← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
BONUS FREEBIE: Elon in Epstein files, YouTube settles Trump lawsuit, Bad Bunny named Super Bowl halftime performer
00:16:40
-- On the : Elon Musk and others are named in new Epstein documents, YouTube settles a $24 million lawsuit with Trump, MAGA erupts over Bad Bunny headlining the Super Bowl Halftime Show, and much more… Become a Member:...
Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody. David. Here. What you're about to hear is an episode of the bonus show. We do a bonus show every day for our members, and for a limited time, we will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up@join pacman.com here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to the Bonus Show. Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon are in the Epstein files. We have new documents that have been released. You know, once again, Pat, even what's been released doesn't say that they are perpetrators of sexual crimes. But it is very interesting because the assumption from many on the right has been that it's really Democrats being protected and that Trump wants to blow the whistle and expose everybody. It's also funny because Elon Musk had that famous tweet, trump's in the Epstein files, implying that Trump was in the Epstein files as having committed wrongdoing. And now it turns out that it's a bunch of Republicans in the Epstein files, at least to some degree, and also that Elon Musk himself is in the files. There's a reference about Elon coming to the island on December 6, and the question as to whether it's happening now, I'm the first to say, Pat, the documents don't even prove Elon went. All the documents show is that there was a point at which that was the plan. But we don't know that Elon Musk even went to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Never mind that it doesn't allege that Elon Musk committed any crimes or sexual assaults or whatever the case may be, we don't have that information one way or the other. But what is very clear is that the false notion that the Epstein files would only incriminate Democrats and Trump's going to expose them all. That was the story two years ago. That is, at this point, not even remotely believable.
- [02:02]
B
Yeah, it's absolutely right. And at this point, we're getting such a slow drip of information having to do with these Epstein files. But it's important to not jump to conclusions. Just because we hear a name mentioned in the files, that doesn't mean that they were guilty of anything. There could have just been contact between Epstein and Musk and these other figures, and it doesn't mean that they did anything wrong or illegal. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that if part of Epstein's plan with how he ran the scheme was to first meet these wealthy and powerful individuals before slowly opening them up to blackmail and having them do these illicit things. Well, then he has to make the initial steps right of getting to know them and maybe scheduling meetings and this sort of thing. So just because there was something on the books, that doesn't mean that Elon or these other people names were implicated. But it would be nice to have the entirety of the files. Right. Because then I think we would know a lot more of this information for sure, 100%.
- [02:59]
A
Now, I'm going to go out there and say the following and you tell me whether you agree, Pat. It could be the case that if the full files were released, it would be more incriminating to Democrats than to Republicans. It's possible that if the full files were released, it could be more incriminating to Republicans rather than Democrats. I don't know which is the case and I don't care. I think we just want the files. That's it. And you know what? If it's worse for Democrats, it's worse for Democrats if that's honestly what the content of the files is. But at this point, I just think we need the files out.
- [03:30]
B
Yeah, I don't care if it's worse for Republicans, worse for Democrats. The truth is what's most important here, especially with a story as serious as this. I just get the sense, though, that ultimately it could be Republicans who are hurt more from this because they're the ones obstructing right now. And also their party is a lot more dependent on just one political figure, which of course is Trump. Everything in the Republican Party revolves around Trump. Whereas if there was any number of Democratic figures, if any single name was implicated, I don't obviously want to give examples, but there would still be plenty of other people to lead the party. We would still have plenty of options for 2028, for example. So I don't think it would be this major disaster for us Democrats of a few names were listed. Whereas if Trump was all over the files and it seems like he is, that actually could be a disaster for Republicans.
- [04:22]
A
The other thing is that there is a back and forth as to what Trump like at this point. Everyone knows Trump's name is obviously in the files, but there are people debating to what degree is Trump's name in the files or what is he accused of doing? I am still of the mindset that until I have reason to believe that Trump is in there as a perpetrator of potential sexual crimes or acts or whatever the case may be, he did Genuinely just know a lot of people around that point in time. Like, I think it does make sense for the left to be careful and not assume that what's in there about Trump is something we can't yet prove.
- [04:57]
B
Totally. But do you think it makes sense that Trump is hiding the Epstein files not to save his own skin, but to save the people around him, to protect his friends? Like, he doesn't seem like that loyal of a guy to me to want to do that.
- [05:10]
A
He doesn't normally. And I think that, listen, if it were, you know, John Thune in the Epstein files, I think Trump wouldn't give a shit. He wouldn't go out of his way. Out of his way to protect John Thune. But now that we know that, you know, Ellen, his relationship is on again, off again. I guess at the Ryder cup or wherever they were hanging out recently. Well, actually, where was it that they were hanging out? No, at Charlie Kirk.
- [05:31]
B
Charlie Kirk.
- [05:32]
A
Charlie Kirk's funeral. Yeah. But now that Bannon's name is in there and some others, it's starting to be plausible that just because it would look bad, it's not because Trump goes, I'm so loyal to my friends. I'm so devoted. Just because I think it would be bad for Trump. I actually do think that some of these names are the sorts of people he might want to protect.
- [05:52]
B
Well, yeah, it becomes a political calculation. Right. Because he may want to protect those figures, and he feels as though those figures are important to his movement. But we know that his own base is turning on him over this very issue. So it may get to a point where Trump figures, I'd rather have the base than those loyal people by my side. And he goes along reluctantly with releasing the list, or at the very least, he doesn't stop it from happening.
- [06:15]
A
All right, let me know your thoughts. We are going to continue talking about this, certainly, because I don't think we're getting the files tomorrow. And therefore, it's still going to be a story. Another media lawsuit of sorts. Trump sued YouTube over suspending his account over January 6, and YouTube has agreed to pay Trump $24 million. Now, that is a lot of money, and also it's not a lot of money for YouTube. And I disagree with every single one of these decisions. I want these companies fighting. And also, I get. Because litigation can be uncertain and expensive. But in addition to that. And this is such a horrible, authoritarian thing to admit, Pat, they also need to worry about, if we fight it and win, are we going to lose way more than 24 million. If Donald Trump then targets us politically. I'm not defending it. I'm simply saying I understand it. If you're Paramount and you go, Damn, you know, 60 Minutes is one thing, but what if Trump blocks a merger? I think it's despicable. I would love all of them to fight it, but I'm also not immune to the math of it. And a 16 million for Paramount or 24 million for YouTube as a known cost, versus potentially, who the hell knows how much, hundreds of millions or even billions, you could end up losing if you somehow got sanctioned. I hate all of it. YouTube's paying him 24 million. Arguing that when his account was suspended, it was incorrect that he was censored.
- [07:43]
B
Yeah, I mean, I understand why companies would pay out the settlement. Right. Because they're making a mathematical calculation, and they figure if we don't fight this, if we just give the. The President what he wants, then ultimately we'll make more money in the long term. And these corporations are often amoral. They're just figuring what's going to make them the most money, and they're not concerned about these other things like protecting democracy or protecting free speech. All that is not important to them. What's important to them is making money. So if anything, it should be incumbent on the government to not try to influence these companies. Right. To stay out of what businesses are doing. It comes to this sort of thing, and let them do what they want. There should be more regulation when it comes to this. We should have more protections of companies from political lawsuits and prosecutions and this sort of thing. The fact that we don't have that means that we're in a situation now where Trump is free to do all this stuff, and he's making a hell of a hell of a lot of money from it.
- [08:41]
A
One of the things I think is important to mention, while there is uncertainty with any litigation. I've had lawyers tell me that before. That's a line I've gotten from lawyers. Listen, David, whatever I tell you, there is uncertainty to litigation in this case. Free speech experts have said none of these lawsuits raise credible claims. First Amendment protections typically apply to government officials, not private companies censoring speech. Trump was not censored by a government. Trump was censored, if you believe he was censored by private companies. And yet every single one of these companies have. Has moved to conclude the litigation as quickly as possible. These are. Although all litigation has uncertainty, legal experts are essentially unanimous that these have been bogus lawsuits.
- [09:25]
B
Yeah. So it's Influence peddling when the companies decide to settle the lawsuits instead of fighting them. And to me, this seems to undermine Trump's point about how he loses money when he's president. He would be making so much more if he was running his own businesses. He got this $25 million settlement from Meta slash Facebook. He got this $10 million settlement from Twitter, slash X. Now he has this amount from YouTube, $25 million. And he also got. What was it, 15, 16 million from.
- [09:56]
A
I believe.
- [09:57]
B
Yeah. And then ABC, that they give him a settlement as well. They did over the George Stephanopoulos thing. So he's just collecting money left and right. Must be approaching $100 million, if not more, from all of these settlements. I know some of the money is going to go to the ballroom or to his future presidential library. But to continue to make the argument that this hasn't been profitable for him being president, that's just absolutely laughable.
- [10:22]
A
The library will be a really expensive building, and it'll just be crayons and construction paper inside. Unfortunately, that's not going to cost a lot, but the building will be very expensive. All right, let's talk a little bit about the Super Bowl. Bad Bunny will be doing the halftime show in this. I call it this year's super bowl. It's technically 2026, but it's like this season.
- [10:44]
B
Season.
- [10:45]
A
Yeah, this season Super Bowl. A lot of right wingers are furious. Now, Bad Bunny is Puerto Rican. His music is. I don't know that I can say only in Spanish, but it's mostly in Spanish. Certainly. I can't. I'm trying to think if anybody. Bunny songs are in English. I don't know. Pat's not.
- [11:01]
B
I don't think so.
- [11:02]
A
I listen to a lot of Latin music. I'm from Argentina. I admit it. Listen, a couple of different things going on here. There is this talking point that ICE is going to start raiding his concerts because they're filled with undocumented migrants and all of this different stuff. But the right is completely flipping out, saying that nobody really likes this guy. This isn't because of his music, but it's because, you know, he's a demonic Marxist or because, whatever, there's political reasons. There are suggestions now to boycott the entire thing. I have to admit, I kind of like this. I like Bad Bunny on a personal level, and I kind of like seeing them triggered when they're big American, alpha male, big boy space. The football game is going to be invaded by Bad Bunny. The super bowl halftime shows have been increasingly controversial. Insofar as the right often FL flips out. But I like this. I hope that they don't change their minds on having him perform.
- [12:05]
B
Yeah, the right is only satisfied when it's a rock and roll band or a country band that gets chosen for the super bowl halftime show. Whenever it's a hip hop artist or in this case, a Latin music artist, they get really upset. So this happened before. Last year, Kendrick Lamar performed at the Super Bowl. Of course, he's a rapper, so the right wing didn't like him. Before that, we had Beyonce, we had Shakira, we had JLo. And the right every single time says that it was a horrible performance. They never should have chosen this person. Even though it's these artists who consistently rank at the top of the charts. You know, music has changed over the years. Yes, we used to have a lot more of these rock and roll performers, but at least as far as I'm aware, rock and roll isn't at the pinnacle like it once was. It's these other types of music. So it makes sense that the super bowl would reflect the culture in that way. Music has evolved, and so their halftime performances are going to reflect that. They want to showcase the most successful artists of the day, and so that's why they're going with Bad Bunny instead of whoever the hell else they want to be.
- [13:07]
A
I actually didn't even watch last year's super bowl, and I didn't see Kendrick Lamar's performance. And by the way, these really are not musical performances. They're performances. Do they still require everything to be prerecorded?
- [13:19]
B
Yeah, that's why I remember the red Hot Chili Peppers. There was discussion because, like, one of the bass guitars wasn't plugged in. Yeah. And so people figured, oh, well, they're clearly faking it. But then the Peppers came out later and said, oh, yeah, well, everyone takes the super bowl like everything is prerecorded, and it's just like the dancing and the choreography that's live for everyone. We didn't want to pretend as though we were actually playing when we weren't. So, yeah, that's typical.
- [13:43]
A
That. That being the case, I missed Kendrick Lamar's performance. Prior to that was Usher. I thought Usher was okay. Prior to that was Rihanna. I thought she was. It was a pretty good performance. There was the Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Eminem one in 2022, which I thought was quite good. That one. That one I quite enjoyed. It was really a blast from the past for me. The weekend I thought was pretty good. I'm going in reverse order. Shakira, Jennifer Lopez. Even though I am not like, a bit. I'm not a fan of Jennifer Lopez, and Shakira is just sort of like, whatever. I'm not actively a fan, but. But she's fine. I thought that when I actually really remember Pat, like, as it was a particularly notable performance performance, and there was a lot of discussion of it, and then we're going to like, you know, Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, Coldplay, Katy Perry. Now we're back into the mid-2020 tens. None of these really were super controversial in the way that the last few, I guess, have been.
- [14:36]
B
Yeah, absolutely. Because the right was okay with those other artists, or they at least didn't think that it was political right now because we have more black and brown artists performing at the super bowl, all of a sudden it's a problem. So they want to go back to the way things used. And I guess they want Lee Greenwood or some. Someone like him to be performing at the super bowl every single year.
- [14:57]
A
Imagine him coming out and just as a medley three times, doing his proud to be.
- [15:04]
B
You know, does he have other songs?
- [15:06]
A
I mean, I know that he has.
- [15:07]
B
That one on repeat.
- [15:08]
A
And then he just, like, sells his Bible while there. I couldn't imagine what he would possibly do.
- [15:13]
B
Maybe Ted Nugent could come out and play Spanglehold and then we could shoo him off as well.
- [15:19]
A
Top Lee Greenwood songs. I'm looking this up right now. So he. Yeah, I don't recognize any of these. Ring on her finger. Iou Dixie Road, Going, going, gone. Have you heard of any of these?
- [15:34]
B
No. What. What better opportunity to hear them for the first time than. Than at the super bowl halftime show? We'll have to see that one day.
- [15:41]
A
They might. The super bowl could introduce us to Lee Greenwood's hit One Day at a Time, a gospel song from 2003. I would really, really love to hear that.
- [15:51]
B
That sounds great. Yeah. Got to hear that one.
- [15:53]
A
All right, so let me know what you think. I love this idea. Will you be watching this year, Pat, or does it kind of depend who's in it?
- [15:59]
B
I'm in a routine of watching the super bowl every single year. Sometimes it's the only football game that I watch for the whole year, but I'm in it, you know, I'm in for the game, the halftime show, the commercials. Bring it on.
- [16:10]
A
All right, well, there it is. You've heard it from producer Pat. He says, bring it on. We'll see if they cancel Bad Bunny. We'll see if ICE raids his shows. And I also love how Bad Bunny is considered foreign even though he's Puerto Rican. Like, how many damn times are we going to do this stupid thing? It's part of the United States.
- [16:28]
B
Yeah, there's a lot of people who just don't know that Puerto Rico is part of the United States. And so to call him foreign or not American wouldn't make any sense.
- [16:36]
A
All right, let me know what you think. New show, new bonus show tomorrow.