5/15/24: Biden calls out Trump, Trump asleep with gaping mouth

This episode dives into the anticipated debates between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, their strategic implications, and various related political and legal dramas involving both figures.

1. Biden and Trump are gearing up for potentially high-stakes debates, with strategic implications for both.
2. Trump's legal challenges are multiplying, potentially affecting his public and political standing.
3. The episode examines how political figures manage public perceptions amidst controversies.
4. Trump's physical state during trials, particularly his napping, could influence public and juror opinions.
5. The episode also discusses broader political strategies and the ongoing impacts of legal battles on Trump's campaign.

1: Upcoming Debates

This chapter discusses the strategic importance of the upcoming debates between Biden and Trump, focusing on their potential impacts on the 2024 presidential election. Key points include how public expectations and media portrayals might influence the debates' outcomes. David Pakman: "Biden challenging Trump to debates in a video released on Twitter..."

2: Trump's Legal Troubles

Explores the multiple legal issues facing Donald Trump, including public and behind-the-scenes responses to these challenges. The discussion also covers Trump's reaction to these pressures, particularly through social media. David Pakman: "Trump's cognitive deterioration seems to be accelerating..."

3: Political Repercussions

Analyzes the political consequences for figures like Rudy Giuliani and others embroiled in controversies or legal troubles, highlighting the financial and reputational stakes involved. David Pakman: "The legal problems for Rudy Giuliani are becoming not only legal problems in and of themselves, but also significant financial problems."

1. Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with political events and their broader implications to make informed decisions.
2. Critical Analysis: Develop skills to analyze political rhetoric critically, distinguishing between substantive arguments and political posturing.
3. Engagement: Participate in political discussions and forums to foster a more informed and engaged public.
4. Fact-Checking: Verify the facts presented in political debates and media coverage to combat misinformation.
5. Voting: Engage in the electoral process to support candidates who best represent your views and values.

-- On the Show:

-- Dr. Rick Bright, immunologist and virologist, joins David to discuss the status of the growing H5N1 bird flu spread, and the potential for a forthcoming pandemic

-- President Joe Biden challenges Donald Trump to debate him, and Donald Trump appears to accept the challenge in a Truth Social post

-- Arizona officials have reportedly been unable to physically get access to Rudy Giuliani in order to serve him criminal indictment papers

-- Donald Trump defends Kristi Noem's dog-killing in an interview with Clay and Buck gone horribly wrong

-- Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's lawyer, asks witness Michael Cohen whether he called him a "crying little sh!t," to which Cohen answered that it sounds like something he would say

-- Failed former President Donald Trump is reported to have slept through Michael Cohen's testimony with his mouth hanging wide open

-- Donald Trump's daily courthouse reading out loud routine fails badly

-- Republican Congressman Cory Mills humiliates himself trying to run suck-up interference for Donald Trump at his criminal trial

-- Vivek Ramaswamy's painful cringe defense of Donald Trump while on the PBD Podcast

-- Voicemail caller defends and reassures David despite the recent furious RFK brain worm-related Membership cancellation

-- On the Bonus Show: DOJ requests judge order Steve Bannon to start prison sentence, Alabama moves to ban lab-grown meat, Kristi Noem outlawed on six Native American reservations, much more...

People

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani

Companies

None

Books

None

Guest Name(s):

None

Content Warnings:

None

Speaker A
Well, after a relative quiet on the debate front, all of a sudden, apparently Joe Biden and failed former President Donald Trump will be having two debates. Joe Biden challenging Trump to debates in a video released on Twitter, combined with apparently some kind of further communication with specific date proposals and Donald Trump seemingly accepting it on truth social now, we'll talk about who stands to gain the most and who stands to lose the most from debate. But I'll tell you, even though I think the format of these debates does not really lend itself to deep policy discussion, I would still prefer debates to no debates. And we'll talk about that in a moment as well. President Joe Biden putting out the following video and saying to Donald Trump, let's just do it. Let's stop pretending that you want to and I don't and whatever, let's just do it. Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hadn't shown up for debate.

Speaker B
Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again.

Speaker A
We'll make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So let's pick the dates. Donald, I hear you're free on Wednesdays.

Free on Wednesday.

Free on Wednesdays, of course, because Donald Trump is embroiled in a criminal trial Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. And they have Wednesday off, a day that Donald Trump plays a lot of golf, apparently. So what do we have here?

We have Donald Trump apparently accepting this. Trump taking to his platform, truth social.

Oh, boy, I dropped, I missed. Messed up the timing.

Speaker B
Speaker one central.

Speaker A
There it is. And saying, quote, Crooked Joe Biden is the worst debater I have ever faced. He can't put two sentences together. Crooked is also the worst president in the history of the United Shesh, by far. It's time for a debate so that he can explain to the american people his highly destructive open border policy, new and ridiculous electric vehicle mandates, the allowance of crushing inflation, high taxes, and his really weak foreign policy, which is allowing the world to catch on fire. I am ready and willing, that's willing with a capital w, to debate crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September. I would strongly recommend more than two debates and for excitement purposes, a very large venue.

Although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds, that's only because he doesn't get them. Just tell me when I'll be there. Quotes let's get ready to capital our rumble. Three exclamation points. Oh, boy, there's exclamation points all over this thing. So CNN reporting Biden challenges Trump to two debates under special conditions Republican accepts. Now, of course, the special conditions aren't that special. It's that the nonpartisan commission on presidential Debates organized them, which is what Trump has been trying to resist for a while now, arguing, oh, they're so unfair. Everybody's biased against me. It's just all terrible. But we apparently are going to be getting two debates late June at least, presumably after the current Trump criminal trial concludes and before any other criminal trial will start, based on what we know right now, um, and before the conventions, and then, of course, in September, very, very close to the election. So who benefits more from debate? There's a couple different things going on here. First of all, the setting of very low expectations for Joe Biden has happened before, and I believe it has helped Joe Biden. In other words, Trump, for years now, and this goes back to 2020, has been setting the expectations that Biden essentially doesn't know what's going on and won't be able to speak and has no clue. And then Biden shows up and he does fine. They're not mind blowing debates. He's not the prototype of vigor and effervescence. Biden isn't, but he does fine.

The expectations were set very low when Biden debated Bernie Sanders in 2020, and he did fine. And the expectations were low when Biden debated Trump in 2020, and it was fine. So in that sense, Biden potentially benefits from people going in thinking Biden might soil himself, and then Biden does completely fine. So that helps Joe Biden. Now, there's another aspect to this which has to do with do debates convince people, or are they essentially viewers tuning in to see whoever is their candidate, hopefully do well, and debate doesn't really have the pot potential to change minds. I think it mostly doesn't have the potential to change minds, particularly when we're talking about late June and September. However, there is an asymmetrical downside risk. If you show up and do fine, you probably retain your base, but probably not really gain too, too much. If you show up and do terribly, you do risk alienating and losing a portion of the people that went in thinking they were going to support you. So that risk applies to both Biden and Trump. If either has a disastrous performance, it could be a problem based on what the, the mental health professionals we've been speaking with say, Trump's cognitive deterioration seems to be accelerating. And a month from now, several months from now, in September, it could potentially be worse. So there is definitely risk to both. I want to see debate, although I don't think we're going to learn too much policy wise, we will get a sense, at least in theory, for how the two candidates would handle high pressure situations with global leaders.

A Rudy Giuliani, as I've told you before, has been indicted. And so far, Arizona officials have been unable to serve him with indictment papers because they just can't get access to him. It's been reported, including, for example, here by CNN, that officials can't find Rudy Giuliani. That's not really accurate.

The report, if you look at it in detail, explains that officials actually showed up at what is believed to be Rudy Giuliani's home. They just weren't allowed in by front desk staff, door men. I don't know what the right term is, security.

So they did find Rudy, but they were not able to get access. And part of this is a little bit strange because very often Rudy Giuliani will do his live show. To the extent that it's a show, Rudy will do the live show from publicly identifiable places. Now, of course, they are often kind of like behind a security cord or some kind of front desk. I think sometimes he films from down in Florida when he's visiting Mar a Lago or some other Trump resorts or location. So to say that they are unable to find Rudy doesn't seem totally accurate, but they've certainly not been able to physically get access to him. And so I can't imagine this is going to continue indefinitely. The CNN report says that Arizona prosecutors have been trying for weeks and so far failed to serve Rudy with the indictment. And this all relates to the indictment in Arizona over that fake electors scheme. So this is all kind of weird. You would think that given that it's been weeks, Rudy would have been formally served these papers.

I don't really know what to make of it. But what we do know is that the legal problems for Rudy Giuliani are becoming not only legal problems in and of themselves, but also significant financial problems. This major defamation judgment against Rudy, money, he almost certainly doesn't have numerous cases now in which he has to retain counsel and presumably pay lawyers unless he pulls a Trump and just doesn't pay his lawyers. So I am confident. Well, let me say I'm cautiously optimistic it is. You know, we've seen a lot of strange things involving Arizona officials, but I'm cautiously optimistic that Arizona officials are ultimately going to find Rudy, serve him the indictment papers, and then the wheels of justice will start to grind, although sometimes they do turn slowly, and we will see Rudy embroiled even further in financial and legal problems couldn't happen to a nicer guy, or so they tell me. Donald Trump is defending Christy gnomes dog killing during what was meant to be a softball interview with Clay and Buck gone completely and totally haywire. So let me reset the stage here for you.

Donald Trump had a presumed short list of VP contenders that included South Dakota governor Republican Christine oh. A few weeks ago, Christy Nome's book excerpt leaked, or an excerpt, as she referred to it, in which she proudly, defiantly bragged about killing a 14 month old dog when she was younger. And people on left and right were horrified by this and horrified also by the poor judgment where sometimes you've got to put a dog down on a farm. Okay? But the idea that it makes you look like a trust, trustworthy and powerful leader is pretty poor judgment. By all accounts. Christy Nome is no longer a front runner to be Donald Trump's vice presidential running mate. We didn't know what Trump's feeling was about the Christie Nome story. He was finally asked about it yesterday on the clay and Buck show, and here's what he had to say.

Speaker C
Speaker one, I'm sure you've seen some of the Christie Nome story. She might be the only person getting worse pressed than you on the left right now, uh, with the dog shooting story and then the Kim Jong un story. You met Kim Jong un. I'm curious what that relationship is like now. Does any of that story, is she.

Speaker A
Still in the mix as a VP?

Speaker C
Have you thought maybe she'd make more.

Speaker A
Sense in a cabinet? How do you analyze, or maybe nowhere near federal government at all, stories like.

Speaker C
That, as you go about making a choice?

Speaker B
Well, until this week, she was doing incredibly well, and she got hit hard.

And sometimes you do books and you have some guy writing a book, and you maybe don't read it as carefully. You have ghost writers, too. They help you, and they, in this case, didn't help too much. Now, she's terrific. Look, she's been a supporter of mine from day one. She did a great job of governor, as governor. And you look at South Dakota numbers, she's really done a great job. And in some form, I mean, I think she's terrific. A couple of rough stories, there's no question about it. And when explained the dog story, you know, people, people hear that, and people from different parts of the country probably feel a little bit differently, but that's a tough story.

Speaker A
It was a tough story. So, as usual, Trump, unable or unwilling to answer simple questions. Are you still considering her for VP or aren't you? And it sort of sounds, you know, if we run Trump speech through some kind of trumpian synthesizer that can detect his mannerisms of speech and kind of determine what it is he's saying. I think what Trump is saying here is he still likes her. He recognizes the press around the dog killing and lying about meeting Kim Jong un haven't been good.

He'd still consider her for some kind of role in a potential Trump administration, but that she's no longer in the running for VP. And again, we're decoding the rantings of a madman who's unwilling to answer any question directly. But that's the impression I'm getting from Trump's answer. Tell me if you agree. Trump also weighed in on the supposed epidemic of undocumented immigrants voting in presidential elections, something they legally cannot do. And there is no evidence whatsoever that they are doing. And Trump's saying people who don't even know what the country is, are voting in presidential election speaker one, there's no question about it.

Speaker B
And then the other is having to do, having to register voters because they're taking these people who can't speak English, who don't even know what this country is, and they're registering them and trying to get them out to vote. And I only, I only implore the Republicans to be tough because they don't play as tough a game.

Speaker A
Unfortunately, now, there is no evidence that this is happening. They continue, they come up with these stories that sometimes have, like, a visceral, visual element, whereas Trump tells it, you imagine Democrats with clipboards just running around like ants, registering undocumented immigrants to vote. And, of course, none of it makes sense. You can't register to vote. You can't get on the voter rolls if you are not a citizen of the United States. Where would Democrats even be going in order to register the undocumented immigrants? What's the mechanism through which they are doing it? It just, no aspect of this makes sense. But most importantly, it's been studied. We've spoken to some of the folks that investigated whether this is taking place. And there is absolutely no epidemic of undocumented immigrants registering to vote, which they can't do, or voting. And the idea that the other version of this is, okay, the undocumented immigrants aren't registering, but what they do is if you're an undocumented immigrant, you'll show up to a polling place and go, oh, I'm a, I'm, I'm Frederick Smith the third from 15 Penny Lane. I'm here to vote. And then the, the person at the polling place goes, oh, yes, of course, of course, Mister Smith, here's your, your ballot. Even if that were happening, which there is no evidence is happening, it would be an extraordinarily stupid and long winded way to try to steal an election.

And it's also not happening based on any evidence we have. So just, again, more of this nonsense. And then lastly, Trump mixing metaphors in a way only he can do. Listen to this.

Speaker C
But you don't think he's able, speaker one.

Speaker B
I think at some point he goes out. I think, so what, what do I know?

Speaker D
You know?

Speaker B
I mean, I can only say that here he is. And he was never the sharpest bulb in the room, ever. And now his.

Speaker A
There you go. Biden was never the sharpest bulb in the room. He was never the sharpest knife, he was never the brightest bulb, and he was certainly never the sharpest bulb in the room. Well, if that's the case, Trump should be able to do really well in the two debates he's agreed to. We will, of course, cover those live when we have specifics about them. Let's hear from a sponsor or two, and then we'll be right back. With Michael Cohen's testimony yesterday.

Did you know that Americans pay twice as much for their wine as the rest of the world? The reason is because of laws that date back to prohibition that ensure the right of wholesalers to make a big margin. It's actually insane, which is why I love our sponsor, naked wines so much. Naked Wines is a subscription service that seamlessly connects you to the finest independent winemakers on the planet. So you get a case of the market's best quality wines, however often you'd like, for a fraction of the price you'd normally pay in stores. How does naked wines do it? Naked wines connects winemakers and wine drinkers directly without the middleman, allowing for vineyard to your door delivery at up to 60% off of what you would pay in store. My girlfriend likes white wine. I like red. Will split a case that has both. Which naked wines makes very easy to do. You can customize your subscription precisely to your taste. So go to naked wines.com pacman. Click enter voucher in the top right and enter Pacman for both the code and the password. To get six bottles for just $29.99 with shipping included, that's $100 off and under $7 per bottle. That's naked wines.com pacman. Then enter Pacman as both the code and password for six bottles for $29.99 with shipping included. The info is in the podcast. Notes the David Pakman show is an audience supported program. You can get the full David Pakman show experience without commercials hours earlier than the show is publicly released by signing up at Join Pacman.com.

We have great perks available with every membership, including the world famous award winning bonus show. There are awards we came up with and for which we were the only contenders, I will admit that. But award winning bonus show nonetheless. You can sign up at join Pacman.com. As a reminder, we estimate only half of 1% of our audience supports us directly. And if we could go from half of 1% to 1%, we would be financially sustainable indefinitely, no matter what YouTube does to our revenue. No matter what Facebook does to our revenue. Which, by the way, Facebook has decided we're not promoting political content anymore. Revenue on Facebook is down 95% no matter what they do. If we can grow our support from half of 1% to 1% through mechanisms like membership, we win and they lose.

Consider it. Join Pacman.com. All right, Michael Cohen was cross examined yesterday in Donald Trump's criminal trial. Michael Cohen, friend of the show. I've been on his show. He's been on this show. Michael Cohen was right there for all of the alleged criminality. In fact, Michael Cohen went to prison because of his involvement in the criminality, in service to and at the direction of Donald Trump. Cohen's testimony has been extraordinarily damaging for Donald Trump, and that didn't stop Trump from sleeping through it with his mouth agape. But we will get to that a little bit later. Some very interesting moments from Michael Cohen's cross examination yesterday. Um, the Midas touch, Midas news.com has people in the courtroom, and they have a bunch of very, very interesting elements to this. And one funny moment was, apparently, Michael Cohen is not a big fan of Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's current criminal defense attorney. And he was asked about this under cross examination. And listen to this. Trump's lead counsel, Todd Blanche, then began cross examination. He started out by asking Cohen if he called him a, quote, crying little s word on tick tock. Cohen said that sounded like something he would say. He was then asked if he called Trump a dictator and the douchebag. He also admitted to that. Cohen also acknowledged that the Manhattan Da has asked him repeatedly not to talk about the case and that they were frustrated that he was continuing to do so. This is part of the smear campaign against Michael Cohen.

Now, listen, there is a lot to be said for taking a witness who has been convicted for lying criminally like Michael Cohen, and trying to expose him as fundamentally dishonest on the stand. That's a completely valid attempt to impeach the testimony of Michael Cohen. And if you can convince the jury that everything Michael Cohen says should be disregarded because he previously lied, then you are going to do a really good job at helping your client potentially avoid conviction. The problem is, I don't think the jury is this stupid. And the jury will understand.

Based on what we've heard from the original testimony of Michael Cohen under the prosecution's turn and what we may see on redirect, I think that it will become clear to the jury that the extent to which Michael Cohen lied was in service to Trump and at the direction of Trump. And that in fact, Michael Cohen's previous lies only support the evidence of Trump's criminality and Trump's knowledgeable and deliberate attempts to circumvent the law in order to hide and reclassify this hush money payment as a legal expense, rather than what it actually is, which is a campaign expense meant to shut up stormy Daniels so she doesn't tell her story and potentially damage Trump's chances of getting elected, which is exactly what Trump calculated. So I don't know. It. This is one of those situations where it really comes down to the attorneys, it comes down to the prosecutors and to Trump's defense counsel and intellectually, outside of the confines of the courtroom. I think we all understand. Yeah, Cohen lied, and there was a reason why he lied in order to protect his client. And then he came completely clean, and we have no evidence whatsoever that he has lied about anything ever since. On the other hand, if Trump's attorneys can say, you have to completely disregard everything that this witness says because he previously lied, if they can convince the jury of that, that would be very good for Trump. I question, I question seriously whether that's anything that they're going to be able to do.

All right. Despite Michael Cohen's riveting testimony in cross examination in criminal court yesterday, the jury was reportedly absolutely titillated, leaning forward in their seats, riveted to every word coming out of Michael Cohen's mouth, Trump almost immediately fell asleep with his mouth agape, hanging completely slack, according to multiple reports. Uh, we have a number of different, uh, uh, tweets or excretions reporting this first one, quote with Blanche. Several minutes into his cross examination of Cohen, Trump is slouched in his seat, his eyes seemingly closed and his mouth slack. Another tweet from inside the courtroom, quote, Trump looks out, eyes closed, drooping mouth. And here is a hilarious wolf Blitzer report from CNN, in which Blitzer reports on the mouth hanging open, which is just.

What a detail. What a detail. Defense team is cross examining Michael Cohen right now. Their goal appears to be to get under Cohen's skin.

Speaker D
Trump's lawyer is quizzing Cohen about past.

Speaker A
Statements he's made, as well as his.

Speaker D
Ability to recall conversations with Trump.

Speaker A
Our reporter inside the courtroom tells us.

Speaker D
That Donald Trump is lean, leaning back.

Speaker A
With his eyes closed, and at one point his mouth briefly hung open before readjusted himself.

Speaker one so the visual of Trump sitting there with his mouth hanging open and his eyes closed, slouched in his seat, is really something. But there's another aspect to this. There's a practical question.

Will Trump sleeping in court help him or hurt him with the twelve people with whom it matters most, which is the jury? Let me give you both sides of it. The optimistic interpretation of Trump sleeping, if you are a defender of Trump's, is that the jury will see Trump sleeping as evidence that there is nothing here. If Trump were really worried about these charges, if Trump really thought maybe I did something wrong, adrenaline and cortisol would not allow him to fall asleep. Now, this puts aside any questions of whether medication may be related to Trump sleeping in court. Not even going to get into that here. But could the jury see Trump sleeping and say, man, if this guy is just sleeping through this thing, this can't be serious, we've got to acquit this guy? That's, that's a very optimistic interpretation. Now, the other side to this would be we have to be here missing our jobs, missing our lives, missing family, missing children, missing friends, in order to carry out our duty as citizens to do jury duty.

And the defendant, Trump, who is here to be judged by a jury of his peers, doesn't even have the respect to stay awake during this trial.

And that could do much the opposite of currying favorite with the jury.

I am projecting my own biases for sure, but I am more partial to that second one, which is if I'm there as a juror and I know that I've got to stay awake and consider hour after hour after hours, hour of testimony and evidence, and the defendant is sleeping through it, I wouldn't be particularly thrilled, and it certainly would not make the defendant appear more sympathetic to me. Let me know what you think about that and we'll do a follow up. Donald Trump's daily reading out loud, routine going horribly wrong. Yesterday, they continue to stack Trump, presumably his lawyers or advisors or Walt Nauta or whoever. They continue to give Trump stacks of paper, mostly articles, talking about how innocent he is, apparently in an effort to keep him awake and give him something to read during the trial. The problem is that Donald Trump is trying to read some of these articles out loud to the press corps. The press gaggle better said that is waiting there at the courtroom every single day. And yesterday, on the way into court for the cross examination of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump reading an article, a statement from Fox News Judge Jeanine Pirro.

It won't surprise, surprise you to hear that Judge Jeanine thinks Trump is totally innocent. Take a listen to this.

Speaker E
There's been no crime. Judge Jeanine Bureau she talks here. This is, well, she's very excited here. He's a fool.

He's not an experienced judge. So I'll make that one a little short. I don't want to insult anybody.

Speaker A
And as you all know, the great and unbiased legal scholar Jeanine Pirro attacking the judge, much like Donald Trump has been doing, almost like at a rally, Trump introduces the people that are there with him to the crowd. And yesterday he had former presidential candidate and multiple time guest on this show, Vivek Ramaswamy there with him. He had speaker of the House Maga, Mike Johnson. He had Congressman Byron Donald's with him. So Trump introducing people almost like it's a rally.

Speaker E
And Vivek is here right now so he can speak for himself. He said this is a sham trial. It's politically motivated. It's an assault on the leading candidate, the US president. I would expect you would say something good, actually, so I won't go through the rest. But he's here. He's going to talk to you. The speaker of the House is here. We have Byron Donald Corey is here. We have a lot of great people here to talk to you. And they won't let them speak here. I guess they want to make it difficult for them to speak. So for some reason I can speak here, but I'm the only one that's allowed.

Speaker A
Okay. So we will actually hear a little bit later from Vivek Ramaswamy and his latest take on what's going on. And then lastly, Trump says, listen, my henchmen and my lap dogs are doing their jobs. He doesn't use those terms. He doesn't use those terms. But it's very clear that Trump here is effectively admitting that he is using these henchmen to circumvent the gag order he is resisting saying some of the things that the gag order says he's not supposed to say, but he brings people in to say that stuff for him. And you could argue that this is him violating the gag order.

Speaker E
Speaker two, are you directing surgeons to speak on your evaluation?

Speaker A
Mister Trump, will you testify?

Speaker E
I do have a lot of surrogates, and they are speaking very beautifully. And they come home from all over Washington and they're highly respected and they think this is the greatest scam they've ever seen.

And some are Democrats. They're very embarrassed by what's going on. I just want to start by saying that on the electric vehicles that Biden.

Speaker B
Is pushing down every, all right, so.

Speaker A
Then he talks about electric vehicles, but he is saying they are speaking, they are speaking beautifully and they are saying all the things that Trump wants to hear. So they're doing their job. Legal scholars increasingly saying that these are actual ways to circumvent the gag order against Donald Trump. This is something that may come up. He just can't help himself. Later in the show, later in the show, we will hear Vivek Ramaswami's latest on this trial, and it is really something. So let's take a quick break. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube@YouTube.com.

The David Pakman show I've had such trouble finding a great razor where I am not cutting myself or getting those nicks on my skin, which are so common with the cheap, disposable razors. You have to meet our sponsor, Henson Shaving. Henson actually manufactures parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover, and they are bringing that exact same precision engineering to the shaving experience. It hurts when you shave because blades extend too far and thus they wobble slightly. But with their aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson is able to make metal razors that extend just 0.0013 inches. That's less than the thickness of a human hair, which means a secure, stable blade with a vibration free shave. It also has built in channels to evacuate the hair and the cream. No more clogs, no more rubbing your thumb on the razor to get the hair out. I use Henson at home. Shaving is a great experience. Now Henson wants to be the best razor, not the best razor business, which means you only need to buy it once, and it's awesome. Go to henson shaving.com pacman. Add a razor and a hundred pack of blades to your cart. Then enter the code Pacman to get the hundred blades for free. That is a three year supply. That's Henson shaving.com pacman use code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes.

Today we're going to be speaking with Doctor Rick Bright, who's an immunologist and virologist who spent ten years in the influenza division at the CDC, another ten years leading pandemic prevention efforts at Bardo. He now leads his own organization, bright global health.

So listen, I really appreciate the opportunity to chat with you. I think that there are many in my audience and much of the country that is not emotionally ready at this point to talk about the potential of another pandemic. But I want to do my due diligence and talk to you a little bit about h five n one, known also as bird fluid. So let's just start with, I mean, what's going on? How concerned are you right now about what we're seeing?

Speaker D
Well, David, thanks for having me on today. And it is a timely topic. And I can understand the pandemic fatigue that most of the country, most of the world is feeling right now. So it's important to know that there are a number of people that have their eye on this, and hopefully we're going to do the right thing this time and make it less impactful than we saw the COVID virus when it swept through the world.

H five n one is a flu virus. So most of us are familiar with flu virus. This is a particular flu virus that usually stays in bird population, wild birds like ducks and geese. However, when a bird virus jumps from birds to people, we've seen that it could be very devastating, actually can make people really sick and it can kill people. And historically, about half of the people that have been confirmed to be infected with h five n one have died. So you can see why we're concerned about this, especially as it starts now circulating in animals, mammals that are really closely interfacing with people.

Speaker A
So there is some amount of this that seems to be endemic, as you say, to wild birds. But we're seeing a couple of things now that, that are concerning. Part of it is the level at which we're seeing it in birds, but also we're also seeing it in mammals at a much greater degree than we were. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about that. And there have already been a few human cases recently. Is that all true?

Speaker D
That is all true. I mean, actually the first time we saw this virus jump from birds to people was in Hong Kong in 1997. It was pretty rare incident. About 18 people got infected that we know about. We don't know how many people were exposed, actually, at that time. Through the time since then, a number of different things have been happening. The virus has been moving from the wild bird population into domestic poultry populations. So you've seen over the last several years, the news about chicken flocks being infected with this virus. What we do in those cases, we annihilate those chickens, we cull the flocks, we completely decontaminate the farm and try to get rid of the virus from the chickens, from the food supply, and from the environment.

What is starting to happen more and more the last several years is refining this virus in more mammals. Now, again, most of those have been wild mammals. Bobcats, skunk, raccoons, bears, polar bears, you know, a variety of these animals that we don't normally have a lot of human animal interaction with. So it was really concerning this year, just the last couple of months, where we noted that dairy cows are infected with this virus and we're getting sick. And that is concerning because of the huge interface that we have between farmers and dairy workers and animals, people working in the slaughterhouses and in the milk processing facilities. So we have a lot of interaction with these cows, and these are domestic mammals. And when we just thought it was in one farm or in one cow, it was concerning. But we very quickly learned that this virus has spread through the dairy cattle population across the United States. So now we have hundreds, if not thousands, of people interacting with these infected dairy cows on a daily basis. And the environment we know is contaminated. So there's a lot of this virus in the milk that's being transported to milk processing facilities, and there's a lot of this virus in the milk that's being disposed of in the wastewater system and in lakes and ponds, et cetera, around the farm. And because of this, we're finding now a lot of cats, domestic cats on those farms, are drinking this milk or in this contaminated environment, and they're getting infected with this virus.

And then, sadly, when we're finding the cats that are infected, it very likely leads to death in those cats. So we're learning a lot about this, but this is really concerning because of that increased interface between domestic mammals now and people.

Speaker A
In terms of the people that have caught this, has there been any human to human transmission so far, or has it been all from contact with infected animals?

Speaker D
Well, it's really hard to really define that clearly, other than we do believe.

Historically, since 1997 onward, most of the humans that have been confirmed to be infected with this virus had direct contact with an animal. With an infected animal. They picked up a sick bird, they disposed of it or something along those lines. We haven't, and we've done a lot of investigation to try to find a link between the family members. For example, in the past, we haven't found a clear link to indicate human to human transmission. In the recent cases in the United States, it's been a direct interface between a person and the infected animal. So no clear signs yet of human to human interaction or transmission.

Speaker A
Is that. I mean, it seems like that would be a good sign with regard to the possibility of this starting to spread between humans, at least initially. Is that fair?

Speaker D
It would be an alarming sign. The great thing is, the virus has a fingerprint, has genetic code. So the genes of this virus make it something that we can trace, like a breadcrumb, trace back to where it came from and where it's going. And what's unique about the influenza virus is in this genetic makeup. The genes code very specifically to infect birds, and we know those mutations that must occur in those genes for that virus to be able to infect humans better and then transmit human to human. And those likely won't happen all at once. So if we start to see that virus, as is in more mammals adapting to mammals, to that genetic code transition, then we'll be able to track that virus as it evolves and be ready for it if it were to start spreading more efficiently person to person.

Speaker A
Now, we're getting a little bit into speculation here, but you talked earlier about the mortality rate among those confirmed humans confirmed to have had bird flu.

We don't know necessarily how likely one is to get bird flu if they are exposed? That would be a different question, which it sounded like you said, we don't necessarily know the answer to. Is it fair to expect that if it became more suited to human, to human transmission, it would likely also change and we would see a lower mortality rate? Or is it not fair to make that assumption?

Speaker D
I think it's fair to make that assumption. I do want to caveat that influenza viruses are, you know, surprisingly, I would say we're constantly surprised with influenza viruses, so we should learn to expect the unexpected. So just when we think we know influenza virus, it changes and we learn something new about it. We didn't know it can affect cow udders, for example, mammalian tissue in cows. But we do think that the virus would not go very far and spread very far if it did kill 50% or more of the people that it infected. So most likely to be an efficient virus to spread efficiently among people. It's going to reduce that mortality rate. However, 50% is very high, and SARS CoV two was one to 2%. So we have a lot of space in there. So a virus can still be much more lethal than what we saw with the COVID virus over the last four.

Speaker A
Years in terms of, you know, if you google this, you can find all sorts of different assertions made with regard to transmission and food supply. A couple of things that I think would be relevant to know.

If you buy normal pasteurized milk that's been heated to a certain temperature, do you have to worry about getting this from milk that you're drinking right now?

Speaker D
I would say no. The FDA has done a lot of testing on pasteurized milk from the grocery stores, and their tests have shown that there are virus fragments in that milk, but they did not survive the pasteurization process, and the milk is not, they cannot isolate active live virus from that milk. So I want to also make sure we think about this as a point in time. A snapshot. Yep, there are a few farms that are, that have these infected cows now in our dairy production process in the United States, we tend to mix and blend milk from a number of different farms. And so right now, we just have a few farms with infected cows that are contributing to that mix of milk going through. Pasteurization seems to be handling that quite well.

Speaker A
Right?

Speaker D
As this virus spreads to more and more cows, on more and more farms, that ratio of infected milk to uninfected milk going into the tanks, into that pasteurization process is going to rise. So we want to make sure that we're continually testing that pasteurization process as it is pressured with higher levels of virus to make sure that it completely inactivates virus in that milk. Ideally, David, we would be doing more things to keep the virus on the farm. And so there's a number of things we should be doing to prevent higher loads of virus going into the pasteurization process. But right now, our best check and the best safety measure between that virus and us is that pasteurization process in milk.

Speaker A
Does raw milk represent a risk then?

Speaker D
Raw milk is extremely risky at this point. Although we don't have any confirmed infections of people who are from people drinking raw milk at this point, we do suspect that the cats and the raccoons and the skunks in the area are probably drinking raw milk that's infected with h five in one virus, and that is how they're getting infected. And it is lethal in those animals. So we are concerned if people consume these high amounts of virus in the raw milk, then they are putting themselves at extreme risk for infection, severe illness, and maybe even death. We don't know at this point, but it is too risky. And please, anyone listening, do not drink raw milk at this time.

Speaker A
When it comes to eggs, if you scramble an egg and it is all cooked to, I don't remember if it's 165 or what temperature it would be at, which we would consider the eggs fully cooked. I'm sure you can tell us, is there a risk with a fully cooked scrambled egg? What about a soft boiled egg or sunny side up egg where the yolk is not totally cooked?

Speaker D
You know, it's interesting for the eggs in the poultry process and the egg producing farming.

If we know infected birds, those, again, those population birds are cold and killed, and there's a very good process in making sure that infected flocks are not laying eggs going to the market. A second backup is most of those eggs going to market also go through a pasteurization or treatment process that has been shown repeatedly to kill any levels of virus or bacteria in those eggs. That third layer of protection, as you described, is the heat process, the cooking process. Again, if you eat raw eggs, you're always assuming a higher level of risk for any type of bacteria or things that might be in that egg still, or even in the process or transport of those eggs from market to your house to the kitchen.

So I'm pretty comfortable in saying if you cook those eggs, then you're pretty safe because of the multilayered process of protection that they've gone through.

Speaker A
All right. Now, in terms of treatment and vaccine and in general, we know that influenza, it seems as though when we look at the annual flu vaccine, sometimes it's well matched to what's out there, and sometimes it's not. And you can get different levels of effectiveness. With the annual flu vaccine, what do we have as far as h five n one vaccine? What do we have as far as treatment, antiviral, etcetera?

Speaker D
Well, the good thing is we've been investing in vaccines and antivirals and diagnostics for h five n one for almost 20 years, greater than 20 years. So I tell people we're better prepared for an influenza outbreak than probably any other pathogen outbreak that we've ever seen to date. But that said, we also know so much about h five n one viruses that make us still vulnerable to what we might learn about this particular virus when it adapts to people and starts spreading. Our vaccines for influenza largely are produced in eggs. And so if we were to have a bird flu virus that's wiping out chicken populations, we might wipe out our supply chain of eggs to make those vaccines.

H five in one doesn't grow very well. Generally, the vaccine virus needs to grow in eggs for a while, and then they crack open the egg and collect the fluid and they purify the vaccine from that egg. For a seasonal vaccine, we might get three doses of vaccine out of each egg. For h five. N one, it doesn't grow as well in those eggs. It tends to either kill them or not grow well at all. And so we might get one dose of vaccine out of an egg. And for a seasonal influenza vaccine, it's 15 micrograms is the amount of protein that goes in that vaccine for immunogenicity to protect you? H five in one, it takes 90 micrograms, so multitudes more of that protein to be immunogenic, and it takes two doses of that vaccine three to four weeks apart. So I like to give people the image, since we make these vaccines in eggs, and most of the world does, just for the US people across America, it would take 900,000 eggs going into the vaccine facility every single day for nine months just to make the supply of avian influenza vaccine for the United States. And one of the tricks that we've learned about over the years to stretch that supply is we add an extra chemical component to the vaccine called an adjuvant. When we add that adjuvant, and there's only two producers of that adjuvant in the world, but when we add that adjuvant, we can lower the amount of protein and get more doses out of the supply. So we kind of have that system in place, but it's outdated. This is a 21st century virus and outbreak we're thinking about.

That is a 1940s vaccine technology. We've come a long way since then. It's time to update that arsenal for vaccines, for antiviral drugs. I'll jump real fast. You know, we have really two different classes of antiviral drugs. One works on the neuraminidase, which is surface protein. One works on an internal protein. As a newer drug, the surface protein neuraminidase is called a neuraminidase inhibitor, tamiflu, or oscill tamivir. The other one is called zanamivir or relenza.

Both of those drugs have been licensed since about 1999 in the US.

What we know about influenza viruses I described earlier is they like to change, they like to mutate, they like to shift.

Speaker A
Right.

Speaker D
Have data showing in the presence of these neuraminidase inhibitors. So if a person is treated or an animal is being treated with these drugs, the virus can mutate quite quickly and become resistant to those drugs, meaning we have to have a diversified stockpile of these antiviral drugs that could work. So one would work in case the virus became resistant to the other. The shortcoming we have is most of our stockpile for the oseltamivir or tamiflu is really old. So we started buying that drug in 2006 and 2007. So I'm concerned if we're in an emergency response and the strategic national stockpile starts sending out antiviral drugs that say it expired in 2007 or 2008 on the label, people aren't going to take that drug. They're not going to trust that system. They wouldn't use a COVID test that expired last week, so they're going to use an antiviral drug that said expired ten years ago.

So we have a lot of work to do to refresh our stockpile, diversify our stock, and we need new antiviral drugs that work in new ways in case both of those become ineffective.

Speaker A
So to sum up for right now, for the individual, avoid contact with dead or living wild birds, ducks, geese, etcetera.

Make sure you have pasteurized milk and cook your eggs fully through. And that seems to be most of what we can do at the individual level right now.

Speaker D
At the individual level, yes. And pay attention. Stay alert. I mean, if something changes because things could change quickly, then make sure you're aware of those changes. If suddenly we learn that there's a recall on even pasteurized milk, pay attention to that. Take it seriously. There are people now thinking it might be cool or trendy to drink raw milk. They have some belief, misinformation, disinformation, that they'll have some protective level if they drink raw milk. At this point, no. The answer is no. Avoid raw milk at all costs. Right now.

Speaker A
All right, we've been speaking with Doctor Rick Bright. Really appreciate your time and your insights today.

Speaker D
Thank you, David, very much enjoyed being here.

Speaker A
Magic Spoon has been sponsoring the David Pakman show for years now because my audience just can't get enough. And here's why. Magic Spoon has reinvented our favorite childhood cereals to taste great. But with 0 gram of sugar, 14 grams of protein and only four net carbs, it's a high protein, keto friendly way to relive those Saturday mornings with your favorite cartoons. But with only 140 calories a serving and without all the sugar, my favorite flavor is maple waffle. I grew up in New England. Okay? But it also comes in familiar flavors like cocoa, fruity, frosted. You can also check out magic spoon treats, which are sort of like the marshmallow treats you had as a kid, but only 1 gram of sugar, one to two net carbs, and packed with 12 grams of protein, magic spoon treats are the perfect on the go snack. They come in four great flavors, marshmallow, chocolatey, peanut butter, blueberry muffin and double chocolate. Go to magicspoon.com Pacman to try magic spoon cereal and treats for yourself. Get $5 off with the code, Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes, speaker one. All right, this you have to see. We're going to look at what some dot of, some of what Donald Trump's henchmen and lapdogs have said over the last 24 to 48 hours about what's going on in Donald Trump's criminal trial. Now, you have to understand, the worse it gets in the courtroom for Trump, the more unhinged the lapdogs are going to get. And it's gotten very bad in the courtroom for Donald Trump with Michael Cohen's testimony.

Even though Donald Trump's lawyers have tried to frame Cohen is just a liar in general, the belief from those in the courtroom is that the testimony of Michael Cohen has been very damaging to Donald Trump. So you have to check this out. A republican congressman, Corey Mills, traveled up to New York to be there for Donald Trump, and he tweets out the most unbelievable thing. This is just, this is the height of idiocy. Corey Mills tweets out, quote, the New York court was putting up on the screen for all in the courtroom to see when the prosecution was presenting evidence. Now the defense is in cross examination, and not a single piece of evidence is being displayed in the same equal manner. Well, there's a reason why Trump's lawyers did not present any exhibits up to that point. That's why there was nothing up on a screen for the entire courtroom to see. Trump's lawyers didn't present any exhibits. Imagine being this stupid, where Corey Mills sits there and the prosecutors are going through their turn and there's stuff put up on the screen, and then Trump's lawyer gets up there, Trump's lawyers. And all of a sudden you don't see anything on the screen. And you say, well, this must be some evidence of bias. The things the prosecutors did went up on the screen, but the things Trump's lawyers do don't go up on the screen. And the answer is, they hadn't presented any exhibits. That's why you weren't seeing anything up on these screens. And this is like bottom of the barrel stuff here.

And it's unbelievable that Corey Mills is this dumb. He also repeated, oh, it's so exhausting at this point, the same tired talking points where he says, oh, the entire trial is election interference.

Here's Corey Mills. And, you know, I don't know if we see this and we say, hey, good for him. He learned the talking points. Or we say, oh, my goodness, how humiliating. Corey Mills is debasing himself by repeating the same nonsense. Let's take a look at it. You be the judge.

Corey Mills
This is nothing more, more than election interference at its finest. You are seeing where the weaponization of what was the Department of Justice, now the Department of injustice, has continued to be utilized against the american people and against the president of the United States. I will tell you right now, the same way that I stand here steadfast behind our president, I know that America stands with him as well.

Speaker A
That's not obvious at all.

Corey Mills
They see this sham indictment. They see this for what it is without any actual substance whatsoever. Keep in mind, they keep actually talking about the FEC violations. But when you're utilizing personal funds or you're utilizing a trust that is not campaign funding, there is no violation, which is why the FEC never actually even pursued this. And so I think the american people see this for what it is. They want to keep President Trump off the campaign trail. They're seeing what's happening in the swing states across America, and they're seeing exactly, this is draining down assets and resources that can be utilized by the president to continue to forge ahead, to build a stronger economy, to secure our border, and to get our nation back on track.

Speaker A
Speaker one now, you might be hearing Corey Mills say, oh, here's the reason why, legally, the FEC, the campaign funds. Well, that sounds pretty legit. This guy must be a lawyer, right? This guy's a defense contractor. He doesn't know anything about what he's talking about. He has no idea. He's just repeating the tired, tired talking points that we are hearing from Donald Trump and his most stalwart and committed and cultish defenders, and nothing he says makes any sense whatsoever. So you really have to understand at its core that a lot of these arguments being made in defense of Trump aren't connected to the facts in any way. And his earlier statement, look, here's another evidence of how unfair this is. The prosecutors exhibits get put up on a screen. Trump's defense exhibits don't. His lawyers hadn't put forward any defense exhibits. And this is an example of when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and when you are determined to make yourself look like a victim, everything is part of that victimization, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. So this was just outside the courtroom. Corey Mills humiliating himself. If you think this is wild, just wait until I show you. Vivek Ramaswamis latest take on the Trump criminal trial. ViVEK RAmAswaMY, former presidential candidate who's been a guest on this show a couple of times.

He was recently on the PBD podcast in Florida, a program I have also appeared on. Maybe I'll be back on that program soon. Who knows? We'll have to see. So Vivek Ramaswamy puts forward one of these thought experiments that is completely idiotic, but it's just complicated enough that some people might hear it and go, damn, that's a pretty good argument that Vivek is making. Now I'm going to project my opinion onto this, which is, this is painfully cringe worthy. This is one of the dumbest thought experiments about Trump's criminal trial that I've ever heard. Let's listen to it. If you don't understand it, don't feel bad, because this is Jordan Peterson. Like, in a sense, it's one of these things where you hear it, you recognize most of the words, but it doesn't quite make sense. And it's not because you're not smart enough. It's because it doesn't make any sense. All right, so let's take a listen. Here's Vivek exposing how absolutely ridiculous this Trump criminal trial is.

Speaker C
I'm not following the day to day, obviously, as the trial's running, but I read about the summaries in the evening, and I wanted to go tomorrow more just as a, as a friend and now supporter of Trump, to be able to actually show support by being present, not in anyone's any other capacity other than my own.

But I will say that every day this trial proceeds the trend that I've seen. I didn't follow today's, but up to today, all we've seen is one more layer of the onion of how the whole thing's a charade. Right. If you think about this, imagine a good way to imagine whether.

Speaker A
Okay, so now here's the critical part. Everybody pay very close attention. Play very close attention.

Speaker C
He's a politicized prosecution is right, because everyone's going to be, you know, MSNBC has their histrionic points. And then they would look at people who are defenders of Trump, like myself, as being partisans on the other side. Here's a good litmus test. Okay?

If the prosecution's theory of the case said you did something wrong, what if you had done the exact opposite thing?

Speaker D
Okay.

Speaker C
Okay. So let's play that out then. That should mean you did not do something wrong, right? So let's try that on this set of facts. On this set of facts, the basic theory of the case is the prosecution says in order for them to charge this as a felony, that Donald Trump's payment to stormy Daniels should have been recorded as a campaign contribution. That's the heart of the case. Without that, they couldn't charge this as a felony. It would only be a misdemeanor. That's outlived the statute of limitations, the falsifying business records. It's outside the statute of limitations. It's a misdemeanor, not a felony. The only basis for this being a felony is, is if there's a different underlying crime, which what they allege is that he made effectively a campaign contribution without it being recorded as such. So now apply my test. If the prosecution says that's the thing you did and it's wrong, imagine you did the exact opposite. What would the exact opposite be? The exact opposite would be Donald Trump using campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment.

In that scenario, I have no doubt these people would be going after him and they would have a much stronger case in that scenario. So now think about it. If he did thing a, wow.

Speaker A
The funniest part is the panel thinks this is incredibly insightful. And I'm going to tell you in a moment, if you haven't already figured out why it's not, I'll tell you in a moment.

Speaker C
Break the step. He did thing a, and you said that's wrong. Let's say he did the exact opposite of thing a and did thing b, and you would have an even stronger case for him then that means you were going to get him no matter what. So that is the proof that this is a politicized persecution through prosecution.

Speaker A
Now, these folks, the Viveks, the Jordan Peterson's and their followers, if they say something and you go, that's idiotic, that doesn't make sense. What they usually hit you with is you're not smart enough to understand it. But the opposite of paying stormy Daniels Hush money is not paying her hush money because you realize it would be breaking campaign finance law. Vivek has come up with this opposite test where he goes, okay, if the problem was that they use personal money for a campaign contribution, the litmus test for whether that's wrong is to flip it around and say, what if they use campaign contributions for a personal hush money payment? No, no. The opposite would be not doing it at all. Not doing it at all because you realize that it's the wrong thing to do. And whether it's illegal reimbursement or direct payment or using campaign funds, that it's the wrong thing to do no matter what.

That's the opposite. And the, the, the. But the panel goes, oh, wow. Wow. It's like saying if person x is on trial for murdering someone via suffocation, what if they did the opposite? What if they. They murdered them by drowning? According to Vivek, if you say we would charge them either way, because it's murder either way, that's evidence of political persecution. And the panel was just amazed by it. They're like, wow, wow. Now here's something really funny. The next day, PBD's co host, Adam Sosnik, who's a nice guy, by the way, and we chatted when I was on with PBD, Adam and I. Adam actually stuck around after and we chatted for a little while. Adam the next day tries to kind of bring this up, and he seems it's so stupid that he realizes as he's saying it, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. And he gets this glazed over, confused look because he realizes, man, that thing Vivek said actually makes no sense.

Adam Sosnik
Here's the thing. At the end of the day, there's nothing really illegal about this. You might say that it's shady, you might say that it's immoral. But paying off people hush money, I don't think that's illegal. We're about to find out. What did Vivek say yesterday? That if you reverse engineer the story and if you do it the other way around, then they basically prove that there's nothing wrong with that. So if you actually reported the money that you spent on the hush money as a campaign contribution, like, they're going to come after you either way. So we're going to see what happens.

Speaker A
He's like, I don't know what that thing Vivek said about, like, the opposite and whatever. It doesn't make any sense. So these are the guru like figures at this point within this Maga movement. And it's a classic. Just check the comments. I'm sure the comments will be, David, you're too stupid to understand Vivek's thought experiment. That's the problem. You don't get it. It's just like when I criticize Jordan Peterson and the Petersonites show up, they go, David, Peterson's way out of his. You're not even understanding what Peterson is saying. That's why you're. You're confused. You can't even understand it. It made no sense. It's the dumbest thought experiment you could possibly do. We have a voicemail number. That number is 2192. David P. I told you yesterday, the day before about this member who canceled me because I reported on RFK's brain worm saying that couldn't possibly be true. Of course it's true. Here is a caller reassuring me and say, don't worry, David, we've got you back.

Voicemail Caller
Hey, David, I just watched your segment on that guy who canceled his memberships over the RFK brainworm.

Speaker A
Right?

Voicemail Caller
Man, if anything, you did an extremely professional job covering that story. I would have given it to the means myself.

I mean, I even think it's ironic that the guy's name was Robert, the guy who canceled his membership. I think there must be an epidemic braineating worms that like the taste of Robert brains. And I think that's just probably the case. So don't let it stress you out. His membership can go to the deathspin of history.

The rest of us, I'll stay subscribed. And I'm also a member, so don't let people like him stress you out. Keep up the good work, man.

Speaker A
I appreciate that. And a bunch of people, dozens of folks, signing up for memberships after the horrifying, horrifying, low information cancellation from Robert, who said the RFK story must be made up. David. So I'm canceling my membership. And he did really, really depressing stuff. All right, for those who are members, we have a great bonus show for you today. The DOJ is saying, enough already. Let's get Steve Bannon in prison serving his sentence. Will they do it? We will see. Alabama wants to ban lab grown meat. Why?

The explanation will probably shock and appall you. Or maybe not, because it's Alabama. And lastly, Christy Nome has been outlawed on six native american reservations.

Why? We will discuss all of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up@joinpakman.com get instant access. I will see you then. And we'll be back tomorrow with a new show.