Progressive Goes BACK FOR MORE on Right Wing Daily Wire

[@RoccosVideos]

Conservatives love big government, don’t let them tell you otherwise.

[@tomsanders3531]

The lying Christian fanaticals want to control people.

[@whysocurious7366]

I won’t, don’t worry.

[@TehSeksyManz]

Absolutely true

[@SuCKeRPunCH187]

examples include dept homeland security and space force.

[@Aa-fg6jf]

Opposing mass murder is not big government, it's common sense

[@garfieldGG]

This is goofball stuff. That being said it’s important we go on right wing shows to actually represent ourselves when we can. Keep it up Pakman.

[@stevenbatke2475]

Healthy debate is only way we don’t kill each other. It’s much needed in these times.

[@Anthroid9]

It’s not healthy if one side of the debate is misconstruing information and trying to constantly turn one thing into another.

[@stevenbatke2475]

@@Anthroid9 okay, fair. Let’s rephrase: civil debate. It’s exhausting seeing people scream at each other. It gets us nowhere.

[@bccbaron12]

Agreed. Moving forward, I think Pakman should try to avoid going down the rabbit hole of debating specific statutes, semantics, and complex legal issues. With my extremely limited experience studying how the legal system works, I’ve realized that any legal question requires a specific statute, an extensive set of facts, and an understanding of the relevant case law in order to ultimately come to a subjective decision since judges are just human beings like the rest of us. When Pakman goes onto these shows they never seem to have all of those elements. It just turns into a hectic back and forth involving vague examples or hypotheticals, and the host pressing Pakman for a legal opinion without providing the basic requirements for giving a legal opinion.

[@bccbaron12]

@@stevenbatke2475 I also prefer for debates to be civil/healthy, but I think the topic is more important. These right wingers seem to spend a lot of time debating things that are obscure/hypotheticals, have little to no real world impact, and ultimately come down to a person’s “moral” or “value” judgements. In this case, abortion & reproductive rights are extremely important and impact hundreds of millions of people in the US. I’d much rather hear a debate about those policies instead of an ultimately worthless back and forth about people chanting slogans outside a judge’s house.

[@CalMoul3]

The end killed me, good response by pakman. “I can’t imagine a more meaningful compliment coming from you Michael” 🤣

[@protoman2260]

I actually like their banter lol

[@nickyalousakis3851]

there is nothing "progressive" about todays progressive. they are regressive,

[@ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣΠΑΙΡΑΣ]

David, why don't YOU invite him and have a 45-minute conversation on subjects that YOU chose?

[@Seethi_C]

I’d much rather hear him talk to Shapiro

[@dustinsindledecker154]

Shapiro only debates college students, speaking to adults scares him.

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

@@Seethi_C none of these reich wingers are honest brokers of debate. they all lie and manipulate facts to fit their agenda, sheepiro maybe the worst offender... the fact remains that republicans want to dominate everyone who isnt a white rich male christian. they want to force their religious views and laws on to the entire country...

[@kurteisner67]

@@dustinsindledecker154 He actually did once debate David on guns years ago and got pretty demolished...and since then he's too afraid to ever come back, lmao

[@Seethi_C]

@@dustinsindledecker154 Is that a joke? He used to do public debates before his career took off. And he still goes on news shows and talk shows to discuss with people who disagree with him.

[@yukari2617]

David is such a trooper doing these debates. Much respect for him.

[@eduardocontreras6557]

David is the man!!!!

[@argentiskyblau159]

David just kept saying he’s now aware of the issues brought up so he cant comment. Kind of a cop-out in my opinion

[@goldenautumn8416]

He didn't do very well in this one at all.... The most powerful argument that mr preppy elitist made was "whether you agree with the law or not"... The problem with enforcing this particular law is that we have way too many liberal lawyers at this point, who are frothing at the mouth ready to challenge its constitutionality... You see, ANY protest is intended to "influence"... this law vitiates the FORCEFUL 1st amendment guarantee to PEACEABLE PROTEST, in plain English language. THIS IS WHAT DAVID SHOULD HAVE ARGUED!!! FIRST AMENDMENT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." PLAIN AND SIMPLE, as soon as you make a law that infringes on the rights of people to peaceably protest, YOU ARE VIOLATING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, because the plain English language states THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!! The law itself is CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID!!! This goes to another weak argument by David, here in this video.... "neither you or I are lawyers" ....A lawyer's opinion not only DOES NOT MATTER, but ANYONE understanding the plain English language of statutes, case law, and legislation has the right to assume the validity of the set standards... I don't have to be a lawyer to read the constitution and feel protected against anything "reasonably" inferred, like the right to be "reasonably" protected from "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

[@ninetimesaday]

Also credit to Michael for having him on a second time, David is no easy debate.

[@Zaradorian]

@@ninetimesaday yeah more so imo, bc most of the right winger shows ether learned their lesson or are too scared to invite the more progressive people on

[@doriansmode]

Michael’s response to David not being a Democrat shed light onto the entire cult like/club mentality of so many conservatives.

[@MinecraftMartin]

They don't actually care, so not much effort is given to understanding who they're even calling for interviews. You're either left or right, and that's all they need to know. I don't think both sides are equal or the same, but I do know both sides are guilty of this.

[@timmiller6110]

I can't tell you how quickly I've been accused by Biden voters of being a Trumpian because I either didn't agree with them on issues, or because I just didn't vote for Biden. Tribal mentality runs through humanity.

[@stephaniecornwell8766]

I’ve been a staunch non partisan for many many years and I love telling the gop cult that I’m not even a democrat. They just assume that because I disagree with them that I am.

[@marcoszavala8435]

Same goes either way lol

[@humanbeing5396]

Politics is a game of team sports. The left does it as well. ALL political parties across the world do it. It’s human nature.

[@Chillboyx]

Wow, Scott Baio smiles every time he’s wrong.

[@hashberry111]

haha I thougt this exact same thing!

[@dustinsindledecker154]

Well at least Scott baio had some success in Hollywood unlike micheal.

[@hyena280]

I had to page down because Scott Baio's smile was annoying. It was better to listen to the discussion than have that distraction.

[@idlehour]

Hahahaha thank you. I thought he looked like him especially the dopey smile too but his name slipped me didn't think id see a comment about it so quick.

[@jonnyminogue]

Joanie doesn't love Chachi

[@michaelfreedman1006]

interesting that half this clip is about the protesters and not the decision.

[@merchalc1115]

There hasn’t been a decision. That’s the right wingers point. They’re trying to change the minds of the justices based off of a leak. If they were protesting after a decision, fine. It’s potentially illegal precisely because there hasn’t been a decision.

[@greedo2660]

Yep, and then it was over. Pakman said, "we haven't even talked about anything yet."

[@bccbaron12]

That’s often a feature of conversations like this, not a bug. I don’t see many political news/commentary shows doing in-depth policy analysis. It’s mainly just talking about some hot button issue that’s somewhat related to the policy, but has little to no value at the end of the day.

[@iamphotovideoist]

yeaup and they didn't even get to the "leaker" yet!!! LOL

[@deviouskris3012]

@@iamphotovideoist that was my thought. Conservative media has been far, far more interested in discussing the leak than the actual content of said leak. It’s almost as if they know one of those two is publicly unpalatable.

[@matthewlafrance8817]

You can tell David and Michael don’t really like each other but they’re so witty and funny about it. Very entertaining discussion. I hope to see more of this but with even more substantial discussion topics

[@kaosaechao56]

You really believe that? They need people like each other to make profit. No opposition = no content

[@lebumjames1373]

No they definitely do lol. They're both dishonest/disingenuous to varying degrees and playing different sides of the same game. I may agree with David on many issues politically but at the end of the day he's just as much as a grifter as Michael is.

[@PhillipG34]

​@lebumjames1373 I disagree. David has repeatedly used the food pyramid analogy saying he is at the sweets level. Where you shouldn't just consume that. I seriously doubt. Knowles and others like him say a similar thing.

[@WinstonBartholomewIII]

David sir, please keep up these kinds of interviews. There are not enough good faith debates these days.

[@sbingr5313]

Definitely

[@ecstanton]

he's so damn smug and unlikable...and I'm not talking about david

[@kdyssd]

I don't know that I would call this good faith either. Daily wire dude could only score points by diving into waste high weeds. Taking a super narrow question and trying to use it to refute the general polling isn't good faith.

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

@@ecstanton none of these reich wingers are honest brokers of debate. they all lie and manipulate facts to fit their agenda. the fact remains that republicans want to dominate everyone who isnt a white rich male christian. they want to force their religious views and laws on to the entire country...

[@ecstanton]

@@30.06onaGrassyKnoll agreed

[@Ironraven001]

Dude after making the entire interview about abortion rights: "Would you agree that abortion is not all that important as a political strategy?" ... What a weirdo.

[@biggpappa5462]

@@rockhavenradio the orange cheeto-in-chief Sir Agolfious Bonespurious Twitlery has taught all his sick qtards the art of creepiness very well. 🤣😆😅💪🏿💪🏻😁😝🇺🇲

[@dustinsindledecker154]

Not as creepy as Matt walsh, I bet that guy has dead hookers in his closet.

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

none of these reich wingers are honest brokers of debate. they all lie and manipulate facts to fit their agenda. the fact remains that republicans want to dominate everyone who isnt a white rich male christian. they want to force their religious views and laws on to the entire country...

[@mopes2713]

Because economic issues are always "top tier" when it comes to political strategies not abortion.

[@alzaresh]

yeah, wtf is his point?

[@johnnywad2697]

I love when you go on the opposite opinion shows of your own. You handle it like a pro David, sir.

[@ecalose6785]

Oh God, genuflecting ad nauseum!

[@stevonwhite8933]

@@ecalose6785 Oh god, an empty head right here^

[@volusiasorange]

david is a professional

[@ecalose6785]

@@volusiasorange Dave s a professional twister of facts! see for yourself and read the comments. Trump was referring to ms 13. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXTSZpmaZrKsjdk

[@bustamoveorelse]

Yeah he held back tears like a pro. Its hard getting destroyed on someone else's show. Gg david

[@mixshowgraphics7211]

This other guy is slick and trying to slide in that bait and switch about the polling regarding abortion, glad you told him "ASK THE THE SAME WAY OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS!!! You go David!!!

[@ericw9702]

The majority of American's don't actually know what Roe V Wade does...or Casey for that matter.

[@whysocurious7366]

That call-out was pretty dope

[@whysocurious7366]

@@ericw9702 I think they meant the majority of Americans who are politically active, not the stupid ones :p

[@caliindoor]

@@ericw9702 You're clueless.

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

hes your typical reich wing strawman salesman...all he can offer is off topic arguments that HIS followers can say "yep, hes right ya know" but in reality the facts point otherwise.

[@hoosieronan]

I am learning, even at my age, that learning how to listen and seek a mutual decision first is very important. Thank you David.

[@markavelisocal]

Yes, that was a great framework at the beginning. Masterful by David

[@pjgiger]

Rare for most lefties

[@MentalHealthMMA]

I watched this video on David’s Channel and read some of the comments. Then I went to the video of this same conversation on Michael’s channel. The difference in how two groups of people interpreted a debate based on their personal political ideology is discouraging. If we can’t agree what the problems are then how will we ever find answers? If we can’t distinguish fact from fiction than how will we ever agree on what’s true? Truth is becoming a myth.

[@donavanj.1992]

It's always been a myth, some people will find anyway possible to get to their answer.

[@beaudarcey9586]

Very good point. I don't have a solution to the problem you pointed out, and I think ideologies are counterproductive, because they encourage straw-manning the other side.

[@justoch]

They made this video to counter the echo chambers and you discovered their failure.

[@jasonnadal9721]

more of these interiews please. they are extremely useful

[@chadd990]

Yes, and hopefully their audience comes by to visit so that they can actually have their beliefs be challenged.

[@vgaportauthority9932]

I think this is probably the last time he gets on that show. I feel like the host wanted a second round so that he could get "revenge" and save face after the disgrace of the first interview. This one didn't go any better, so he might just forfeit and never try for revenge again. These guys aren't used to smart people picking at their arguments... They're used to people nodding at their drivel.

[@brycenorton8761]

Well played Pakman!! That is why I support your channel.

[@vishg5148]

@jerry gerard Michael Knowles has an iq of 15, I feel really bad for you if you’re simping for him in the comments

[@vishg5148]

@jerry gerard are you having hallucinations? When did I say anything about Ben Shapiro? For the record I think both shapiro and Knowles have a combined 2 braincells that they share, so not really sure what your point is.

[@mattrogers5188]

@jerry gerard Are you trying to say 18 US Code § 1507? That's the same section Knowles asked him about. It requires proof of intent, which is notoriously difficult to establish. Knowles seems blissfully unaware of this.

[@sps3r654]

@jerry gerard what a sad take. A good therapist would do you well.

[@sps3r654]

@jerry gerard this isn't a black or white discussion. I'm not here to debate you, i do not have to prove ignorance incorrect, I'm not your mother. You are just a sad troll, lost and floundering. You seek attention from those whom you wish to feel superior to but lack basic understanding of the subjects at hand in order to go tit for tat. It will be ok. Plenty of good, licensed therapists in your local area can help you through this. Get the help you need, stay away from politics, dont get sucked into the fast talking ignorance that right wing talk shows utilize to confuse and entice those like yourself. They prey on weak and feeble minded people. Dont be one of them if you can help it.

[@Jughead486]

Every time Michael Knowles smiles, somewhere in America a child mysteriously drops their ice cream cone on the ground.

[@jodiebasye9798]

that was helpful

[@englishguy9680]

Then Joe Biden appears picks the ice cream cone up, dusts it off hands it back to them before putting his arms around them and sniffing their hair like a pervert 😂

[@Sargent1987]

Thats funny

[@kiwim3p587]

I thought David was pretty weak on the protest question. I think the right approach was to agree it was against the law if Michaels explanation of the law was correct and to follow up with the assertion that Michael would surely agree that the law was a restriction on a citizens free speech and should be repealed because conservatives worship at the sacred alter of free speech.

[@RaveDubin]

Agreed. I’m pro-choice but that seemed like a tough position to defend

[@kiwim3p587]

@@RaveDubin and no value to defend. If you are taking in good faith then there is value in agreeing with people when they are "right".

[@TheEpochCompanion]

I agree with you. I am largely aligned with David but he came out of that portion of the argument looking more unreasonable than Knowles whom I think is generally just a disingenuous hack. The approach was just wrong and will only reassure the right wingers that see this of their position.

[@Tech4Lyfe]

You can't agree with someone else's explanation of anything without checking for yourself in debate situations. They're explanations or definitions could be made in bad faith, knowing you can't spot check them for accuracy. You can't rewind time and remove sound bytes once they are out there in the wild. People rarely see corrections, if made.

[@whysocurious7366]

@@kiwim3p587 I’m just impressed David managed not to throw up; that interviewer is very disgusting .

[@RoccosVideos]

If they feel uncomfortable in their own homes imagine how women feel not having control over their own bodies.

[@adamflores5027]

LOL

[@ZX-zw3ge]

There goes your freedom, girls!!

[@adamflores5027]

So distasteful saying only women can have babies? And the other 72 genders can't?!?!? Ur so close to getting cancelled

[@LoboKhan1]

@@psychonautpupildiallater7734 No one has been jailed for not taking Covid vaccines, kid. Stop trying to compare apples to asteroids.

[@ricardobarahona3939]

Psychonaunt supports pathogens and violating others bodies

[@jeffreycarman2185]

Like Knowles says “ask the right question”. Since there are right-wingers who literally equate the plan b pill with infanticide, I think I can imagine the kinds of questions and phrasing Knowles is referring to.

[@stevesand8845]

Exactly….. with this decision, a man who wants to keep his bloodline going can go rape a poor girl (poor as in unlucky AND having no money) and she can’t do anything to prevent his child from coming out of her……

[@nicholasschoonbeck6866]

He seems to do this everytime, he says this is the problem, David says I don't think that's the problem, then he adds more things, then says he's not adding those things.

[@tankhulkington5277]

"We don't want to create an echo chamber so we're inviting David Pakman to help us get some differing opinions. David, can we please just have you go in record to say that Joe Biden is the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11 and women's rights?"

[@MWDrone]

These justices were appointed by diaper donnys administration...stop assuming one party is the destruction of this country, u sound ignorant. The 1st amendment protects these peoples right to protest and file grievances with their government peacefully. Stand up for these peoples rights. They are hardworking Americans just like you.

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

none of these reich wingers are honest brokers of debate. they all lie and manipulate facts to fit their agenda. the fact remains that republicans want to dominate everyone who isnt a white rich male christian. they want to force their religious views and laws on to the entire country...

[@mjc5852]

Trump was the worst thing. He made hate and revenge popular with the uneducated and there are a lot of them.

[@captain007x]

No, trump is that by a country mile.

[@gregoryleewalker]

Women having rights is a bad thing? Okay Neanderthal.

[@MrRjsnowden]

Oh yes...good faith Pakman. I have not heard what they are saying right before saying "every lawyer I've spoken to says no laws were broken." Yep totally good faith.

[@vinnyholiday9739]

"I suspect you're reasonable david..." David: "I suspect you want to have a good faith convo" 🤣🤣🤣 very nice Pakman

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

and of course michael made it a convo not in good faith by trying to manipulate facts to fit his viewers agenda. he couldnt even admit basic facts. why debate someone who cant admit basic facts?

[@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure]

@@30.06onaGrassyKnoll accept, he was right by saying that the decision hasnt even been made yet they continued to talk about "what ifs". He was absolutely right with everything that he said. Cope

[@Joemommas]

@@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure No because its not fucking illegal to protest outside of their homes.

[@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure]

@@Joemommas yes, it is. Its all over the interwebs dude, do your research.

[@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure]

@@Joemommas did you look it up hardass?

[@johnnyestrada6993]

Going outside a justices house protesting and chanting “my body my choice” is breaking the law yet chanting “hang Mike Pence” outside the Capitol during election certification is simply a normal day.

[@cooldrop02]

@ThisIsHanna because one is illegal, in the other is not. That's why not both. One is a literal threat on an elected official's life. The other is not.

[@redelfshotthefood8213]

Isn’t that what most tourists to the capital building do? Erect gallows ?

[@cooldrop02]

@@psychonautpupildiallater7734 They are elected with the President. What is even the point of this comment?

[@cooldrop02]

@@psychonautpupildiallater7734 Yes. When I voted for a President.

[@MrRjsnowden]

Both are wrong but one is on Federal grounds and the other is on private property. There is a difference...not much but it is different.

[@dukeduck9362]

Even though D Pak didn’t perform that well, I like seeing these keep it up

[@Jordans1882]

Glad to see you doing more interviews with conservatives. You have an ability to keep their feet to the fire while keeping things amicable (even through underhanded slights). It’s useful to see for viewers on both sides of a given issue how we ought to engage with each other (without allowing emotion to take over, but also not backing down and staying on topic). Wish he’d given you more time.

[@frankmarano1118]

Yes david is a master of being passive aggressive haha

[@brotaku3539]

I got so a kick off his phrases from the last appearance, ie "it's been an unbridled pleasure to be here today, Michael", hahahaha I'm not sure why that tickles me so much.

[@frankmarano1118]

@@brotaku3539 The phrase "tickles me" cracks me up but yeah the ending was gold. That guy knows how extremely sarcastic david is but comes back for more! If nothing else hes determined

[@mattposky2892]

@@frankmarano1118 so are little girls

[@peterwilson542]

I feel like after the first one they limited Pakman on time. I have this feeling Knowles views Pakman like a casino. The longer the chat the more likely you loose. So keep it short. I also feel Pakman knew this which is why when it ended he said "Omg I feel like we didn't even talk about anything". That's just my take

[@variouscorn920]

hey not DP guy... as a woman, mother of women, and as far as i'm concerned , 5 of those judges are about to protest inside of my home, a protest it seems they are going to win, so cry me a river. and if that law is on the books about protesting at homes, well, in the spirit of RvW, let's reverse that law too

[@robertaldaron4870]

May I just simply say.... Excellent. 👍

[@variouscorn920]

@@robertaldaron4870 thank you!!!!

[@3rdjrh]

OK, I figured it out. He is basically doing what Stephen Colbert did to the right. He’s just playing a caricature of a left-wing pundit

[@ryanwatson789]

"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty . . ." The statute Knowles cites contains a specific intent element, and specific intent is incredibly hard to prove (this is likely why Trump has not been charged with any crimes). It is not enough to *want* a decision to change, or to express disagreement with a pending opinion. Some protesters may genuinely think this opinion is final, which would negate that specific intent. You would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt (as this is a criminal statute) that individual protesters were specifically intended to influence specific justices in discharging their duty--and that is a very high bar for a prosecutor. This is why non-lawyers shouldn't just spout opinions about laws that they think are "common sense." They often are not.

[@DougDimmaDab]

It was hard to prove Oj was guilty, I think it’s pretty clear he was. Sometimes people can do something that’s illegal but proving the illegality might be much harder. His point does have some merit

[@ryanwatson789]

@@DougDimmaDab I don't really think it does. In this case, as Pakman pointed out, people shouting "My body, my choice" could be doing so for any number of reasons, even reasons related to the opinion, that do not violate the law. How do you prove that any specific protester is violating this law, unless they specifically say "I intend to make Justice Kavanaugh change his vote on this draft decision"? Protesting because one is angry, but knowing it won't change the outcome, does not fit within the specific intent required for this law. And I suspect this is the reason behind most protesters' conduct here. As for OJ, not all murder requires proof of specific intent--certain degrees of murder can also be proven through reckless conduct or "depraved heart" indifference. Plus, there tends to be a whole lot more provable circumstantial evidence of guilt when someone is dead (a murder weapon, motive, opportunity, financial interest) than there is at a protest. The two situations are not even close. But lastly, I don't think there's any merit in Knowles, who is one of the loudest anti-cancel culture and pro-"free speech" advocates on the right, suggesting that peaceful protesters could or should be arrested based on his lay interpretation of a federal law. He seems to think that the First Amendment right to protest judicial opinions isn't *born* until the decision emerges from the judicial body. I think the First Amendment begins the moment the peaceful protest is conceived.

[@sataniclegion]

@@ryanwatson789 Well stated, brother! Agreed.

[@DougDimmaDab]

@@ryanwatson789 I think if you asked the protesters “Do you hope this changes the Judges decisions?” An overwhelming majority of them would say yes. Knowles is aware of this and uses it to press David on what the intent of the protesters would be on a decision that isn’t final yet. You’re correct to say my example contextually is much different but the sentiments are the same. My point is the burden of proof is a much more difficult bar to prove in court than to extrapolate from the information in front of you. This is purposeful to deliberately avoid false imprisoning individuals, no problem with that. But to say lack of convictional evidence means a crime can’t be being committed is false. I’m not a follower of Knowles, I don’t know much about him personally. How you explain him doesn’t demerit what he’s saying in this context, to me it just highlights the partisan divide. From this context I don’t get the sense he feels specific instances of free speech should be curtailed without being specifically outlined in the constitution. I just thought he found an obscure federal law that could be applicable in this situation and the speculation on if it’s being violated seems up in the air. Just David brought up the Lawyers he spoke to didn’t think it was a prosecutable offense with the lack of “hard evidence”.

[@ryanwatson789]

@@DougDimmaDab "Hoping" something changes still is not "intending" to change it. I know that to a lay person like Knowles, the prohibited act in 18 U.S.C. 1507 might seem to be the act of protesting outside justices' homes, but no. The prohibited act is the act of protesting *with a specific intent of influencing* a judge or justice. Intent to influence is key here, and it is a necessary element of the criminal offense. I just don't see how you get there as applied to almost any individual protester, but the broader problem is, if any charges are pursued here, the result would be to chill people's protected speech, that is, the many forms of protest (even at private residences, and yes, even at the homes of judges) expressly permitted by the First Amendment. I would argue that the statute is not meant to encompass this conduct, and to the extent it is interpreted to, it is overbroad and vague in violation of the First Amendment.

[@robbieakins4589]

I love what you guys are doing. This is what the country needs is real time debates on current issues not just far left or far right podcasts. My hat goes off to both of you gentleman please make what y’all are doing spread like a wildfire👌

[@falseprofit9801]

Nah. TV debates are essentially just posturing. Pakman is good at them because he knows how to handle a hack like Michael Knowles and doesn’t capitulate to his rhetorical games. When it’s on a platform, you *need* to be a bit disingenuous and talk past your interlocutor to speak directly to their audience. For the record, I’d be happy to discuss politics with you one-on-one any time, but it’s clear to me that “debate panels” aren’t an effective vehicle for problem-solving.

[@kenvisvielgern4436]

@@falseprofit9801 Gay

[@falseprofit9801]

@@kenvisvielgern4436 Yes. You asking me to spend the night?

[@mellowfellow845]

I can’t believe Pakman uploaded this thinking it made him look good

[@kreevoldar9917]

If you were looking for a definition of "smarmy" that dudes picture would appear. He wasn't interested in a honest conversation, he was looking for gotcha moments.

[@PKM1010]

Honestly, compared to the someone like Ben Shapiro and other reactionaries, he is miles ahead. Like Ben would just throw some word salad at you filled with so many fallacies that and then like, where do you even begin.

[@adamflores5027]

Pakman dodging questions so fluidly ..he should be in the next Matrix

[@suskeller]

Smarmy? How old are you?

[@peeptbgod7047]

Michael tries to sound like he is willing to have the conversation but only wants to scratch the surface

[@scifisyko]

He’s a propagandist liar, yeah.

[@dustinsindledecker154]

He is also a bad actor.

[@scifisyko]

@@dustinsindledecker154 Yeah I really do want to reach through the screen and slap that snotty fake smile off his face every time David says something (generally something correct) that he disagrees with for ideological or monetary reason.

[@garyjones3142]

@@scifisyko Don't get your panties in a wad !

[@volhosis3784]

I don't usually do this, but I agree with Michael on this one. The Washington Post had a good article with plenty of legal experts agreeing that the protests are indeed illegal.

[@danbailey2964]

Could be true. I didn't see any arrests. And if you look at it through GOP's glasses, they were just harmless citizens trick or treating. Nothing here to see folks...

[@saltking2715]

dont think its in the original constitution, the founding fathers didnt mention it so it should be fair game

[@Yanks1005]

@@saltking2715 With that logic, slavery is still legal then.

[@danbailey2964]

@@saltking2715 The FF's couldn't mention every possible situation, that's why there is some generality to it. The 14th amendment is where the privacy rights are found.

[@TS-ne1of]

As much as I am behind the protesters, and as much as I get you could argue in a legal sense that they are not trying to influence I have to say I do think they are trying to influence or else why would they be there?

[@matthewarnold4557]

@@based_yeoman9138 what does that statute cover a supreme court justices. I understand a trial judge for a criminal case. But the supreme Court seems way more political than that

[@SteveGellerMusic]

Please tell me the appropriate time that the Left is able to protest something. If they're protesting a water supply getting contaminated by an oil company, they're brutalized by police and it receives no coverage. So they can't protest in anonymity. When a football player silently kneels to protest, he is blackballed and faces death threats for the rest of his life. So they can't protest in public, even with no words. Gathering outside of a public building like the White House? Trump literally wanted to SHOOT protesters. So they can't do that. So tell me when and where they can protest where we won't see a nuclear freakout from the Right--the party of open insurrection, BTW. What is their opportunity to "influence" this decision? Voting in a system where Republicans get gigantic advantages in the distribution of the Senate, the House and the Electoral College, and then just nullify Democratic leaders anyway because they deem that they secretly didn't really win? Or waiting 50 more years while women suffer and die, because a handful of religious zealots chosen by presidents who did not even get a majority of votes, and who then lied their asses off in conformation hearings on this subject, decided their God was more important than womens' rights? Tell me how they're supposed to influence this issue in a more "civil" way.

[@JStrummer1]

I'm glad you do this. We need more

[@kelseipixal617]

I don't trust anyone from the wire

[@JStrummer1]

@@kelseipixal617 That's why he needs to keep doing it. Expose the clowns

[@rzilla4703]

I have no idea what these people are protesting about because I haven’t spoken to them and neither one of us are lawyers. nice

[@dustinsindledecker154]

Man you thought after getting beaten by a medical student that micheals learned his lesson but I guess he didnt, David open up some whoop ass on micheal.

[@jayess8714]

I know right. Claims to be pro-life yet agrees to let himself get massacred by her on his own show

[@ecalose6785]

If they’re expressing their opinion, then they are telling the judges we don’t agree with what WE THINK you may do, so do t do it. We have rights and we are here to tell you this!

[@egorlukanov1609]

I assume it’s a typo and you meant to say “don’t do it”? In which case that’s obviously trying to influence a judge’s ruling, no?

[@DougDimmaDab]

@@egorlukanov1609 exactly, he just fell into the point Knowles was making

[@idlehour]

@@egorlukanov1609 white lines is now stuck in my head after reading this lol

[@jameskavanagh4315]

@@egorlukanov1609 glad they didn’t storm the judges house and made a makeshift gallows in the garden. We all know they are “ going to do it”, so “ don’t do it” is just an empty sentence. I can say “ inject bleach into your body if you get Covid”, knowing dammed well you’re not gonna do it.

[@cooldrop02]

@@egorlukanov1609 He forgot to add please. Which is a request. Not something to try to force anybody to make an opposite decision. Protesting in front of judges houses, in saying things like my body my choice, is not forcing anybody to do anything. It is letting your opinion be heard. Just like, back in the day, when whites would get in front of black people's homes, and protest the fact that their children were going to school with their children, they didn't get arrested. Even when they did it in front of judges homes. You know, the judges who allowed desegregation to even happen? The judges who heard people's stories and said, that's illegal". Yeah they got protested on too. And... The white people who was protesting them did not get arrested. Cuz they did not break the law.

[@luckyape]

Pulling out some “very specific law” is the definition of a gotcha question, lol.

[@zothOne]

This is why you don't attach your morality to legality.

[@MrRjsnowden]

Huh some "very specific law" what does that even mean.

[@jacobjacobsen7698]

The federal law is clearly what governs this issue …?

[@TheNheg66]

Can you give me an example of a non-specific law? 😂😂😂 wtf...

[@bryanvazquez8049]

Conversations like this need to happen more often. I am a conservative but I do watch David Parkman’s show because I like to see what the left’s point of view is on certain things. I think both bring up great points. The people that win from these conversations are us! We make up our judgmental calls. Good job David and Michael! Please continue with these conversations

[@dustinsindledecker154]

I agree I may not agree with on pretty much anything but I'm always for good faith debates the problem conservatives want to control debates like ben.

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

none of these reich wingers are honest brokers of debate as you just watched...michael is a slime ball with slimey tactics. they all lie and manipulate facts to fit their agenda. the fact remains that republicans want to dominate everyone who isnt a white rich male christian. they want to force their religious views and laws on to the entire country...

[@ChibiHoshiDragon]

Does he have the polls from 50 years ago that used the SAME wording? How has THAT changed over time. I'm sure even THOSE limiting questions have INCREASED support in the past 50 years

[@raysjep7765]

Packman, I love your show and agree with you most of the time. In this case.. (protesting outside a judges house to influence a decision), I think Michael Knowles has and makes a great point. Anyway, just having a good adult conversation like the 2 of you are having is good. It's great to hear both sides and not have somebody freaking out! Nice job.

[@names_are_useless]

Pakman was making the case that PROVING someone was trying to influence a Judge's decision, in a court of law, would be VERY difficult. This is trying to prove intent, which is a high bar. This isn't something like trespassing or destroying property, which has much more observable evidence that can be brought before a court. Also keep in mind that you have an entire crowd of protestors, "who said what" is going to be even tougher. And lastly there is the issue of PR: trying to arrest peaceful protestors? That's only going to turn the protestors into martyrs and would likely make the protests worse. Trust me, none of the judges want to touch these protestors.

[@tannerman46]

Keep doing these! They're super entertaining and the more you're on the more substance you can get into. Make it a weekly show!

[@elizabethdelacerda2087]

David keeps it real and he has good points. Love watching him!!

[@LonnyH]

From one of your right-leaning viewers, I gotta say I really appreciate you going on the DW. You and Michael have great chemistry and it makes for a really interesting conversation. My mom is a lefty and I always recommend your channel to her. Thanks alot 👍

[@wildbill9681]

Wake me up when republicans care about abolishing the death penalty as much as abortion 😪

[@ericw9702]

Pretty sure people who get the death penalty somehow earned it...it wasn't something their mom did on a whim...

[@adamflores5027]

Comparing convicted killers to innocent babies? LMAO ...what a comedian

[@hamsterfromabove8905]

@@adamflores5027 Still it would be natural to assume that a group of people that declare themselves as "pro-life" would be against the killing of any person. Instead, in best case scenario they choose to pass moral judgement and declare that some people deserve to live while other don't. In worse case scenario "pro-life" is just a front for "control women".

[@ericw9702]

@@hamsterfromabove8905 Maybe pro-innocent life would be better? It doesn't get more innocent than an unborn child....

[@discdoggie]

except later-proven-innocent people HAVE been executed, and fetuses aren’t “people.”

[@faulker2p]

"I want to make sure we are not in a echo chambre bre bre bre bre bre"

[@daves2354]

*chamber, er er er er er lol

[@Publius_1787]

Much respect seeing you on Knowles' show. Glad to see healthy debate.

[@AthenaGate]

Based on what I have read, it is against the law. However, I don't think saying, " my body my choice." Is going to have Brett Kavanaugh go, "you know what, they are right." Lol. Also, if it is against the law, why didn't Kavanaugh just call the police and be done with it?

[@MarcillaSmith]

Yes, and I don't know why David would post this, especially with his whole "but is it in good faith?" qualifier. I'm not saying I agree with the law, but if the law says you can't protest justices at their homes in order to influence their decisions, that's clearly what is happening, until shown otherwise.

[@AthenaGate]

@@MarcillaSmith agreed, it may be one of those laws that might not even be worth the effort to prosecute, especially if it is being done in a peaceful manner. Micheal got David with that one.

[@LSPalm]

@@MarcillaSmith the law is more about criminal court go read the god damned thing,

[@SquawkBox13]

Having read that US code, the language very strongly relates judges, AND JURIES (and lawyers) with regards to criminal or jury trials. Now, not a lawyer, but as David said, I also haven't been able to find a lawyer from either side of the fence who makes the argument that that code applies to protesting SCOTUS decisions that impact rights. But, again, the wording used in that US code definitely is more centralized around criminal/jury trials, and not intimidating judges, counsel, or jurists to decided one way or another. And, not for nothing, not like we haven't had major criminal cases in the past with people protesting right outside the courthouse....

[@jarls5890]

If a protestor brought a keg of beer and a hose-and-funnel to the protest outside Kavanaughs homer - THAT would be considered undue political pressure!

[@E.J.Crunkleton]

"when we ask the question the same way, can you at least admit that support for Roe V Wade has increased over the last 50 years" "Depending on how you phrase the questions you get different answers" Amazin

[@lightningbones1092]

support for roe v wade hasn't increased though

[@MoonShadeStuff]

@@lightningbones1092 according to lightning bones polling

[@AlwaysANemesis]

@@lightningbones1092 [Citation Needed]

[@asingh4152]

@@lightningbones1092 umm don't just poll yourself

[@Ron898]

One conservative poll asks “are you for or against murdering babies”. Conservatives are as predictable and laughable as they are dangerous.

[@aaronsande]

You'd have to be ADMITTING that "my body my choice" is being violated by the court right now to think that opinion is against the decision. So, is it? Is the court going against bodily autonomy or isn't it?

[@johnc6158]

But some people like Ben will say it’s not banning abortion it’s letting states decide. So is it banning abortions or is it not?

[@donavanj.1992]

@@johnc6158 by extension, it is putting bans on abortion.

[@jacobjacobsen7698]

Dumbest argument I’ve read yet! Lmfao

[@sleezyclips8068]

@@donavanj.1992 no, the court decision would remove the decision from the courts completely. If the conservative justifies wishes to interpret the constitution like liberal justices do, they could just say that a fetus is a person under the constitution and entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. That would be the conservative version of an “evolving” constitution. That’s why the evolving constitution is a bad judicial philosophy.

[@donavanj.1992]

@@sleezyclips8068 I would disagree, it's more conservative justices calling it a person. I'm going to need proof that liberal justices pre-suppose it to be a person. Words out of their own mouth to be blatant. Even so polling shows 70% of Americans think it should be upheld. It's more about the degree.

[@AdamBladeTaylor]

Love how he tries to do the usual apples to oranges comparison to get away from most Americans being pro-abortion.

[@MrRjsnowden]

Pro abortion at what stage or time frame? That is the question which is why its probably a good idea to allow states decide via a vote on what is acceptable in regard to abortion.

[@AdamBladeTaylor]

@@MrRjsnowden No, this is why it's good to KEEP IT A WOMAN'S RIGHT. The states have NO RIGHT to tell a woman that she can't have bodily autonomy.

[@scrizly]

David is such a legend for doing these. Absolutely crushing hypocrites with cold hard logic and smiles.

[@moenibus]

you talk about the breadtuber David Pakman, right? sheep

[@scrizly]

@@moenibus oh look, a bot ^^^

[@garyjones3142]

A legend! Really?

[@garyjones3142]

David is a real narcissist!

[@scrizly]

@@garyjones3142 yup

[@johnnyblaze6220]

I agree with both of them on all of the subjects they discussed. They both made valid points neither one was trying to straw man each other. Very nice!

[@theberserkturtle]

David doesn't back down! Hes a beast for all these interviews and debates lately. It's actually very surprising to see conservatives agree to talking with you. Great content

[@PWNINSWAGMASTER]

The Conservative you may need to get surprised with that on DW is Candace Owens… maybe. Everyone else among the main shows are pretty willing.

[@garyjones3142]

A beast! Really

[@bobwilliams4895]

It's far more surprising any leftist goes on the daily wire.

[@glenncurry3041]

Loved the eye roll towards the end. He was dead set on playing games with the statistics to force them in his direction. And it was obvious you were fed up with the "not again!" frustration. But good job in forcing it to be factual, rational and structured. They always lose then!

[@LOSTONITALL]

@@based_yeoman9138 Either was your reply, as you gave no reason why...just some dumb belief of yours that makes no sense.

[@xanthousfishjeretuna9778]

​@@based_yeoman9138 It's also generally a sign when you're fed up of somebodies nonsense

[@ComradeYinkai]

Facts and rationality have no place in politics!

[@dustyc324]

He dies the fake smile thing a few times. When David pushes back he just fake smiles because he knows his strategy isnt working. David does a good job of getting ahead of the gotcha and it ruins any conservative point. They have nothing else. Same with the guys on the Trigger Nometry or whatever it's called. When David offered a no BS take that isn't just reactionary talking points they were stumped. The one dude didn't even speak for 15 solid minutes.

[@xanthousfishjeretuna9778]

@@based_yeoman9138 I mean David made it pretty clear that he was seeing the thing as a bit bs, if you watched even 5 minutes you would notice that

[@geared2cre8]

1st: they don't know how the judges will choose. The judge could already be for upholding rvw 2nd: a decision was already made to on rvw and because of religious and political influence on judges they are deciding whether or not they will overturn it. If anyone should be held accountable for crimes is the religious and political groups pushing to overturn the standing decision

[@MrRjsnowden]

The decision does not criminalize Abortion nationally. It throws it back to the states to decide. If it were up to folks like Knowles ALL abortion would be illegal nationally. That is not what's happening so not really sure what you are saying holds water here. It was a bad look and was probably illegal to protest outside the homes of sitting supreme court judges.

[@egonanderson8869]

Agreed far more arm bending is done by Religious and Financial concerns than peaceful protesters with candles

[@Fullmetal333]

How many times does David have to teach you this lesson old man?!?! 😂🤣

[@whatkindofwalmart4545]

David is also a man who is older than you

[@garyjones3142]

David teaches me Nothing !

[@lanesniffin730]

I’m right of center not a daily wire fan I enjoyed the conversation

[@Goldenboy48]

What lesson did he teach exactly..how to play dumb

[@TruthAndMoreTruth]

David obliterated him. How conservative debate: _“But David, wouldn’t you agree that since most people see money as the root of all evil, most do not want more money, but rather less…?”_

[@Tupelo927]

_Actually,_ the Bible says "For the *love* of money is root of all evil!" And no, I don't want to talk about TFG's greed, avarice, vanity, gluttony, pride, sloth, or wrath except to say Gawd used imperfect men like King David & King Silas. -- conservative evangelical, probably

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

perfect analogy of how it went... michael is a bad faith debater who couldnt admit to basic facts...

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

none of these reich wingers are honest brokers of debate. they all lie and manipulate facts to fit their agenda. the fact remains that republicans want to dominate everyone who isnt a white rich male christian. they want to force their religious views and laws on to the entire country...

[@argentiskyblau159]

David just kept saying he’s now aware of the issues brought up so he cant comment. Kind of a cop-out in my opinion

[@30.06onaGrassyKnoll]

@@argentiskyblau159 how does one make a proper educated opinion on something one knows nothing about. one of david's pet peeves is when someone in a "debate" style conversation and someone throws up some obscure info or new info he has never heard of and then is expected to have a proper reply. anyone with any sort of intelligence knows to not speak on things one doesnt know about...that used to be a common practice in the world, but now everyone is an expert at everything, or so it seems!

[@rickshannon2044]

It is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to protest outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices.

[@lastnamefirstname4678]

It's not at all because judges should make laws based on laws and not on popular opinion. If you want to change a law then you go to Congress.

[@fillherbut1880]

You would think a free speech warrior like Michael Knowles might have an issue with that statute, but it empowers snowflake judges that can’t handle criticism so…

[@ngusumakofu1]

When they say “free speech”, they mean “free speech that I agree with”. They have no principles whatsoever. Just dogmatic ideologies which they will push by whatever means. End justify the means.

[@michaelprozonic]

they are Justices, not Judges. They are acting politically by re-interpreting precedent that was previously decided twice. Three of the Justices voting to overturn said it was decided law during their Senate hearings. Also, the case before them is a 15 week limit, not overturning the precedent of Roe v Wade and PP v Casey. They are overstepping the case before them

[@synthesizerneil]

Yeah this is one of the most brain dead, 5 year old level take of politics that I've found so far in these comments. Your understanding of the law is laughable. Precedent does not mean super precedent and doesn't mean it can't be overturned. What a pathetic childish take

[@ericw9702]

Racial segregation was "settled law" at one point too, for over half a century. Acknowledging that its settled law doesn't mean its immune from scrutiny.

[@Ironraven001]

@@ericw9702 what new information has come up that justifies overturning Roe? Segregation was looked at again largely due to a sway of public opinion. More than 60% of the population opposed overturning Roe.

[@ericw9702]

@@Ironraven001 I believe democrats challenged a law in Mississippi and the only thing propping it up is Roe, so Roe in being challenged. If Roe was decided under the EPC clause, it would probably stand. But "privacy" is shaky at best, even RBG noted that.

[@vishg5148]

@@ericw9702 keep trying to justify taking away people’s rights, I know that’s the Republican way but it’s disgusting

[@MillCityJam]

Why is the Right always wrong?

[@vivahernando1]

Because of irony

[@DLudGolf]

IF THE DECISION IS OUT = NO LAWS BROKEN PEOPLE ARE JUST ANGRY | IF PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT THE DRAFT = DEFINITELY BREAKING A LAW THESE RIGHT WINGERS ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH LOGIC AND JUST SIMPLE COMPARISONS

[@ericw9702]

Its not out, hence the "leaked draft" description of it...

[@DLudGolf]

@@ericw9702 I'm saying the argument is garbage, the motive of any protest is always to change minds, its not illegal. whether they are mad at a potential ruling or a real ruling doesn't matter.

[@machineman8388]

@@ericw9702 its not classified info there is no crime

[@ericw9702]

@@machineman8388 Protesting at a judges house in an attempt to influence a decision on a pending case is indeed a crime...

[@RHW42Archangel]

@@ericw9702 I'll need to look up this law when I get home, my suspicion is it has to do with intimidating a judge over a case, criminal or civil. The supreme court you might say is largely political, because their decisions do not impact a single case but the entire country. If so, it's no different than protesting outside houses/workplace of lawmakers

[@ultimatescapebro]

Michael Knowles is a good guy he just has some strong views, I love that these two can have a chat together for us to listen to.

[@johnsonsandra8069]

Nah ...not a good guy ...if he is for limiting women's rights then ya like I said he ISN'T a good guy

[@roycekimmel]

@@johnsonsandra8069 i didn't see anything that would indicate he supports what you say. At least not in this clip

[@johnsonsandra8069]

@@roycekimmel well it's a little thing we like to call critical thinking Royce ..I can watch that video and put 2and 2 together to understand that Michael Knowles is in agreement with the supreme court ruling ( well yet to be) over reversing RvW soo yes I am extremely confident that he is not a "good guy" ...that is not a definition I would used to describe him ...

[@roycekimmel]

@@johnsonsandra8069 I would call that assuming. And you know what is said about that. Maybe he just believes those decisions should be made at the state level, as does the SCOTUS, at least in draft form. Now if Congress passed some sort of legislation completely legalizing abortion at the Federal level, then this point would be moot. We all know what happened there. Now that could change in the future though. And even if Knowles does outright disagree with abortion, which I'm not sure he does, what makes him a bad person is that he disagrees with your perspective? There are people on the other side of the debate that feel the same way about you and your ideology. Does that make you a bad person? What would "critical thinking" lead you to believe?

[@johnsonsandra8069]

@@roycekimmelfirst of all I am not assuming anything. He is a staunch right winger and this goes hand and hand with the believe in the motto of not for me but for thee.. which anyone who supports reversing RvW is.. .that men somehow have more rights just because they "are" yes it is my opinion that someone who is in agreement with stripping away any of my rights is yes NOT a " good guy"....

[@matteopacelli9001]

This was a great video actually and this is the kind of discourse we need as opposed to the usual toxic fighting we see

[@Jonny-uu7wf]

It always astonishes me that there are articulate and civil republicans out there that will still vote for trump

[@matteopacelli9001]

@@Jonny-uu7wf it’s kind of mind boggling haha

[@Pilgrim1st]

I hope these become a regular feature! Your conversations with Michael are great.

[@Jakartan777]

They can be entertaining but not very substantive. And I blame it on the host. They didn’t touch on important sides of the issue and they barely talked about anything substantive. This Knowles guy is clearly trying his hardest to gotcha David, even though he says he’s not.

[@Pilgrim1st]

@@Jakartan777 Completely disagree with your assessment of the host.

[@hubermandaniel]

Lmao he had to cut the interview super short cause he knew that if he jumped into other topics David would destroy him lol.

[@somethingginterestingg4275]

That's what you got from this?

[@hubermandaniel]

@@somethingginterestingg4275 basically… they barely talked about anything substantive

[@MoonShadeStuff]

Yeah, those were the most uninteresting questions. „Is it a problem that protesters are protesting“, like, wtf kind of question is that if you believe in the first amendment? „Tell me about your thoughts on the democratic strategy“ uhhh why? Ask a democratic strategist. David is right, where were the questions about important topics?

[@itsshowtime6412]

If I were American (I'm not, but I know way more about US politics than the average American), abortion would be the LAST thing on my mind to choose between the Republican and Democratic party. Generally, I do like the stance that Trump and Vivek have on this, especially lately the one Vivek moved to which aligns a bit with Jordan Peterson's lectures on this. It's not a matter that can nor should be solved by the government, it's a matter that can and should be solved with good education, welfare, morals and faith... Don't restrict the choices of your citizens, rather enable them to make the right ones!...

[@JibeTalking]

18 USC 1507 - Picketing or parading; "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."

[@casualgamerreed]

He should ask David what is a Woman I bet he could answer it 🙂

[@Mike_LaFontaine75]

Doesn't mean he'd be right.

[@garrett3726]

He was asked and he declined to answer

[@Mike_LaFontaine75]

@@garrett3726 No, he didn't. He explained exactly what the judge said, and why it was a dumb question.

[@garrett3726]

@@Mike_LaFontaine75 no, in their first interview from a few weeks ago Michael Knowles asked him the question and David said he didn’t want to answer it

[@Mike_LaFontaine75]

@@garrett3726 And explained why it was a dumb question in the context of a SCOTUS hearing. I know your ilk hates science, but biologists agreed with the judge.

[@002Mercury]

The law is crystal clear with no wiggle room (likely written by a very good judge)"18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading", (Im only showing the relevant parts here) "Whoever with the intent of influencing any judge in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." (the only alteration to this law was the details for the fine, was $5,000 and changed to under this title). The "protests" and "demonstrations" or even "people voicing opinions" to influence the judge IS ILLEGAL in this case. The doctors and nurses and patients of abortion clinics are not covered by this law (Only covers judge, juror, witness, or court officer) which is why they can be protested legally, it is not a legal excuse then the protest anyone, anywhere, anytime.

[@alecgarcia9196]

David trying to have a good faith convo and literally ask if this wasn’t a “gotcha” interview but Knowles literally had the statute ready for this exact moment. A 13 min interview for that one sound bite. What a rube.

[@craigforest7970]

You mean Knowles had knowledge and facts? Gotcha.😂

[@ryanricks3002]

@@craigforest7970 😂😂 yes

[@craigforest7970]

@@Ash-jm3pd 👈🤡…😂ok.

[@coreyslater2801]

Naw. Knowles wasn't gotcha-ing him. He just assume that the the point he was making, David would have known. He didn't and that's fine

[@loueth]

Your interviews with people that have opposing views are my favorite. All the interviews are good though.

[@morandm1]

The more I see/hear of Pakman, the less value I get from him. “Neither of us are lawyers, Michael”…like I need to be a lawyer to know that theft, murder, etc, is against the law. He loves to tell conservatives that they are making bad faith arguments, but he is the king of bad faith arguments. And he’s so condescending. But at least he is willing to go on his opponents show, so there is that.

[@surreallife777]

Please keep debating right wingers David. It’s an excellent way to expose them. Thom Hartman has been doing it for years. We need more of this.

[@CarterM54]

It's an even better way to expose himself. Keep up the good work!

[@chrissullivan8740]

I respect David for making a living off of not knowing anything 😂

[@bklan9899]

He only knows very specific and highly controlled topics that he can be smug about

[@zalodelsolar3366]

Pakman has to be the most dishonest KZbinr

[@Don-ih5dn]

People should protest when the Supreme Court puts partisan politics and not the will of the majority of the people. If they choose to be political activists the Court is obsolete.

[@garyjones3142]

You are obsolete !

[@dgerch]

My politics mostly align with David's and are almost diametrically opposed to this host. That said, I think he is making good faith arguments, allowing David to speak, logically engaging with David's responses and mostly not moving goalposts. At least rhetorically, I wish this was the type of conservatism we were dealing with. Finally, I was disappointed how David dealt with the host's first question. It's felt evasive and slippery. Like most here, I'm horrified at the leaked opinion and it's implications but the host asked David how he felt about protestors gathering at judge's residences. The host seemed (not sure) to present evidence that calls the legality of that into question. At that point David just rejected that information and got slippery.

[@mistert800]

David rightly pointed out that a law like this must be interpreted by those within that profession and that the specifics of the situation make all the difference, e.g. the intent of the protestors and to the extent to which things can be proved. David went on to say that _if_ illegality could be established then he would trust the legal process. It's not evasive or slippery to bring these things up, it's the foundation on which the argument stands.

[@kenpalmer9536]

The guy keeps swallowing hard when the Pakman makes good points so win to Pak.

[@michaelmarceau4863]

Let me get this straight. It's illegal if a person(s) tells a mob to go to a house in order to influence a federal official's decision? I hope the 1/6 committee uses this video.

[@matthewarnold4557]

Also, I'm pretty sure that statute is meant for judges during criminal trials not supreme Court justices.

[@ericw9702]

@@matthewarnold4557 I wouldn't see why it wouldn't apply to both. A judge is a judge. It would apply to a civil court judge doing a divorce case just as much it would apply to a criminal judge in a murder trial.

[@matthewarnold4557]

@@ericw9702 you might be right. But you mean the supreme Court exists on such a higher plain. They're not just making decisions on one criminal case or civil dispute. They're making decisions for the entire country and its future. I feel it should be subject to some political protesting.

[@ericw9702]

@@matthewarnold4557 One would think that being on such a higher plane would make criminal attempts to influence them even worse though, right?

[@lanesniffin730]

Who lives at the capital? Liberals are so open minded their brains have fallen out

[@Wizardofgosz]

Lots of these guys present as reasonable, but they're really just the smiling faces of fascism. I would have trouble going on their shows.

[@englishguy9680]

Knowles is annoying because he is so smug and self satisfied, which makes it all the more amazing that Pakman was even more smug and annoying. These two deserve one another

[@MarshalNey13]

The insincerity in their mutual courtesies is hilarious.

[@a.b.2850]

Is it though 🤔 I don’t know, that’s the thing I’m having fun figuring out lol But I’m sure David still honestly appreciated that interview.

[@MarshalNey13]

@@a.b.2850 There are layers I’m sure. This gets more subs for both of them. There is the challenge of sparing. They are supposed to be friendly but they have contradictory views. Neither wants to appear weak in front of his respective audience. They both know how to play the same game.

[@Vegasguy79]

I am a huge fan of these debates. I really hope to see more of this.

[@LeopardMouse.]

Came here to give a like an comment ! The real Right appreciates people like u David.

[@noigandres]

I'm with Michael on this one. They're trying to intimidate the justices into not overturning Roe v. Wade.

[@michaeldavies4871]

Yeah, your opinions and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

[@noigandres]

@@michaeldavies4871 Yeah, and your opinions and 5$ will buy you a coffee in the prison commissary.

[@michaeldavies4871]

@@noigandres I'm sure you're speak from experience...

[@noigandres]

@@michaeldavies4871 Bro, you're the one apparently condoning who went to intimidate the justices, which is a federal crime.

[@michaeldavies4871]

@@noigandres - uh, bullshit. Chanting a belief like "Our bodies our choice" in front of their homes is federally protected constitutional speech. funny how conservatives love the Constitution until it allows something then don't lie. Guess they'll have to deal with it,snowflake.

[@jebus6kryst]

It is good to see a Right Winger coming out and admitting that they are not for absolute free speech. Always great to have them on tape going against their talking points.

[@Loki_Yogi]

Glad you pointed that out. My mind naturally will instantly go to contradictions from my former conservative self but, somehow that one got past me this time. 🙏

[@mikew6060]

Obviously you really aren't that bright

[@Skankhunt420.]

Right wingers are generally for absolute free speech that excludes illegal speech acts. So saying you are going to kill someone is a speech act

[@TheNheg66]

They never were though. That was always just a strawman.

[@clarkw6214]

Lol yeah if it's specifically against federal law, there are limitations in freedom of speech.

[@jeffyee7895]

dpakman: "i assume you want to have this conversation in good faith" *5 minutes later* dpakman: "i dont know what theyre chanting at these protests and thus their motive for being there"

[@goodnessthentruth]

Yeah let’s talk about inflation instead of what every liberal in the US agrees on; women should have the right to choose.

[@Penumbralvision]

I love how David explains the overall staggering support for the government to step away from foreclosing on women’s medical needs and Michael barely manages to scrape out a shred of doubt for such perspectives by giving cherry picked examples as deterrence for people wanting this. He knows he can’t go down that road because it’s almost an impossible place to argue against so instead he spins the conversation to Democrats political strategy in light of David’s clear accounting of what everyone in the country obviously wants and the Republican Party’s insistence on going against it.

[@BeardsBladesandHair]

Democrats only had 50 years to pass a federal law.

[@lightningbones1092]

David tried to convolute the issue. It's the child's rights and father's rights that the left ignores. With the abortion procedure they literally tear the baby limb by limb and throw the body parts in buckets.... sorry you have a hard life ladies, but killing am unborn baby is just evil, and it's not stopping at the unborn. They are literally killing newborns because the mother doesn't want them. It's plain evil.

[@timayjust]

Omg I can really tell this is a bubble channel, if you ask Americans are you ok with abortion majority say yes , but if you ask are you ok with abortion up to third trimester support is literally not existent, most people are ok with a cut off after first trimester

[@Penumbralvision]

@@timayjust Dude, 93% of all abortions are in the first trimester. And the overturning of Roe V Wade allows for the removal of protections for first trimester abortions… The first trimester that has such overwhelming support from what you yourself, and David, and I have just said… I guess I’m not sure where you’re coming from, are you for or against the overturning overturning of Roe V Wade?

[@timayjust]

@@Penumbralvision true but a good compromise is something like a heartbeat bill or brain activity, im for sending it back to the States to decide and then just focus on care for the child after it's born, is rather a child have a chance at life in a upgraded foster system than be killed by their mother because the Mom can t accept responsibility for their actions exceptions being rape but in that case I would think most mother would abort before the heartbeat or brain activity cut off

[@pacificrules]

They're both so wonderful. I enjoyed watching their debate. Loved this video, and if only both parties can have this type of debate.

[@wet-read]

Knowles is pretty much odious to me. But then again, I'm clearly biased in the left/progressive direction. I feel kinda weird saying that. I used to listen to Michael Savage, not because I agreed with him on a bunch of stuff (I didn't), but because he was entertaining. Despite his sometimes preposterous bombast and needless abrasiveness, he didn't sound elitist, like so many talk show hosts on both sides; I liked that. And he also said things at times that made a lot of sense to me. Savage had Chuck Schumer on his show once, a man who he denounced a lot prior to that (I forget what the issue was). I thought it was very big of both men.

[@JasonMolter]

I'm on David's side all the way, but as far as conservative commentators go, Michael Knowles is certainly one of the most respectful and intelligent ones. I like debates like this one.

[@ArdenJ]

I wouldn't consider him intelligent. His authoritarian views are pretty dumb

[@studiotodd]

Check his commentary on transgender and gay issues, then tell me he is respectful and intelligent.

[@curtisl2000]

5:51 ok michael just take what your saying here and apply it to what donald, guliani, donald jr, ted cruz, etc said before jan 6. "stop the steel" 'stop'='force' in this case. so if your mad at the protestors, guess what you also have to admit Donald incited an insurrection

[@treichfra8428]

It’s almost like there’s a difference between assuming another’s intentions and legally proving intention hmm

[@jtstevenson81]

Pakman is so freaking intellectually dishonest it's nuts. He's actually arguing that protestors chanting "My body My Choice" prior to a SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade doesn't amount to the crowd trying to influence the justices' decision. Pakman will only concede to this if the protestors speak the actual words "change your decision." What a knob Pakman is. Embarrassing.

[@johnkirkman2849]

I saw it and it looked like a block party. People were talking, laughing. Everyone was having a good time.

[@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure]

Yeah. Just like the "summer of love" and the "fiery, but mostly peaceful" protests.

[@johnkirkman2849]

@@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure Yeah, just like that.

[@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure]

@@johnkirkman2849 figures

[@ryanricks3002]

@@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure how pissed are you ? Lol grow up

[@Straight_White_Fatherly_Figure]

@@ryanricks3002 not at all kid. You are projecting