Name: Joe Rogan Experience #2432 - Josh Dubin
Uploaded: 2025-12-30T18:00:26.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #2432 - Josh Dubin' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-12-30. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #2432 - Josh Dubin' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-12-30. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #2432 - Josh Dubin

Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out.
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day.
Brother Joe.
Good to see you again.
Nice to see you, man.
What's happening?
Everything's happening.
I got a lot on my mind.
I got notes today and everything.
Beautiful.
So let's kick it off.
What do you got?
No, I was just, I was thinking that the more you do this work, the more routine
the stories would get.
And you would start to see fact patterns and situations repeat.
But I'm starting to think the more you do it, the more nutty and bizarre it
gets.
And you find yourself in these situations where you're like, that can't be.
You got to check that out.
So I have like multiple cases going on where I feel that way.
And they range from wrongful convictions to why was this person charged in the
first place?
Were you seeking clemency?
I mean, yeah, it's a weird world.
Yeah, your world in particular.
The world of wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted people is one of the
darkest worlds in the world.
Because you're taking away a person's freedom.
Yeah.
And they do it all the time for corruption.
They do it because they're corrupt.
They do it because they're dirty.
They do it because they want convictions.
They do it because they said someone was guilty.
And then they just want to fucking lock them up anyway.
You know, I started to read this.
Malcolm Gladwell just published a new book called Revenge or the Tipping Point.
And I'm only like 15 pages in.
And the way he starts it out is about, I think, he's going to come back to it
at the end.
But I think it's the opioid scandal.
He's leaving it blank until the end of the book about how when they testified,
the executives of the company testified before Congress that they couldn't
bring themselves to apologize or admit that they were wrong.
And they keep on using the words, our drug has been associated with, associated
with addiction.
And it's almost this, so I'm starting to think that this inability to admit
fault, that you're wrong, that you're sorry, it transcends the legal system.
And, you know, I'm starting to believe that the cases where these cops are out
to frame someone are far more, well, maybe not far more, but they're less
common than the cases where law enforcement's trying to do the right thing.
And a detective has a hunch, and they just get to where they think they need to
be on the evidence by following the hunch, which is often wrong.
So, yeah, it's a mix of all that shit.
Yeah, and people don't like to admit they're wrong ever, especially when it
comes to something as crazy as a pharmaceutical drug company releasing some
opioid that's going to kill a million people.
Like, they can't admit they're wrong.
They almost have to say things like, associated with, especially during
hearings.
Yeah, during congressional hearings, I guess there's a lot on the line if there's
anything that smells like an admission.
Yeah, they can't admit it.
They have to not lie, right, because then they can get hit with perjury.
So they come up with different terms, like associated with.
Yeah, I mean, I'm interested to see where he goes with it.
I listen to his podcast a lot.
It's actually really good.
Some of them are good.
Revisionist History.
Because he's a curious dude, this Malcolm Gladwell.
And, you know, some of his stuff I agree with, some I don't.
But I like that he looks beneath the surface and tries to figure out what is
motivating people or what they're tricking themselves into believing.
And I just, I was watching this Maniscalco bit the other day, and he was like,
can't you just say I'm sorry?
He's talking about his wife.
That's all I want.
And him and this dude are going back and forth.
I forget the guy's name on the podcast.
Some other comedian.
And the bit is so fucking funny.
And so I just find myself apologizing all the time.
Because what's wrong with just admitting that you're wrong?
Nothing at all.
Good.
It's actually a show of strength.
And people that don't recognize that, they just believe that they're never
wrong or that they want people to know they're never wrong or think they're
never wrong.
So they just don't admit it.
They just bury it deep inside.
But you find yourself apologizing all the fucking time sometimes when you're
conscious of it.
I'm like, damn, I apologize a lot.
Maybe I didn't do all this shit.
Well, better to apologize for something you didn't do than to not apologize for
something you did.
Well, I don't know.
As long as you mean it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You got to mean it.
That helps.
Meaning it helps.
Yeah.
Just saying it just to get it out of a fight.
Yeah, that's not good.
It's not good.
It's not worth it.
Yeah.
I just finished this trial on a case that was super important to forensic
science.
It was actually the namesake of my center, the Perlmutter's.
The Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law.
So Ike and Lori Perlmutter's DNA was stolen by a neighbor.
And, you know, it's a nutty story.
You could read about it online.
I did read about it online.
It's crazy.
It's fucking crazy.
And, but I had a, I had an expert, a so-called expert on the stand.
And there was an email where they, it was an unaccredited DNA lab.
And someone that worked for him gets the results of DNA testing, one round of
the results.
And she says, the good news is we have a full profile.
The bad news is it's not associated with the Perlmutter's.
And I, and I said to him in words or substance, um, why would it ever be bad
news for a scientist?
If one particular person was implicated in a crime or not, aren't they supposed
to just give the facts?
And, and in a moment of candor, I think it's one of the few times this has
happened in all my years doing this.
The guy said, you know, I wouldn't have used those words and it had no place.
And it wasn't an email that he wrote.
It was an email that someone that worked for him wrote.
And I almost said right in front of the jury, good for you, man.
That's super rare.
And, um, I mean, the case is, is, um, I think it's an important one for
forensic science because their DNA was stolen at a deposition over some petty
shit.
It was about a, it was about a tennis dispute in their community and they're lured
to this deposition and their neighbor takes their DNA without their consent.
How did he do it?
He had, um, he had, um, he had a former crime scene analyst and some retired,
um, deputy chief of police from Toronto.
Because this guy's from Canada come down and the former crime scene analyst
sits at the deposition and they planned it all beforehand.
And they made sure that they did not handle paper that Ike Perlmutter would
handle.
And they made sure that no one touched this water bottle that Lori Perlmutter
was going to handle.
And they hand him this phony exhibit and they had it worked out before that
they would only touch the bottom corner of it.
And they have, they have a water bottle sitting in front of Lori Perlmutter.
And they ask questions about this dispute over the tennis center.
And, um, you know, when they leave, it was treated like a crime scene and it
was like some vigilante justice type of shit where they send all this stuff to
an unaccredited lab who then sends it to an accredited lab.
And instead of waiting for the results to come in from this accredited lab, the
unaccredited lab starts interpreting it and they're having pressure put on them
by this man that ultimately accused Ike and Lori of, you know, being involved
in this awful crime.
What was the crime?
All right.
So it doesn't make sense without context.
So here's what happens.
Ike Perlmutter is, you know, the former chairman of Marvel.
He's, um, very reclusive by all accounts.
He and Lori don't have children and they live a very quiet life in Palm Beach.
He was an avid tennis player.
This is about 14 years ago, avid tennis player.
And he, um, became very friendly with the woman that was the tennis pro.
She was a single mother.
She would set him up with tennis games and he became friends with her.
So she sold real estate on the side.
I mean, this is like a fucking episode of like Seinfeld or curb your enthusiasm
at the beginning.
Then it like goes off the rails and descends into the depths of hell.
So bear with me.
Okay.
So a man moves into, or a man had been living at or moves into their
neighborhood and he, um, becomes friends with this other couple who also sell
real estate.
The wife sells real estate.
And apparently they approach the tennis pro and they're like, we should team up
on real estate.
And she's like, nah, it's just my side hustle.
I'm going to do it alone.
So this guy from Canada writes this memo and in the memo, there's all these
accusations about this woman that she could go to federal prison and she's
committing, she could be, you know, that, that there's bid rigging going on
because they never sent her, her, um, they never sent her tennis pro contract
out for bid.
It was just kind of like nutty stuff.
Just because she wouldn't go into business with her.
I mean, that's our theory.
That's my opinion.
And yeah, that was our theory in the case.
So Ike stands up for her.
He's a very loyal guy, stands up for the people that he, you know, is friends
with.
And he thought she was getting bullied.
So she sued the guy for defamation and Ike and another resident in this condo
complex paid for her legal fees.
So about a year later, mail starts to arrive in this community and it is the
most awful shit you have ever heard.
And it's accusing the Canadian guy of being a child molester, of being a
murderer.
It's horrific, twisted, sick shit.
So it's about a year after this tennis center dispute and there's misspelled
Hebrew words and Jewish stars all over it.
So this guy thinks naturally that Ike and his wife are behind it, like they
have nothing better to do.
All right.
So because he's so convinced that they did it and or that they were involved
and he, you know, initially suspected that other people might be involved, this
guy's going around and swabbing DNA off of with a Q-tip off of cars.
He's digging through trash in the condo community and he's like on this mission
to collect people's DNA.
So he calls them to a deposition about the tennis center case and that's where
this all went down.
So once they collect their DNA, this unaccredited lab claims that DNA taken off
of the hate mail matches Lori Perlmutter's DNA from the water bottle at the deposition.
The problem was that this unaccredited lab didn't wait for the report from the
accredited lab.
And that run of the DNA that this woman was relying on, the accredited lab
discarded it because the man that actually did the test and contaminated the
machine.
And he knew it, so he didn't rely on it.
So years and years and years go by.
And well after they knew that Lori had nothing to do with this.
In fact, in 2017, a man got arrested in Canada and he got arrested because a
package got intercepted at the border by Homeland Security and it had samples
of the hate mail, latex gloves, you know, in the package.
And it was a former business associate of this Canadian guy and their
relationship went sour.
And I thought the case was over, you know, in 2019, I believe the guy gets
arrested again and there's a detailed affidavit.
So it's clear that this man is responsible for it.
So in any event, in 2016, the I believe it was 2016, there's an article in the
fucking deal book in the New York Times saying that Lori Perlmutter DNA is on
that hate mail.
And then there's another one in the Globe and Mail, which is a big Canadian
paper.
So it was a defamation case against this guy and against this lawyer for a Chubb
because Chubb helped this Chubb lawyer, federal insurance, also known as Chubb,
helps him draw up the blueprints for collecting their DNA at the deposition.
So it was a super gratifying case.
We won a $50 million verdict and, you know, he was found liable for defamation,
abuse of process, which is abuse of the legal process.
And, you know, it's taken Ike and 