequence of driving fast might be that you get hurt in an accident and the seat belt is artificially keeping you safe. I mean, it's sort of a weird argument, isn't it? It's a weird argument, safe, safe, safety and saving a life versus ending a life to me is an interesting. But you consider wearing a condom to be ending a life.

Well you're preventing a life, right? So why a life has it's deferring a consequence. That's what I'm saying. Wow. That's interesting. That's I've never I've honestly I've heard right wingers say insurance insurance shouldn't cover some of these things, but I've never heard anyone say that condoms are just straight up wrong.

That's so you're saying that view, it's not based on your religious beliefs. Speaker 5 No, I believe that, like David, if you think about life, if life doesn't begin a conception, if you don't defend life at all stages, whether it be, what what part are you at? What point does life have value? Well, you're done with if you're using a condom, there's been no conception, right? You're going even earlier. Touche. What happens at the end of life, sir? If you're telling me that we'd like to have no consequences for any decision that you make, that's what you're telling me that we would like to have plan B. Well, I decided to have sex right. That's that's how that's how conception happens.

I would like to defer that consequence. I'm not going to say the government's going to legislate morality. They can't. OK, then as a legislator. Wow. That this is mind blowing, Adam. I've never heard this from anyone. I mean, you may be in some way the most socially conservative person.

No condoms. That and and you. So how old were you when you came to this view, this anti condom view? When you say anti condom, it kind of makes it kind of sound funny. Well, it is very funny. I think I mean, it's it's very you're saying we have to defend all life and like, are you is masturbation wrong? Can I ask that? Is masturbation wrong? Right, because then you're talking about millions of potential lives that are no never going to get

a chance. As as an individual. Yeah. All is an individual. Well, I, I have been taught and I have come to the conclusion in my life that I believe that you are enjoying an activity that's there's nothing wrong with it. But at the end of the day, you are actually like you said, you are stuffing out life. But I have. Wow. Innovation is is illegal, sir. Wow. Adam, we are snuffing out life, but I have. Wow. Dervation is is illegal, sir. Wow. Adam, we are treading incredible new ground here. I have to say this is good. This is going to be I can't think of a more interesting note on which we would end than

that. But this is really giving me a lot of a lot to think about, I think, for lack of a better term. The election is in November. Adam Steen is running to represent District 63 in the Wisconsin State Assembly. He has been endorsed by Donald Trump. We don't know whether Donald Trump is on the same page on some of the condom stuff. I think it would be interesting to to talk to him about that. But, Adam, I appreciate so much your time today and you laying out some of your views. Thanks, David. I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 Something in your home that you use every day contributes to deforestation and climate change, and that's toilet paper in the US alone. Over 30 million trees each year are required to meet toilet paper demands, contributing to deforestation, soil erosion, devastating loss of biodiversity. Our sponsor, Real Paper, makes sustainable toilet paper that is 100 percent made from bamboo. A bamboo stock keeps growing. It can be harvested forever.

It means that the soil and the ecosystem aren't disrupted. No carbon removing trees are cut down. The paper industry has a massive effect on deforestation and climate change. But you alone using bamboo toilet paper can make a positive impact because for the toilet paper that just one American uses in their lifetime, hundreds of trees are required. Put an end to that right now with real paper. The best part is the stuff is really great. It's just normal, soft toilet paper. Real paper loves the David Pakman show. They're giving my audience 30 percent off your first order and free shipping. When you go to real paper dot com slash Pakman and use the code Pakman at checkout. That's our E.L. paper dot com slash Pakman. Use the code Pacman at checkout. That's our E.L. paper dot com slash Pacman. Use

the code Pacman at checkout for 30 percent off and free shipping. The link is in the podcast notes. Well, Donald Trump's own special master is kind of telling him to cut the crap. This is not going particularly well for the failed former president so far. And it's super interesting because this is exactly what Donald Trump wanted. So let me reset the story so we all get on the same page. One of the things or really the main thing that Donald Trump and his lawyers did to try to slow down this investigation by the FBI that happened subsequent to the search warrant being executed at Mar-a-Lago, where all of these documents were taken. What Donald Trump did is demand the appointment of a special master. Special master would get to take control of the documents seized by the FBI and review them and say, do some of these have private medical information? Are some

of these privileged in some way and slow down the FBI's ability to use those documents in their investigation? Trump handpicked a special master and the special master is doing Donald Trump no favors. And it's actually a delight. U.S. This is from Talking Points Memo. U.S. District Judge Raymond Deary for the Eastern District of New York injected some normalcy into Trump's civil case against the Justice Department. Deary chastised attorneys for Trump during the hearing for refusing to produce any evidence that the record seized by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago in August had actually been declassified. Jim trustee, a Trump attorney, told Deary he wanted to examine the records taken by the government as he decided whether to make that assertion.

And Deary said, you can't have your cake and eat it to Deary exhibited skepticism of the Trump team's classification arguments elsewhere in the hearing. He kept asking Trump's team versions of the same question. If I'm going to verify the classification, what am I looking for? This is really, really interesting. Here is a report from CNN about what went down. Judge Deary posed a question to Trump's team where he said to them, you know, if he gets

a prima facie case that the documents are classified, perhaps by the markings. And if Trump's teams don't tell him that these documents were declassified, he said he essentially would as far as he as he is concerned, he would go with the prima facie case. And that would be the end of it. So really putting the issue to Trump's lawyers. He noted that the burden was on them in this case for them to decide if they were going to put forward any position that any of these documents had been declassified. And as we've been talking, that is something that the former president has said publicly on his social media feed. But it is not an argument that his attorneys have made yet in this case.

This is the best. And I've talked to you about this before. One of the I did a clip must have been about two weeks ago where I said, are Trump's lawyers going to try these arguments in court? And one of the arguments was about the classification status of some of the seized documents and Trump's alleged broad blanket abracadabra declassification. And one of the things we've learned is that a lot of the things you say in the media don't hold up in court. We saw this after the 2020 election in the 60 plus cases that were brought to different courts in this particular case, in social media and elsewhere. The argument has been made.

Trump declassified everything. And what the special master is saying is if you hand me a document and it says classified and you don't assert and prove that Trump declassified it, that's it. It's a classified document and that's all there is to it. And this is not what the Trump team was hoping for. Really funny as Trump's legal team is showing up to court. There's someone holding a nuclear secret sign in the background and people yelling indict Trump and all sorts of other hilarious things. Indict Trump. Indict Trump.

What are you waiting for? The worst lawyers in America. All right. So a brief moment of excitement there outside the courthouse. I've said it before. Try it in court. Try it under oath. And then they don't. So we're going to be following this very closely. But early on, this entire special master thing not going particularly well for Donald Trump. I want speaking of court cases not going particularly well for Donald Trump. I want speaking of court cases not going particularly well. I have a very interesting video of InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in Connecticut. This is the latest Alex Jones defamation trial. Remember, I interviewed the plaintiff's attorney, Mark Bankston, not long ago, and he told us

about this forthcoming case. This is absolutely fantastic. Alex Jones flipped out outside the courthouse yesterday, saying the judge isn't allowing me to argue that I'm innocent. Now, that's not the way court works, and I'm going to tell you why in a second. But take a listen to what Alex Jones had to say. This has never before been done in U.S. history. It's a struggle session right out of communist China or South Africa. This is serious tyranny, regardless what you think about me or how the media has twisted what I've said over the years. I've apologized for past things I've said that hurt people's feelings.

But I wasn't the first person to question Sandy Hook, and I apologize years ago. They have misrepresented what I've said and done. There's a whole industry of lawyers around these families that have sued Remington and won $73 million and won all these other lawsuits, and they simply now are not just coming for the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment. This is a travesty of justice, and this judge is a tyrant.

This judge is ordering me to say that I'm guilty and to say that I'm a liar. None of that's true. I was not wrong about Sandy Hook on purpose. I questioned it, just like Jussie Smollett, just like WMDs in Iraq, just like Gulf of Tonkin. There have been a lot of staged events in history like WMDs in Iraq. And I question every major event that we see. And so I'm being put in an impossible position inside of this courthouse where I'm being ordered to say I'm guilty. Has anybody ever heard of someone being ordered to say they're guilty?

OK, so Alex Jones, of course, is not telling the truth. Here's what's going on in this case. A default judgment was already ordered last year against Alex Jones because he refused to participate in discovery. There was a defamation suit brought. Alex Jones was ordered to participate in discovery. What that means is you have to turn over information. You have to turn over documents, evidence, et cetera. If you don't do it, it's similar to just not showing up to court. OK, when you don't do it, a default judgment is found against you. You lose by default. It's sort of like you forfeit. And that's what took place. We are now in the damages phase and Jones is trying to argue his innocence. That is not for this phase. That is supposed to be done in the

phase which he forfeited the right to participate in because he didn't participate in discovery. So he's saying it's like communist China. It's like this. It's like that. It's a the judge is a tyrant. These are the rules. He didn't participate in discovery. This was the case in the other defamation suit as well. And now we are in the damages phase. That's how the law works. And he claims to be about law and order and how very quickly that idea evaporates. But just absolutely pathetic. This is going to be another fascinating trial. We have a voicemail number. You can call in any time. That number is 2192 David P.

This is a really good voicemail. John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania running against television, Dr. Mehmet Oz, had a stroke not too long ago, and he has been recovering from that stroke. Many right wingers are now saying Fetterman is not cognitively there. And so this caller says, hey, you know, Trump brags about passing that Montreal cognitive assessment. What if Fetterman took it? Would that satisfy Republicans? Hi, David, I'm calling from Australia. Just why doesn't Federman just take that Montreal cognitive assessment test? Yeah, I'd love to see the Republicans tell them that's not very serious.

She might love to show. Speaker 1 Yeah, obviously the very Republicans who say the Montreal cognitive assessment proves Trump's a genius or whatever they said. If Federman took and passed the Montreal cognitive assessment, as he certainly would, they would not be satisfied. It's a double standard. We all know that the Montreal cognitive assessment is meant to screen for relatively serious dementia. And when Donald Trump bragged and then Sean Hannity bragged about Trump passing the test.

We all knew it didn't really mean anything. But they claim it's proof that Trump is brilliant. If Fetterman passed it, they would come up with a completely different standard. So I think it would be great if he did it. I think it would be amazing trolling to say, I got a perfect score on the Montreal cognitive assessment. I did as well as Trump did. The Republicans claiming Fetterman is cognitively disabled are not going to be satisfied. On today's bonus show, we are going to talk about the civil lawsuit filed by the Martha's Vineyard

migrants against Ron DeSantis. It is a fascinating turn of events as a criminal investigation has also started into DeSantis. We are also going to talk about the scheme to steal two hundred and fifty million dollars from the pandemic child food program. Disgusting people. Truly. Joe Biden has also endorsed a bill to disclose super PAC donors. That's a good idea. But what's actually in the bill? And lastly, the Pacman Finance channel has launched. The first video clip is up. I would love for you

to subscribe at YouTube dot com slash Pacman Finance. And we'll tell you about the plan for that channel and the behind the scenes very soon on the bonus show. Get access to the bonus show by signing up at join Pacman dot com. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Thank you very much, Alex, for that endorsement. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code Big Deal 919. Big Deal 919 to get get a discount and we will see you then.