The David Pakman Show - 9/6/23: Proud Boy gets 22 years, Elon Musk blames the Jews

Episode Date: September 6, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio is sentenced to 22 years in prison, the stiffest sentence so far among the defendants related to the 2021 insurrection -- The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take a case related to Donald Trump's eligibility to hold public office again in the context of possible violations of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- Elon Musk, of Twitter/X, Tesla, and Spacex fame, is now blaming the Jewish civil rights group Anti-Defamation League for Twitter's demise -- The legal arguments being made by Donald Trump and his lawyers in court are so absurd that a prosecutor is asking Trump and his sons be fined -- Former Fox News propagandist Tucker Carlson goes full conspiracy by interviewing Larry Sinclair, a convicted con man who claims to have had sex with former President Barack Obama -- Failed former President Donald Trump explodes in an all caps rant related to non-white support, a new line of attack being adopted by many on the MAGA right wing -- Major Republican donors are dumping Ron DeSantis as it becomes clear he doesn't have what it takes to win the Republican presidential nomination -- Theorizing about how the Donald Trump MAGA cult will eventually end -- Voicemail caller asks whether blue states are "better" than red states -- On the Bonus Show: Bernie Sanders champions 32-hour work week, pilot dies in harebrained gender reveal stunt, Republican Congressman George Santos could be considering guilty plea in federal fraud case, much more... 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman 🛌 Go to https://helixsleep.com/pakman & use code HELIXPARTNER20 for 20% OFF + 2 free pillows 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.com/pakman 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman 👂 MDHearing: Just $149.99 each + free charging case. Use code PAKMAN at https://mdhearing.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

We start today with major criminal justice news. We're talking about a criminal, now a convicted criminal, proud boy leader Enrique Tarrio. And this is really a big deal. This is a big deal, not only because he has received the stiffest or longest sentence so far of anybody involved with the January 6th riots, although remember that Tarrio was actually not there on January 6th. He was there up until the day before. We will talk about that. This is also really important because of the message that hopefully it sends to those who are thinking about maybe doing something similar in 2024 and there are people thinking about

doing something similar in 2024 either related to the election or the Trump criminal charges. We're going to talk about that in a moment as well. But first, the facts. Ex-Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio has been given a 22-year sentence. And this, again, is the longest so far for anyone even on the fringes of the January 6th riots. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy related to his efforts to disrupt the 2020 presidential election certification on January 6th. Of the 1,100 plus people who have so far been charged, and remember that for a while we said,

well, it's a few hundred people or it's 700 people. It is now more than 1,00 people in connection with the Capitol riot. This is the longest sentence so far. Before he was sentenced, Tarrio expressed remorse, disavowed some of his prior statements. And of course, this is a story as old as courts are, which is the big, strong, burly men end up with tears in their eyes when it comes down to going to prison. And listen, I don't I get it. I get I understand why they're ending up in tears as Tarrio and so many of his other co-defendants did, Because they are now facing decades locked up.

Because of their completely harebrained stunts. That they got themselves involved in. So I completely get it. He is now going to. I guess he will. With good behavior. He'd still have to serve roughly 85% of that sentence. My understanding from the people I talked to in

the research I did is that at most a 15% shortening or reduction of the sentence would be possible with good behavior. And so now we get to what does this mean big picture about the rioters, about the future of this sort of, um, uh, behavior and involvement. I seriously hope that the biggest effect of this is that every single maga nut who's thinking, Oh, I don't know, depending on what they do to Trump in his trials or depending on whether they steal it from Trump again in 2024. Maybe I'll do something like this. Maybe I'll show up here. Maybe I'll show up there, break a window, push a police officer.

Hopefully this makes them think twice. This is not about saying your political views are being criminalized because that is of course not what is happening. The theme, since we saw many of us together, uh, you know, you, me, and another 1.3 million people on that insane day, January 6th, 2021, we all watched together as these people showed up and tried to prevent democracy from functioning. Hopefully they now are realizing this is not a good idea. It is not a good idea to do this. Going to the slammer for 22 years to own the libs or whatever doesn't make any sense. Now, there is a question of whether Tarrio now has people who are proud

of him, because remember, he did apparently out of fear, apparently to try to reduce his prison sentence. He did disavow a whole bunch of the stuff that he said. So do you still become a martyr? Do you still get lionized when you end up disavowing some of the things that you said, even when it is transparently just to try to get your sentence reduced. I saw this. Someone said online, you're going to prison for number 45, meaning president number 45 Trump, and you'll be getting out around the year 2045. And again, with good behavior, it might be more like 2040 or 2041 or something like that. Are you still a big, strong guy if you cry and beg for mercy? And he had his mommy beg to the judge for him as well. Apparently his sister, he apparently has a fiance as well. I know a bunch of people wondering how could you still have a fiance after what you did and now you're going to be away for 22 years. Apparently they all begged for mercy with tears in their eyes. It is good that people are being held accountable. And

remember, I'm actually for law and order. I am sick and tired of the right wing. You know, when it was the Iraq war under George W. Bush, the right wing tried to take ownership of so-called patriotism. And it meant, oh, if you're not patriotic, if you don't support the mission, well, patriotism means we don't send troops into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary and makes sense. It didn't, but they tried to get a monopoly on patriotism. And now they want a monopoly on law and order. They say apparently law and order means you lock up Hillaryached, even though they just can't quite get their arms around that witness and they just don't have the tapes and they lost the transcripts and the USB drive was quite literally lost in the mail when Tucker Carlson obtained it.

But they don't care for them. Law and order means lock that person up, lock up Hunter Biden, lock up whoever actual law and order support is what we want here. I don't go around saying lock this one up and lock that one up. What I say is if there is evidence of wrongdoing, bring it to a grand jury or convict depending on the jurist. I'm sorry, or indict depending on the jurisdiction and then give them due process. Enrique Tario got all of that.

And so now we can say it is accountability to lock him up, not because he's a political enemy, not because I'm just picking his name out of a hat and saying, lock this person up and getting a chant going, saying, lock them up. He has been given full due process. Now let's talk about the 2024 thing a little bit. Some of you over the last 24 hours sent me a Tim pool tweet, I guess it is, or maybe now it's called a Z or an X. I don't know what it's called at this point. You know, the thing that used to be Twitter and it said something along the lines of 2024 is going to be even more, even worse, or even more extreme than what happened on January 6th, 2021. As I have said since that day, I don't hope

that they do another riot, even if it would see 5,000 of them prosecuted rather than 1000. I don't want that to happen again because it's humiliating to the United States. It imperils our democracy and it doesn't give us anything positive at all. And I know that there are those on the right who say, oh, David, you and your ilk, the people in your audience, people like you, you just want to lock up people for their political beliefs. Find me a shred of evidence that I want to lock people up for their political beliefs. It's it applies to Trump. Oh, they want to lock Trump up because he had an opinion about the election. That's not a single indictment.

You can say whatever you want, but when you incite an insurrection, break windows, attack police officers, get fake electors to try to say, oh, we're going to give our electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden. Strong arm public officials. These are things the rioters and Trump did in their respective parts. It is no longer about speech. And so my hope is there's nothing like this in 2024. If Trump is actually elected in 2024, I will not even suggest that anyone physically stand in the way of him being inaugurated as president. I'm going to do everything I can to prevent that from happening. But this is actual law and order.

Don't let these right wing nuts convince you they have a monopoly on it. They don't have a monopoly on law and order. They don't have a monopoly on free speech. Quite the opposite. They certainly don't have a monopoly on patriotism much as they would want. Let's next talk about what's happening with the 14th Amendment. criminal prosecution, criminal indictment, imprisonment aside, Donald Trump is already ineligible to be president of the United States again or hold any public office because he violated section three of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Put simply, we went over it in more detail yesterday, but to put it simply, what that section of the 14th amendment says is that if any elected official incites or inspires an insurrection or provides aid and comfort to those who are

participating in an insurrection, they are disqualified from holding office in the future. Unless there is a two thirds vote in the house and a two thirds vote in the Senate that says we are going to allow this person to hold office. We have been thinking about who ultimately is going to make this decision. Well, state attorneys general, certainly if they want to make the determination, Hey, in our state, Donald Trump is not going to be allowed on the ballot. We have a lawsuit in south Florida. We have new Hampshire looking at removing Donald Trump from the ballot, but we have

been saying again and again, this may ultimately come down to the Supreme Court. This may be presented to the Supreme Court as a case they could take as a matter. They could take up multiple times. But we now have the first decision to be made by the Supreme Court. And to be clear, I don't want to pretend that this is the time that the Supreme Court will decide on this. But the Supreme Court has now been given the opportunity to take up a case that will relate to exactly this. The court has distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices ahead of the upcoming term. The justices will now be able to look at this case and decide, is this something we want to take up during our next term? Now, I want to

remind everybody, Castro is a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year and he has petitioned the Supreme Court and said listen you need to determine Whether Trump is actually eligible and allowed to run here once again What the lawsuit says is as I've told you Trump is not allowed to run because his actions have violated section 3 of the 14th amendment to the U S constitution. We don't yet know whether the Supreme court is actually going to take this up. If they did, it would then be a question as to how they would find. But step one is simply, does the court want to hear this case? This is an emergency brief that has been filed. There are legal experts saying this is not the strongest case when it comes to disqualifying Donald Trump.

There is a case in Michigan that arguably may be stronger. We don't even know whether the Supreme Court will decide that Castro has standing on this matter. There are other ways that this question of Trump's eligibility could reach the Supreme Court. There is a long way to go and I would highly recommend that on this issue maybe skip the online punditry. I'm even including myself in this in the sense that I'm telling you go to the legal experts

on this because there are a number of different ways that this issue might get to the Supreme Court. But the most important takeaway for you as a voter and for me as a voter here is again, the reminder we, and by that I mean I and many others on the left started raising the alarm, raising the, raising the red flag, sounding the alarm in 2016 about you may not love Hillary. You may be to Hillary's left, but the fact that Donald Trump is likely to get one, two or three Supreme court picks during that first term is likely to have potentially decades of influence on the United States of America. If Trump becomes president, we said, and appoints one, two or three Supreme Court justices,

they're coming for Roe v. Wade and they did. They are going to come for workers rights and they have, and we've gone on and on. And too many people wrote to me and said, David, I'm on the left and Hillary disgusts me and I will write in someone else, maybe Bernie, maybe someone else, or I will stay home or I will even vote Trump just to show how disgusted I am with Hillary Clinton being the nominee. And I said, that's very dangerous. It's very dangerous because we could end up with one of the most right wing Supreme courts in a very long time.

And we did. So this is not about shaming anybody. This is about, Hey, that thing I told you might happen. It happened in 2016 and we now may see that again in that the Supreme court that has been one third selected by Trump may end up deciding Trump is eligible to run when a more reasonable court might say, no, this guy incited an insurrection. He's disqualified under the 14th amendment. The consequences and the sequel a of that 2016 choice of Trump over Hillary by a very

small margin is going to wreak havoc in this country. We're getting close to a decade already, and it could be decades depending on what happens in November of 2024. So we don't have to sulk. We don't have to insult. We don't have to write angry, sometimes anti-Semitic emails to yours. Truly. We don't have to do any of that stuff. All we have to do is vote in November of 2024, no matter how the polls are looking. Make sure you're subscribed to our YouTube channel. Make sure you are following the real David Pakman show. Tick tock, not accept no imitation of the many, many, many imitators. Only one is legitimate.

We're going to take a quick break. So G one a day. You get 75 high quality vitamins and probiotics from whole food sources. You're covered for the day. Half of Americans are deficient in vitamins A and C and magnesium. Not everybody has time to perfectly plan every meal. And I don't know that any of us want to be spending a whole bunch of money on endless different vitamins and supplements. AG one just simplifies it and it's more cost effective. I take a single scoop of AG one in the morning before my coffee tastes great with water, but you can mix it quite frankly into anything you want with that one scoop. I'm covered for the day getting everything

I want. It's easy and it's a simple routine that works. Go to drink AG one dot com slash Pacman to get five free travel packs of AG one plus a free one year supply of vitamin D. That's drink AG the number one dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. If you've been thinking about getting a new mattress, Helix Sleep is where I would start. I've been sleeping on Helix mattresses for years now. I recommend Helix to everyone, which is why I wanted them as a sponsor. If you don't want to take my word for it, Helix has been awarded number one mattress by both GQ and Wired magazine. And one of the things that makes Helix unique is their sleep quiz. I didn't really know what kind of mattress

would be best for me. But you do this short sleep quiz. You answer questions about your body type and your preferences, what position you like to sleep in. And Helix will match you with the perfect mattress for you. So, you know, you're actually getting something tailored to your needs instead of going in blind like most people do. I got my Helix mattress designed to stay cool at night since I hate getting hot while I sleep. Shipping is always free. You get 100 nights to decide whether you like it.

My audience gets a huge 25 percent discount on all purchases, plus two free pillows. Go to Helix Sleep dot com slash Pacman and enter the code Helix Partner 25 at checkout. That's Helix Sleep dot com slash Pacman. Then use code Helix Partner to five to get 25 percent off and two free pillows. The info is in the podcast notes. I will quickly remind you that the David Pakman show is an audience funded program. If you're not getting the bonus show, if you're hearing commercials when you listen to the podcast, you're not getting the full experience that you could be getting. You can sign up at joinpacman.com. Every person that signs up allows us to improve the website, expand distribution,

add new content, and do so many different things. By the way, the full website redesign is underway. It's going to be fantastic. Super excited and also have gotten so many great suggestions about what to add, what to change from our members. So I really appreciate that. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code for years for indictments to get yourself a sizable discount. Well, it comes as a surprise to very few that eventually Elon Musk has come around on who to blame for the absolute destruction of the platform formerly known as Twitter thanks to his decisions to blaming the Jews or in this case it is a Jewish group known as the anti-defamation

League it is a historically Jewish civil rights group. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I know that if I don't say this, I will get some very nasty emails. My brother used to work for the Anti-Defamation League. He now has not for years, but I will put that up front and you can be the judge as whether that is as to whether that is in some way clouding my sense of Elon Musk blaming the ADL for Twitter losing half of its value since he purchased it. So here's what's going on. Elon Musk is now arguing that the anti-defamation league has defamed Twitter and Elon Musk as anti-Semitic and is falsely pointing to anti-Semitic

content on the platform. This has scared off advertisers and thus it is the anti-defamation league that is now responsible for roughly 20 plus billion dollars in value that Twitter has lost. This is really, really wacky stuff. Alex Jones has jumped in on this. Elon Musk is now regularly talking about it and he says he is now considering suing the anti defamation league for the destruction that they have brought to Twitter. The only problem with this, and I'm still calling it Twitter, it is now called X. The only problem with this is that it is not just the Anti-Defamation League that has found that since Elon Musk took over Twitter and under his stewardship, under his

campaign of unbanning and unblocking people, under his campaign of creating the for you feed, which is a sort of algorithmically curated feed. It all has been stuffed with extremism up to and including endless examples of anti-Semitic content about Jews being the problem and so on and so forth. It is, I will say, almost welcomed on the platform, but certainly allowed. Now, concurrent with this, there are reports that Twitter has suffered a 60 percent decline, a 60 percent decline in ad revenue. That is what we are seeing both from advertisers saying we've reduced our advertising by a significant portion or we've ended it altogether. And the position that those on the Elon, I don't want to call it the left or

the right. It's sort of a weird area that's been staked out. But those who are on board with what Elon Musk has been saying are arguing that it is through defamation from groups like the ADL that advertisers have been scared or coerced into leaving. And thus somebody is responsible for that decline. Why wouldn't it be the anti-defamation league? Now, in talking about all of this, Elon Musk insists that Twitter is not an anti-Semitic platform at all, that they don't welcome anti-Semitic content or whatever the case may be. The problem with that is that they do seem to, and there have been countless examples of this and of the, I hesitate to say platforming, but again, it's the signal boosting and even

favored status on the for you feed of a lot of extremist right wingers that many of whom are anti-Semitic, not all. Some have other prejudicial predilections. So a couple of different issues here. First and foremost, is it coherent to claim to be all about free speech and then to say the 80 LOS is 20 billion because by talking about us they have cost us 60% of our ad revenue. Well, I'm going to be fair on this. Defimate. You can be a supporter of free speech, but still say that when there has been defamation,

you should be entitled to legal recourse. That defamation by definition is not protected speech. And I would agree with that. The problem is that a valid defense to defamation is showing the truth of what you said. We've looked before. Each state has slightly different, um, legal definitions of what defamation is. There's usually a few components. One of the components is, did you say the thing and was it communicated to a third party?

Another component is that it damaged the reputation of that individual or organization that you were talking about. And number three, did you do it with usually it's malice or negligence towards the impact that it would have a valid defense to a defamation claim for the ADL would simply be to show here's how much anti-Semitic content was allowed on the platform before Elon Musk took over. And here's how much anti-Semitic content was allowed on the platform after Elon Musk took over quite simply, that would be a valid defense to defamation. You can put all the other elements aside and just proving the matter of what you said.

This is why so many defamation suits don't go forward. I once sort of told the story of when I was, I want to be careful, I still haven't told the full story when I was threatened with a defamation suit over some content that I had produced. And I went to a more than one lawyer, in fact, and said, tell me about this. What are the risks? And I was told, listen, it is extremely unlikely you will be sued for defamation because if you were, you would have an opportunity or your, your your lawyer your counsel would have an opportunity to do discovery and potentially to take a deposition of that individual claiming you defame them because what you said is almost certainly true or at minimum plausible and reasonable to believe, it's very unlikely that they are going to sue you because they don't want to be deposed.

They don't want you to do discovery, but you might rack up a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees before you get to the point at which you could request your legal fees be paid and the defamation case be dismissed. So you probably don't want to take that chance. This is an old story which I've told a number of different times. So it is not likely that such a defamation suit will actually go forward, but they say they are about personal responsibility, but they want to blame someone else. They say they're, they are about free speech, but as soon as your speech is something they don't like, they claim defamation. And of course it shouldn't come as a shock to any of us that you eventually get to let's blame the Jews or at least a Jewish group.

The former Twitter is really going down in flames. It's actually shocking. If you had said two years ago, how could we destroy half the value of Twitter? It wouldn't be that obvious that you could easily do it, but Elon Musk has figured out a way to do it. I've talked to you about how some of the arguments made in the media, in the court of public opinion by Trump and his lawyers aren't good legal arguments and they will be thrown out in court if they try to make them. This is already happening and this is so damn funny. Prosecutor Letitia James from New York is now demanding that Trump and his sons and his lawyers, their lawyers be fined $10,000 each for repeatedly making losing arguments

in her fraud case. Now I want to remind you, this is not the there are multiple cases going on. This is just one of them. And one of the things that is going on is that in court, Trump's lawyers on the behalf of Trump and his sons are making bogus arguments. These these are non legal arguments. This is the two hundred and fifty million dollar business fraud lawsuit. This is not the criminal trial. I know at this point,

it's hard to keep these straight over the last year. Letitia James is saying most recently last week, lawyers for Trump have raised bogus arguments in fighting the case. This case is scheduled to start on October 2nd. One of the arguments that Trump's lawyers are making in court is this entire thing is a politically motivated witch hunt. As I told you before, that is not an argument that is going to fly if they try to make it in court. Another argument that Trump's lawyers have been making on their behalf is that Letitia James has no legal standing or capacity to sue him because his business frauds didn't

actually harm the public, arguing that the entire thing is for frivolous. And again, Letitia James is saying that is a bogus legal argument and is demanding that Trump and his sons be fined. Another argument that Trump made in public is, listen, we put little did this, this relates to Trump's valuing assets dramatically differently depending on whether he's trying to collateralize alone or reduce his property tax liability. When it's for property taxes, Trump would say, oh, this building's not worth very much at all.

You should lower our property taxes when it's, hey, I want a loan. Here's a beautiful building for collateral. Trump would say the building is worth way more. This is one of the issues with this fraud case. The other aspect to this is that Trump says, hey, we had a little disclaimer on all of these valuations that said the banks should really do their own due diligence and not rely on what we're telling them, which is not a legal defense to the allegations that are being made in the lawsuit. So this is a theme. And what I love about this is that something that a number of legal experts predicted was

that if Donald Trump tries to go to court, particularly in the criminal trials with some of the arguments that he's been making in the media, courts are not going to look at this kindly and I'll give you some other examples When it comes to the classified documents case Trump in the media and some of Trump's defenders in the media have said This isn't even a criminal issue. This is all governed by the Presidential Records Act That is not a valid legal argument and in fact the Presidential Records Act stops governing Trump's actions and his ability to hold the classifier or whatever documents once he is no longer president. And much of what Trump is charged with in that classified documents case are actions

he allegedly undertook after he was president. If you go to court and they say, here are the criminal charges against you, do you have a defense? And you go, this is all governed by the Presidential Records Act. It is not a valid defense. It will not work. Another example that has been used in media that is not going to work as a legal argument is, listen, I won the election.

They stole it. And now they're prosecuting me because I believed I won the election. And I said so. And of course, if you go to court and they say, mount your defense, sir, and you go, well, uh, they, they, they stole it. And now they're going after me because of what I said. And that's my first amendment, right? Judges and prosecutors would say, that's not in the indictment because you aren't being charged for what you said. You're being charged for what you did saying you're prosecuting

me for my opinion is not a valid legal argument. This is very reassuring that we are immediately seeing attempts to go after Trump and his lawyers for making bogus legal arguments in this lawsuit because it suggests that indeed if he tries it in his criminal trials, it is going to get, you could say, laughed out of court. But it's probably not going to going to come with a smile behind it. It's probably going to come with sanctions of some kind. This is great news and very reassuring. And by the way, we are less than a month away from the start of that fraud lawsuit against Trump's business.

Going to be super interesting. And that is totally separate from the four criminal trials. Incredible six months coming up. That's for sure. Something that's been in the news a lot lately is data brokers collecting vast amounts of data about everything you do on your phone and computer, where you go, what you look at. they identify patterns in your behavior.

And it's really quite disturbing how much data brokers know about us, even our health information. And then we found out that sometimes government agencies like the FBI will buy that information from data brokers to spy on Americans without warrants. Ad companies buy the data to serve you. Ads financial institutions can use the information. The information can even end up on public search sites where anybody can see it. But there is a way to stop it. Our sponsor, Incogni, is an affordable service that sends

automatic data removal requests to data brokers who are required by law to comply. Incogni even. If you're like me and you love the nostalgia of enjoying a bowl of cereal sometimes as an adult, check out our sponsor magic spoon. Magic spoon is the breakfast cereal with the crunchy, sweet goodness you love, but with zero grams of sugar, more protein, and only four to five net carbs. So it's perfect if you're doing low carb, if you're doing keto, if you're like me and you just don't want to eat a bunch of sugar, magic spoon has delicious flavors to choose from. Cocoa, fruity, frosted peanut butter, honey nut, cinnamon roll, birthday cake. My favorite is maple waffle. And right now they have limited edition spring flavors, strawberry milkshake and peaches and cream.

Sometimes you just feel like sitting down with a bowl of cereal when the mood strikes. Go for something with plenty of protein without all the sugar. If you don't love Magic Spoon as much as I do and our team does, Magic Spoon will refund all of your money. No questions asked. Go to Magic Spoon dot com slash Pacman. Create a custom bundle. Use the code Pacman for five dollars off. That's Magic Spoon dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Here's an explosive and shocking story that you will see tonight on former Fox News propagandist Tucker Carlson's Twitter vlog, I guess is what it is. Tucker Carlson will be interviewing the man who had sex with Barack Obama and also observed Obama doing crack cocaine. If you're wondering why you didn't hear about this sooner and why this is news in 2023, it's because the guy that Tucker has decided to interview in an apparently desperate

attempt to rescue his failing Twitter show after being fired from Fox News is a formerly convicted con man who has been arrested multiple times and whose claims have not been presented with even a shred of evidence. So here's the promo from Tucker Carlson. This will be airing air. I don't even know what airing means. It will be posted to X as a seat. Tucker will be seating this tonight. A man who had sex with Barack Obama in 1999.

Let's take a look at the preview. You're just a guy who's in town for the night and it sounds like you're looking to party. Yeah. Pulled up in a bar outside and there's this guy. Let's take a little pipe and he's smoking. So I just started rubbing my hand along his thigh to see where it was going, and it went the direction I had intended it to go. Even though you had sex with him twice, you did cocaine with him, watched him smoke crack twice, you had no idea who he was? I had no idea who he was.

You just asked the obvious question. What was Obama like on crack? Is it your sense that that's who Obama is, just transactional, or that he's bisexual, or, like, what is that? It definitely wasn't Barack's first time, and I would almost be willing to bet you it wasn't as long. The guy's running for president, and credible information comes out that he's smoking crack and having sex with dudes. That seems like a story.

Well, it would be a story if the media really cared about telling people the truth. All right. So, you know, when Tucker got fired from Fox News, there were many of us who said whatever program Tucker reconstitutes on whatever platform he reconstitutes it. I don't know how many people are really going to watch it. I don't really know what the caliber of the production is going to be, but it is certainly going to be a different thing in order to stay relevant in order to generate clicks or whatever the case may be. And now he's interviewing Larry Sinclair about his explosive 24 year old claims of having had sex with Barack Obama. So let's discuss a few different elements.

The overtly homophobic nature of this as an attack, right? Because at the end of the day, if Obama were gay, it would just be like, oh, okay, how did he do his president for us? Normal non homophobic people. But for, you know, Tucker's universe is like, oh my God, he's a gay man. Well, this changes everything. Now of course the claims are without any evidence. And we'll get to that. We'll also get to the guy making the claim. But first, let's just talk about Tucker's palpable desperation here.

The palpable desperation of a guy who not that long ago was one of the most influential of influential. And I don't want to use the term respected because so many of us didn't respect him, but he was revered by the political right talked about as a possible presidential candidate even. And he has so quickly been reduced now to interviewing Larry Sinclair on Twitter about two and a half decades old claims about Barack Obama. Now, let's get to the claims. These are not new claims.

It's not true that nobody looked into it. It is true that the story of Larry Sinclair having sex with Obama and seeing him do crack cocaine did not exactly make the mainstream because there is no evidence whatsoever that it is true. It's not reasonable. Imagine if I said, hey, you know what? I've been claiming for so long that, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene is an alien from the Alpha Centauri system or something like that. And then I go, listen, I've been claiming this for years and nobody pays any attention to it. The mainstream media aren't doing their job. Well, the mainstream media have a responsibility not to irresponsibly cover stuff for which there is no evidence. And that's what's been going on with Larry Sinclair's claims.

Now, there's a real question. Is Tucker being scammed or is Tucker doing the scamming? Does Tucker believe Larry Sinclair? It's sort of hard to believe because although Tucker seems to have no moral compass, it seems that he's at least intelligent enough to realize that these are claims being made completely without evidence. So then we get to is Tucker scamming or grifting his audience out of desperation because his Twitter show is failing. That seems more likely now for those who say, David Tucker's Twitter show is not failing.

He got 300 million views of his interview with Trump. Just think logically for a second. Some of the music videos for the most popular songs in the world don't get 300 million actual views on YouTube. What's happening on Twitter is that they completely changed what it means for something to be viewed. They pump Tucker's content into the for you page. And when people scroll past it time and time again, because it's being force fed to them and the video starts playing without, without audio by itself for a month, for one second, that counts as a view. That's what they're talking about. So this

is not exactly explosive content when it comes to the audience. So now let's just talk a little bit about the merits. Larry Sinclair is a career criminal. He still could be telling the truth, right, about having had sex with Obama. Larry Sinclair is a con man. He still could be telling the truth this time about having sex with Barack Obama, but he's never presented any evidence period. Uh, years ago, the website whiteouse.com reportedly offered Sinclair $100,000 if he could pass a polygraph test. Now, you don't have to tell me about the inadmissibility

and lack of reliability of polygraphs. Doesn't matter for our purposes here. Sinclair took the polygraph. The polygraph results came back saying, oh, he's being deceptive. He's he, the results indicate deception. And Sinclair then suggested that the polygraph sponsors bribed the person running the test in order to skew the results against him. Did he have any evidence of that? No. Does he have any evidence up until now over these last 24 years that any of his claims about Barack Obama are true. Of course not. Uh, the story that he told was that a limo driver introduced him to Barack Obama and

Sinclair, uh, that they wanted, he wanted to connect with Sinclair after a party and that Obama used his real name and said, Hey, I'm Barack Obama, Illinois state senator. And the rest was history. He was just so enamored with Sinclair that they had sex. And then Obama got crack cocaine and did it. I guess Sinclair says he didn't do the crack cocaine, but they were there together when Obama did it. This is a guy with a 27-year criminal record, forgery, charges in two states, bad checks, check fraud, credit card

fraud. He once signed an affidavit saying that he is terminally ill to have a warrant dismissed. It's been decades. He's still alive. We never found out exactly what illness he had or any of it. So that is what Tucker Carlson has now been reduced to. Now, I'm going to ask you one other thing here. Even if Obama were a gay man, who cares?

And that gets us back to the sort of continued implicit homophobia of this modern right wing. It's still considered scandalous or interesting to them. Now, they might say, well, the drug part is more interesting or the fact that Obama must clearly be living his life as a lie with Michelle Obama just being there so that he can maintain some kind of public image as a straight man. It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up. The fact that this is even something that would generate the notion of explosivity in 2023 is built on the hardwired, seemingly homophobia of the American right wing. Much of it is expanded into transphobia, of course, as you know. But that's where we are. This is what Tucker has been relegated to. And I would almost say that it's funny if it weren't incredibly sad.

Donald Trump and others are now claiming that minority voters, racial minorities, nonwhite voters are abandoning Joe Biden and are flocking to Trump, desperate to support Donald Trump's next candidacy. The only problem with this claim is that there's really no evidence of it whatsoever in any reliable poll that I've been able to find. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Here is Donald Trump posting to his soon to be dead platform. Truth social. his soon to be dead platform, Truth Social, some call it truth central posting in all

capital letters because of course it's much more believable when caps lock is engaged. Quote, minority voters are abandoning crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party for Trump. Thank you. A very wise decision. And Trump seemingly unable to contain himself. Also throwing in in all capital letters, indict your political opponent, the newest tool in the Democrats toolbox of corruption. No apostrophe there, just Democrats, plural. This all relates to the notion that people like Trump and others are spreading, that black and Latino voters are sick of Joe Biden because Biden's racist and he's not good for minorities. And Trump was the best for black

people. And, you know, the whole thing. Uh, and it is not just a general claim that they're making. They are also claiming this is so it's so implicitly racist. I guessed on Charlie Kirk's show the other day, I think there was, this was yesterday actually said black people love that Trump was indicted, almost like the implication here is since Black people are criminals implicitly, as far as the right believes, they love it when Trump is also arrested because it shows he's like them. It's so crazy and implicitly racist. Take a look at this. People who think that this is not going to make him more relatable with non whites don't know non whites like the real non white population in this country. We interviewed somebody the other day. And I mean, basically, Charlie, I just never would believe I would hear a young African-American man talk like a bill. Talk about a billionaire white guy like this. But he's basically like now Trump knows how we feel. He's you know, he's he's got the best chance to take

it to the man. He's got the best chance to take it to the system. And I can't stand the system. So the biggest F.U. I could give him is vote for Donald Trump. All right. That's that's pretty full on stuff, folks. So let's talk about a couple of different things. First of all, it's important to recall that this is a story that they tell time and time and time again. Nonwhite voters are sick of their votes being assumed by the Democratic Party. They've been tricked by the Democratic Party. They're coming over to our side.

And of course, the reality is that that is implicitly racist. The idea that black and Latino voters haven't just evaluated, hey, which candidate do I prefer? Which candidate is offering to do more for my community? And I'm going to pick the one that is offering to do more. No, it can't can't possibly be that. It must be that nonwhite voters favor Democrats because they've been tricked. They're not smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

They've just fallen for it. OK, that's implicitly racist. But every election, they love to do this. Trump did it in 2016. Trump did it in 2020. Oh, we're winning so bigly. Where's my African-Americans? And, you know, the entire thing, they're coming over to us.

They're abandoning Joe Biden. I did much better with the blacks and the Hispanics and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it's like you look at the numbers and it's not really there. Yeah. Trump did a little bit better with Hispanic voters in 2020 than some Republicans have done in the past. Did not seem to be a seismic shift of any kind. And so I looked, are there any credible polls that show Trump gaining ground right now among minority voters? And the answer is no. Now, is it possible there is a credible poll that shows this and I just couldn't find it? Sure, it's possible. Is it possible that it is a not credible poll, McLaughlin or Rasmussen or something like that? Sure, it's possible. But I'm not going to present you with not credible polls because they aren't credible. So it seems to be another fabricated talking point based on a pyramid of implicitly

racist ideas like black people love it when others get arrested because getting arrested is sort of like something they do or like or it's so obviously racist. But the angle of the racism is actually sort of difficult to figure out there from that guest on Charlie Kirk's show. For the time being, nothing has changed in that nonwhite voters overwhelmingly prefer Joe Biden over Trump or DeSantis or any of the potential Republican nominees. If that changes, it would be interesting. And I'll certainly let you know.

Forty eight million Americans have some hearing loss. So if you or a loved one is struggling with hearing loss, you are certainly not alone. Only one in five people who would benefit from a hearing aid actually get a hearing aid. Our sponsor, MD Hearing, specializes in FDA registered rechargeable hearing aids at a fraction of the cost. Marked up hearing aids at an in-person hearing clinic can cost up to ten thousand dollars at MD Hearing. You'll pay just three hundred dollars. They perform incredibly well. I have a family friend who's tried a variety of hearing aids.

She recently switched to MD hearing, couldn't be happier, loves them. You take their free online hearing test. Their world class team of licensed audiologists will advise you how to set up your device. Your audiologist is there to provide ongoing support by video call or text. And MD hearings new model, the Neo is their smallest hearing aid ever. No one will even know it's there. Simply go to MD hearing dot com. Use the code Pacman to get any pair of hearing aids for just one hundred and fifty dollars each. They will throw in a free charging case. The

bad news just will not stop for Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who's trying to run for the Republican nomination. The latest is massive dumps, not of votes, but of donors and would be Republican donors dropping out and saying, we're not going to keep giving this guy money. It is all going south. There is a very interesting write up in Politico, which we not going to keep giving this guy money. It is all going south. There is a very interesting write up in Politico, which we will link to showing that there are many Republican donors that are ditching DeSantis, others who are simply not starting donations despite being approached.

And these are really major, major donors, the likes of which, quite frankly, you need. I wish it were different. I wish it didn't depend on fundraising and we had a different system. But there is a very interesting trend in what some of these donors are saying. Former Illinois governor Bruce Rauner was one of DeSantis' biggest supporters early in the season. And during his gubernatorial run in 2022, gave nearly a million dollars to his reelection bid through a PAC. But right now, when Rahner is looking around and saying what's going on, what does the polling look like? He has stopped donations to the Florida governor.

And Rahner spoke to Politico. And this is fascinating. Rahner now thinks that Nikki Haley may actually be better positioned to defeat Biden than Ron DeSantis would be positioned to defeat Biden. Now, this is a totally separate issue from whether Nikki Haley or DeSantis could even win the primary. Obviously, that's something that needs to be looked at. And we don't know. We don't know that yet. But this is a theme.

And there's two parts to the theme. There are other former DeSantis mega donors from 2022 who aren't giving DeSantis is 2022 campaign. Only 16 of the 50, in other words, less than a third are donating to DeSantis is current pack. Never back down. Now, remember, you might say, I thought you could only donate $2,700 to these super packs. You can donate way, way, way more money. And one of the themes is not only are they saying, ah, it doesn't really look like DeSantis has what it takes. His campaign's not exactly taking flight. There's the additional element of looking at Nikki Haley as maybe the person that could do better in this campaign

if given the right resources. If we look at polling, what we see is that Trump continues to bounce between 52 and 55. DeSantis has seen an insane decline from 31 to 13 with just a little pop. DeSantis has gained about a point and a half in the last 10 days. But the most interesting thing here is Nikki Haley. If you look at Vivek Ramaswamy,

there was talk of a surge, and you can actually see here, Vivek got all the way up to 7.6 and maybe this was the start of Vivek's ascendancy and it didn't happen. He lost about half a point and is down to seven. But Nikki Haley, who polled right around three or four for months, is now at 6.1, the highest she has been since she entered the race, increasingly with discussions that she may actually have what it takes to take on Trump, for example, in New Hampshire. And if she were able to win New Hampshire, then who knows what the future path may hold. So three basic stories here. Number one, the crumbling of Ron DeSantis seems almost inevitable unless something turns it around. I quite frankly don't know what that would be at

this point. He's so uncharismatic, even in the debate stage where he was given front and center positioning. He was just really not a factor. Second story, the actual climb of Nikki Haley and what might the future of that be? And then the third story, it's almost like a story about addiction. The Republican Party is addicted to Trumpism. What will it take to get beyond the cult of Trump? That's what I want to talk about next. I alluded yesterday to a post on the David Pakman show subreddit. You can find it at David Pakman dot com slash Reddit.

I alluded to a post from the user Dragon Fruit still called How does the cult of Trump end? And we've been talking about how does it end? Do they at certain do Republicans at a certain point say we're done? We're voting out all of the MAGA people doesn't really seem likely. Is it with Trump's death or imprisonment that the cult ends? I kind of don't think so. Certainly with imprisonment, they'll see him as a hero. He'll be martyred and it will be a whole other thing.

And what this user posted to our subreddit is the following. I couldn't help but wonder where this cult will end compared to Jim Jones, Jim Jones of the people's temple. That's the drink, the Kool-Aid people. Jones utilized sycophants and devotees to murder congressmen and journalists, but was still somehow tempered by the Christian foundations not to go out guns blazing, but resigned to a mass suicide via manipulation. We should call it what it was a mass murder suicide. Some people were injected with the cyanide. The key difference at the end for Jones was that he had truly given up, lost all hope

of surviving after a long string of defeats. I don't see that in Trump and wonder if he's too delusional to ever get to that place. Somehow I imagine him hearing the guilty verdict and still not giving up. And of course, absolutely. Even if Trump gets that guilty verdict and even if he is imprisoned, which I don't think is going to happen, but okay, maybe Trump may or may not give up, but his followers aren't going to give up. If that's the case, he will be martyred and he will be held up as a hero.

The critical part here is does someone come ill come in to replace Trump? And that is what another Reddit user reflex point seems to be getting at who said, quote, it will end when some other movement or leader arises that they latch onto and move on from Trump. Unfortunately, whatever or whoever that is, is likely to be even worse than Trump. We thought it was going to be Ron DeSantis. He lacks charisma. Some are saying Vivek Ramaswamy.

But I really don't see the majority of Maga land following behind a brown skin Hindu guy. I'm not talking the more savvy Magas like Elon Musk, but the diehards that make up the base of rural white evangelical America. Maybe it will be a Christian white guy with a track record like the Santas, but with Rama Swami social skills. I don't know who that currently is. I generally agree with this take what it is going to take unless we wait 20 years for Trump to work his way completely through the justice system, maybe be sentenced or not, eventually pass away and allow time to pass after that.

The faster path to getting beyond the cult of Trump is Trump's role as cult leader being replaced by somebody else. And there's a real question as to who that would actually be. I don't see any great contenders right now in the Republican Party. It's not going to be DeSantis. I highly doubt it's going to be Rama. Swami people talked about, oh, Tim Scott has, you know, the Christian element and all these different things. Is the Trump cult cult going to move on to a black guy after everything that they've done? And it just doesn't seem particularly likely. So I agree. The Trump cult ends when someone replaces

Trump. Will they be even worse? Maybe, maybe. But I don't see this ending quietly. I'll put it that way. Let me know what you think. Curious to hear your thoughts. We have a voicemail number. That number is 2192DavidP. Here's an interesting voicemail. It's a very simple question.

Oh, I should put on my headphones so I can listen to it as well. It's a very simple question with a complicated answer. Do you really think blue states are better than red states? I don't know. There it is. Do I really think blue states are better than red states? You know, the question is in what way?

If to to really be able to answer these questions, we have to define what we mean by better. Do I mean if you want to talk about economic sustainability, we know that on average, blue states pay into the federal government way more than they get out. And the red states are sort of like the welfare recipients of the states. They get more out than they pay in. So in terms of economic viability, certainly blue states are stronger when it comes to innovation. And we look at, well, which are the states that are generating the most patents per capita or Nobel prizes per capita? Certainly it is the blue states. So in that category, by that evaluation, we would say blue states do better. If you want to rank states by education, on average, blue states have better education,

better educational outcomes, more people going to college, better achievement on test scores, et cetera. If you want to talk about access to and quality of health care, on average, yes, blue states do better. So if you look, look at average salaries, higher in blue states, higher cost of living, certainly, but higher salaries. Are there metrics that red states might do better on on average? Sure. I don't know what they are, but maybe there's metrics like I don't even know miles of undeveloped land per capita.

You know, you look at places with super low population density like Wyoming and the Dakotas and Montana, certainly nominally red states, although they occasionally elect Democrats. Yeah, I mean, I think that you have more undeveloped land per person. So if your dream, if what makes a state better for you is that, then you could find those metrics. But the truth is that by the standard metrics, and if you want like a catch-all metric, you can look at HDI, Human Development Index, by state. You see that blue states are much closer to the upper end of the spectrum in the Human Development Index, and red states on average are lower. So are blue states better than red states? Depends what makes a state better to you. But by many of the metrics we've talked about time and

time again, blue states are certainly stronger and more stable. We have a great bonus show for you today. Bernie is pushing the 32 hour work week. What are we, French socialists now? It's actually quite interesting. And the data behind it is very compelling. We will talk about another gender reveal stunt gone completely wrong where a pilot died. And I'm also going to talk to you about the latest with George Santos. George Santos is reportedly considering a guilty plea in that federal fraud case. Why would he consider that if he is completely and totally innocent?

We will discuss it. All of those stories on the bonus show. Make sure you have access by signing up at join Pacman dot com. It's cheap, it's quick. And by the way, membership prices after being flat for a decade will be going up when the new David Pakman show website launches. So an extra incentive to get in now at join pacman.com