Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:00]
A
Today's show is a rough one. Democrats are caving on the shutdown and some of them are actually out there admitting standing up to Trump didn't work. This is the fight and they're saying it out loud. Meanwhile, Donald Trump spent the weekend melting down online with some of the most unhinged posts we've ever seen. Promising two thousand dollar dividends, ranting about dogs cracking and demanding Republicans blow up the filibuster. Trump also dropped a pile of pardons on the very people who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani and that cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs lawyer Sidney Powell and others. And meanwhile, MAGA is facing an insurrection from the groipers as the far right influencers are turning on each other. We've also got Sean Duffy saying maybe we'll bring in some uncertified air traffic controllers. That can't go badly. Right? And Trump brutally booed at a football game Caroline Levitt saying the quiet part out loud. A bombshell crypto pay to play scheme. And we are going to speak to Congressman Seth Moulton, who's challenging Senator Ed Markey. And it is a very interesting race. Meanwhile, we continue to raise money for Feeding America in November to help deal with food, food insecurity. We have now raised over $11,000. Every first membership payment on my website and on my substack is simply donated in full to Feeding America to the charity feeding America. Over 11,000 raised so far. What a show. Today, eight Democratic senators are caving on the shutdown, admitting defeat beat. And this is a very, very poorly thought out thing. Now let's talk about what happened. A group of three former governors. That's New Hampshire's Senator Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan, Independent Senator Angus King of Maine combined with five others, Tim Kaine, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Katherine Cortez Mastow and Jackie Rosenberg have said we are going to vote to end the shutdown and reopen the government. Now, many of you might be asking a reasonable question. In exchange for what? What have Democrats negotiated? What are Democrats getting after holding out as long as they have and seeing all of the damage that the shutdown has done? Not blaming Democrats for the shutdown, but certainly Democrats in a position to have averted it. They said they wanted the Obamacare subsidies. That's not happening. So what did they hold out for? Reportedly there will be a vote in the middle of December on extending the Obamacare subsidies. There will be a vote, a vote that in all likelihood is not going to work. What are different senators saying about this? Well, here is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying that this fight will continue and Democrats must fight. But wasn't this the fight? Does this make any sense to anybody?
- [03:25]
B
But let me be clear. However this vote turns out, this fight will and must continue. Democrats must fight because of millions of millions of families will lose health care coverage. We must fight because children who are dying of cancer will not get health care coverage. We must fight because a senior citizen cannot afford to pay $25,000 a year just for health insurance. We must fight to keep millions from financial ruin.
- [03:56]
A
You know, this whole language about fighting the shutdown was the fight. In other words, the reason I thought that Democrats said they are going to do this is that they wanted to fight for the Obamacare subsidies and they are giving up that fight. Now, I know you might say, well, but they're going to get a vote on the subsidies in mid December. Come on, guys. Do you really, you know, do if my audience wants me to come here and say Democrats got a victory because instead of nothing, there is now going to be a vote. And although the vote will likely fail, it's at least something rather than nothing. Well, as I said from the beginning, the shutdown hurts people. And so was a political point made. I mean, listen, I'm with most of my audience that and the country that Republicans are to blame for this. There's no question Republicans are to blame for the fact that a shutdown took place place because they're again, playing the political games that they always play. But again, you know, you needed 60 votes and Democrats are a part of that. I would be open to the idea of the shutdown leading to something positive if it actually did. But I can't come here and in a serious manner tell you we got something good because there will be a vote in mid December. It's just not enough, guys. And you might say, as Angus King did, well, it's all we could get. But what changed? Why did they think that they could get more? They're not going to. These Republicans are going to really negotiate over health care subsidies. Here's Angus King this morning, independent senator from Maine saying it didn't work. We tried standing up to Trump and it didn't work.
- [05:43]
B
Well, Joe, you have to go back to what the strategy was at the beginning of the shutdown. There were two goals, both of which I support. One was standing up to Donald Trump. The other was getting some resolution on the ACA premium tax credit issue. The problem was the shutdown wasn't accomplishing either goals. And there was practically, well, there was zero likelihood that it was going to in terms of standing up to Donald Trump, the shutdown actually gave him more power. Exhibit A being what he's done with SNAP and SNAP benefits across the country. Oh, by the way, Joe, you're going to love this. Guess who's getting paid during the shutdown? Not, not, not the park rangers or air traffic controllers. This, the ICE agents under special law, under that big awful bill that they passed last summer, the ICE agents are being paid. Nobody else is. So standing up to Donald Trump didn't work. It.
- [06:40]
A
You know, there are sort of two responses to this. Well, the, it didn't work because eight of you caved. That's one response. But I actually think that that's incomplete. It was never going to work. As I said from the beginning, while it is clear that this is the same political game that Republicans have played in the past with the shutdown, when Trump's in power, what did they think was going to change with regard to getting these people to negotiate it? It, of course, it didn't work and we didn't expect that it would work. Jeanne Shaheen went on FOX and Friends this morning. And this is, this is just so weak. She says, I believe some Republicans will join us in trying to address health care costs. We're going to have a vote. We're going to have a vote.
- [07:33]
B
Can you give us an idea and our viewers an idea what happened behind the scenes to have you? Senator King Kaine, Angus King Kathryn Mort Cortez Masto, Jackie Rosen and John Fetterman, as well as Maggie Hassan and Dick Durbin all come together to get to the 60 threshold. Can you bring us behind the scenes for that?
- [07:55]
C
Well, there had been discussions going on really, since the shutdown about how could we work together to end this, how could we make sure that we can address health care costs for the millions of Americans who are, who are seeing their health care costs rise as the result of the bill that was passed in the summer that the president wanted. And so I think this agreement gives us an opportunity to continue to do that work. We're going to have a vote, and I believe there are a number of Republicans who are going to join us in trying to address health care costs for Americans.
- [08:27]
A
But we are going to have a vote. And I believe there are a number of Republicans who are going to join us in trying to address health care costs. This is just so weak, guys. This, this is just so weak. Here is Senator Cortez Masto saying we are really going to fight for Americans soon, very, very soon.
- [08:56]
C
This, this fight tonight is, I agree with Senator Angus is just the beginning. This is the beginning to show and fight for Americans across the country. Let me just say this. With the government open, we can focus on passing a full bipartisan budget for 2026 that starts with a minibus that will restore funding that President Trump cut. It delivers millions of dollars and critical funding to states like Nevada all across the country.
- [09:29]
A
I'm really struggling with this stuff. This, this is just nothing. It's nothing. I go back to did this even make sense in the first place? And you know, I was on a, I was on like a creator zoom with Cory Booker before the shutdown even started. And I said, I don't know that this stuff ever really makes sense. And, and he goes, no, we don't want a shutdown. This is very low energy stuff. Jeanne Shaheen was asked by a reporter, if they block the Obamacare subsidies with the vote in December, this hypothetical vote that's going to happen, will you then vote to shut down the government again in January? And Jean Jaheim goes, that's an option.
- [10:10]
D
If the President doesn't agree and Republicans block the extension of subsidies, would you guys be willing to vote again against government funding in January when this money runs out?
- [10:20]
C
That's certainly an option that I think everybody will consider. Thank you.
- [10:24]
A
We might just do it all over again to get nothing. They are not going to negotiate with Democrats. They could have negotiated before. And I find this is all completely absurd. And here is Trump himself saying, we will never, ever, ever give any money to prisoners and illegals. And of course, while that's not what Democrats wanted to do, Trump is making it clear Democrats, this was last night. Democrats are understanding we're not going to negotiate. We're not going to negotiate. They might as well allow the shutdown to end.
- [10:51]
B
We'll never agree to give any substantial money or any money to really prisoners, illegals to come into our country. And I think the Democrats understand that. And it looks like we're getting close.
- [11:05]
D
To the shutdown ending.
- [11:07]
B
You'll know very soon. Thank you very much.
- [11:10]
A
So a source of mine in the Senate said this is going to take a little bit of time. There needs to be. So we've got the original vote that needs 50 final passage of the motion to proceed to the original Republican continuing resolution. Then you need an amendment vote on replacing the old Republican CR with a new deal. You need a cloture vote on the deal, which needs 60 votes you need final passage of the deal, which is 50 votes. That's a bunch of stuff. If they go by the book, it could be days. They could cut the process down and accelerate it. I don't believe this is going to help Democrats. By a small margin, 5,545. The country believed that the shutdown was Republicans fault. I believe that that's accurate. I think that the numbers are going to significantly worsen for Democrats now. And meanwhile, what about the damn food stamp benefits? So we're still doing what we can in November to help with food insecurity and feed hungry people. As I've been telling you, every new membership on my website and substack this month, the first payment is donated to Feeding America. Feeding America is one of the most efficient hunger organizations in the country. So far you have helped US raise over $11,000 with 263 new memberships funding over 113,000 meals for hungry people. I invite you keep helping us help people. Sign up at join pacman.com or substack.david pakman.com let's go for 15,000 raised and we are going to continue pushing on that. Donald Trump just dropped a massive dump of corrupt pardons, maybe the most corrupt that we've seen so far. Donald Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, that nutty lawyer Sidney Powell who promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. John Eastman, the lawyer who had the plan to keep Trump in power after losing the 2020 election and a bunch of other people. Another day, another instance of Trump doing exactly what he accused Biden of doing. Remember the accusations Biden's going to pardon? Hunter. It's corruption. It's a two tiered justice system. And now Trump is pardoning the actual conspirators who tried to overthrow an election, not his son for tax crimes. The people who participated in a scheme to end American democracy as we know it. The projection is off the charts. The hypocrisy is stunning. But Republican voters don't care about hypocrisy anymore. But we saw this coming from a mile away. Now, presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes. And this is crucial. None of these people have been charged in federal cases for now. So what Trump is doing here are preemptive pardons, pardoning people before they are even charged, something they said was bad when Joe Biden did some of it. It is essentially Trump admitting by his standard that these people committed crimes and he's using his power to shield them. From accountability before federal cases are even built. Now let's focus in on Rudy for a second. Rudy has had a Shakespearean, it's not even Kafka esque, I dare not even say that it's a Shakespearean fall from grace. Former mayor of New York City, America's mayor after 9 11. Federal prosecutor who really went after the mob. And he's been disbarred. I think he filed for bankruptcy. He was found liable for defaming election workers.
- [14:44]
B
And.
- [14:44]
A
And he's being pardoned by Trump for crimes he hasn't even been charged with. Think about what Trump is saying with this pardon. Rudy did nothing wrong and I don't want him gone after for things he didn't do. But if he did nothing wrong, why would he need a pardon? Well, he needs a pardon because they might go after him. But Trump's in power, so I guess Trump is saying they might go after him if the next president is a Democrat. Like, what is even going on here? And what was Rudy doing? He was at the center of this fake elector scheme. He was promoting conspiracy theories about Dominion voting systems and pressuring state legislators to overturn election results and holding election. Holding elections, holding press conferences at Four Seasons Total Landscaping claiming massive fraud, hair dye dripping down his face. So zoom out for a second because this really isn't happening in a vacuum. What Trump is systematically doing is rewarding loyalty, intimidating potential witnesses, and sending a message for the future, which is, if you commit crimes on my behalf to protect me, you will be taken care of. And this is how autocracies work and authoritarians work. Strong men consolidate power and they create a system where the law doesn't apply to the in group, it only applies to their political enemies. And what really concerns me is what does this do for the next election if you know you'll be pardoned? What is to stop Trump's allies from participating in even more Brazen schemes in 26 or 28? And there is a fascinating constitutional question here. Can the president pardon coconspirators in a crime he was involved in? Now, I know many of you will say, hold on a second, David, you've said before on the show the pardon power is absolute. And of course the pardon power is absolute for the president, especially in the context of can you undo a pardon because Biden used the auto pen or whatever. We're not talking about that here. What we're talking about is that Trump was the central figure in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. They were not acting alone. They were acting on Trump's behalf at Trump's direction, in the service of keeping Trump in power. There are legal experts who say while the presidential pardon power is absolute, the president can't pardon people for crimes in which he himself participated. Now that is a major legal and constitutional question. We are certainly not going to be able to solve that today. But if you're wondering, well, will courts intervene, probably not. That's certainly something we've learned. Nausea is one of those things that can derail your day. Could be on a plane, could be in a car. For me, it was on a boat not that long ago. Could even be from anxiety or migraines. Our sponsor Relief Band makes a wearable FDA cleared wristband designed to help relieve and prevent nausea with no drugs or drowsiness. It uses transdermal neuromodulation or ACU stimulation. It's a gentle pulse to the part of the nervous system involved in regulating nausea. There's really good published research indicating Relief Band can help with motion sickness, pregnancy related nausea, chemo related nausea. Some studies suggest it can reduce post surgery nausea when used with prescribed medication. And Relief Band's new Premier plus model adds a digital clock and smart skin sensing to preserve battery life, and it lets you adjust intensity based on how you feel. If nausea is something you deal with, it could be worth seeing. If Relief Band can help, it is drug free, non drowsy, no side effects. Go to relief ban.com and use the code PACMAN for 20% off plus free shipping. The link is in the Description A lot of people think identity theft is something that only happens when someone hacks into your account, but the truth is that it usually starts with your personal information being posted online and by data brokers where anybody can find it. Our sponsor Incogni is a service that helps protect your privacy by forcing the data brokers to delete your information. This includes your name, address, phone number, even sensitive things like property records or your political affiliation. And now, with their custom removals feature included in the unlimited plan, you're not limited to just the list of 250 plus brokers they work with by default. And if you find any site exposing any of your private information, even one they've never seen before, you can send a link and Incogni's team will work to get that removed. This is serious protection for you and your family against identity theft, against fraud, doxxing, harassment and Incogni. Data Removal Process is the only one independently verified by Deloitte. Get 60% off an annual plan when you visit incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description. We have to talk about what is happening inside the MAGA movement right now, because the right wing is really eating itself alive. And it's a direct consequence of the choices they made years ago. Now there is this group called Groipers. These are white nationalist, America first kind of nativists who follow, to a degree, Holocaust denying, anti Semite Nick Fuentes, and they are tearing apart the establishment conservatives. Now, Nick Fuentes, you might remember, was once welcomed to dinner by Donald Trump at Mar A Lago. Trump later denounced him or said he doesn't know anything about it or whatever. And Fuentes now represents a faction that is cannibalizing figures like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz and others who kind of spent years really building the modern right. And the funny thing about this is that we warned them that this would happen. You know, for a decade, we've been sounding the alarm. This is the direction Trumpism is heading. The extremism that is festering is going to become a problem even for them. And for, for a decade, the right would just laugh it off and they would go, you guys on the left are hysterical. You're crying liberal tears. Everything's fine. These Groipers aren't going to build any significant power. And so they made a choice. They embraced Trump despite it being pretty damn clear who Trump was. They bent the knee. They thought, we can control this so it doesn't become a catastrophe. And they were catastrophically wrong. And so now we have a conservative establishment that thought they could ride this tiger of Trumpism and populism into a movement that they would recognize. And they thought, we can use these forces just for the things we like. It'll be used for tax cuts, it'll be used for judges. You know, Trump will push ahead regulations, deregulation. But they could keep the wackiness at arm's length. They could keep the Fuentes and all of that stuff at arm's length. But history tells us that this is not how radicalization works. Once you allow a movement that foments conspiracy theories and platforms, voices that overtly traffic and dehumanization and bigotry becomes acceptable. As long as it's the right. Bigotry, you can lose control of where it goes. Vivek Ramaswamy learned this when, as a Hindu, he was recently confronted by Groiper types saying, wait a second, Hindu? I don't think so. And the right is now fracturing over how explicitly authoritarian and bigoted they really should be. That is different from a normal political disagreement. And this is working to further radicalize the base. We have seen JD Vance attacking Nick Fuentes and we've seen, I mean, the Shapiro, Tucker Carlson thing is, is completely blowing up. You've now now got Mark Levin attacking Tucker Carlson as well. Listen to this.
- [23:03]
B
I got a very strange text this morning from Tucker Carlson, 10:16am I'll read it to you for verbatim. Good morning to me. The leadership at Turning Point has asked me to debate you at their event in Scottsdale in December. I'm happy to do it and I hope you'll agree as well. Beyond the personal insults, which I'll try to keep to a minimum, there are real and important ideological differences between us. And I think the country would benefit from an extended conversation about them. So again, I hope you'll accept. Let me know. Thanks. The guy is desperate. He's taken a hit on his podcast. He's fighting like hell for his career. He's fighting like hell for his reputation. People are awakening to what scum he actually is.
- [23:53]
A
Oh, boy.
- [23:54]
B
And he thinks I'm going to platform him. He thinks I'm going to help him kick up his podcast ratings. What would Charlie say? What would Rush say? What would any rational response? Here it is. I wrote him the following. My family and I want nothing to do with you. What you've become is your vile libels against my faith, millions of Christians, and in my view, what you seek to do to our country. There's nothing to debate. You're a Nazi promoter. You're the modern day David Duke.
- [24:27]
A
All right, so. So Mark Levin is not happy with Tucker Carlson and what we see here, and I hesitate to call any of these people moderates, but compared to some of the extremists they are, when you lose ground to extremists, the spectrum shifts the right and the Overton Window moves further towards fascism. And I think Democrats really need to understand what this means for us. We have our own fractures, right? We've got the litmus test, leftists demanding purity. And the moderates and progressives are fighting over strategy and identity politics and all of that. Our infighting is also real, but there's a really important asymmetry here. Even our messiest internal conflicts don't typically involve whether democracy itself should continue or which ethnic groups deserve rights. And I believe that the nature of the fracture does matter, and so the danger. And again, this is all happening on the right, but I think we need to. The right is going to have to do what they're going to do. We also need to just analyze it for ourselves. On the left, the danger is that if we get absorbed in our own intramural squabbles, the right can end up normalizing authoritarianism. And while we debate, is a candidate progressive enough, Are we messaging correctly on trans issues or whatever, the right is mainstreaming voices that want to fundamentally dismantle democratic institutions. And so I think the only the cautionary tale for us is let's not get so consumed by our own purity tests that we missed the forest for the trees. And this is the hell that the conservative movement has built for itself. Every single time they dismissed the warnings about how extreme Trumpism was becoming, or they platform conspiracy theorists for ratings or whatever, they were building this monster. And so now you've got people even like Ben Shapiro, who maybe thought that they could kind of court the extremist base without becoming targets. He is learning the hard way that when you feed this beast, it can turn on you. And that is happening at this point in time. So here we are. The extremists they cultivated are more power, powerful than the establishment that thought they could control them, at least to some degree. And I think it's important to know that this is not really a victory for us. You know, the gripers aren't better than the establishment conservatives that they're replacing. They are way worse. They're more explicit in their bigotry. They. They're more openly authoritarian. I believe they're more dangerous to democracy itself. So this is like a lateral move from bad to catastrophic. We should just learn what we can so we don't fall into a similar trap. We want robust debate about policy. We want robust debate about strategy. But we shouldn't be blinded or paralyzed to the existential threat that we are facing from what's happening on the right. The right made their bed by acquiescing to Trump. They normalized extremism. They chose power over principles, and now they're going to have to lie in it. And it turns out the bed is full of scorpions. We need to be smarter and more united because we're all going to be affected by what is taking place here. Let me know if you disagree with my perspective on this. Donald Trump's Transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, is now considering should we be bringing in uncertified air traffic controllers, that now what's happening at America's airports is a disaster. I flew this weekend to crooked con in D.C. i'll tell you about my experience in a moment. It is Truly a fiasco at America's airports. And Sean Duffy, in the context of a shutdown that may be ending, but it's apparently still going to take a few days. His big idea is what if we bring in some air traffic controllers from Pete Hegseth that aren't quite certified? What could possibly go wrong? Right?
- [28:20]
B
I don't want to see disruption for the American people. Pete Hegseth, secretary of War, texted me yesterday and said I might have some air traffic controllers. If you could use them, I'm going to offer them to you now. I don't know that I can, Jake, because they're not certified in the airspaces that we need them. But if I can, I'm going to use them. Everyone in this administration, at the direction of President Trump has said minimize the pain on Americans. So this is not political.
- [28:44]
A
This is strictly safety.
- [28:45]
B
And I'm doing what I can in a, in a mess that Democrats have.
- [28:48]
D
Put on my lap.
- [28:49]
B
And now I'm trying to keep the American people safe and keep airplanes flying.
- [28:53]
A
Secretary, you know, we might make more headway by banning private jet travel during the shutdown that, that might actually achieve more than bringing in air traffic controllers to work in areas where they aren't even actually certified. We have to think about where the country is right now. We have Sean Duffy, the guy from, what was it, MTV's Road Rules, considering bringing in uncertified air traffic controllers from former FOX News Weekend morning host Pete Hegseth, who is now the secretary of Defense. This is terrifying stuff. Now, I got kind of lucky over the weekend with my flying. I went to D.C. for crooked con, and I know many of you saw a number of my pictures from there. I went as this entire airport meltdown was happening. Now, on the way there, I had an unexplained, you know, our delay or something like that. It was like the plane coming in was delayed with no explanation. And then we were delayed going out. All in all, an hour, given what some I was seeing, people delayed nine hours at New York Airport. Anyway, I had like an hour delay on the way there, and then on the way back, my flight was beautifully on time. And I know, I know I lucked out. Other people trying to get home from Crooked Con had brutal, just massive dump after dump of delays. So we've got to fix this. I'm hoping that, you know, even with Democrats caving, if we can fix the airport situation, especially with Thanksgiving coming up, that's a good thing. But uncertified air traffic controllers, I mean, what, what kind of a world are we living in here? It is a complete and total disaster. Donald Trump suffered a record setting mental breakdown as everything has been going wrong, becoming so desperate that he is now offering everybody other than wealthy people $2,000. Where did we get the money for that? I thought we couldn't afford anything. So what's happening is that Donald Trump was essentially embroiled in another brutal battle with the English language this weekend with attempt after attempt to use words to communicate going completely wrong. He clearly is declining. Let's take a look at some of these posts to Truth Social where Trump started with quote people that are against tariffs are fools. We are now the richest most respected country in the world with almost no inflation and a record stock market price. 401ks are highest ever. We are taking in trillions of dollars and will soon begin paying down our enormous debt. 37 trillion record investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2,000 a person, not including high income people will be paid to everyone. Everyone is going to get $2,000 other than high income people. This is a pyramid of lies upon lies upon self inflicted problems. The tariffs are a disaster. We are not respected. Prices keep going up. The stock market ok, the stock market has been doing fine although it's been shaky recently. The trillions we are taking in are really billions and they're being taken in from American businesses paying the tariffs. It is all a disaster. Trump continuing the Democrats are cracking like dogs on the shutdown because they are deathly afraid that I am making progress with the Republicans on terminating the filibuster. Whether we make a deal or not, the Republicans must blow up the filibuster and approve hundreds of long sought but never gotten policy wins like as just a small example voter ID identification. Only a loser would not agree to doing this. Now I don't know what Trump is right that Democrats are caving. I don't know about what does it mean that dogs crack? That Trump and his relationship to animals. Something is very weird about that. Trump then engaging the caps lock button and vomiting out the following troth post Obamacare sucks the worst health care for the highest price and then Trump continuing I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the hundreds of billions of dollars currently being sent to money sucking insurance companies in order to save the bad health care provided by Obamacare be sent directly to the people so that they can purchase their own much better health care and have money left over. In other words take from the big bad insurance Companies give it to the people and terminate per dollar spent the worst health care anywhere in the world. Obamacare unrelated. We must still terminate the filibuster. Now the truth is that Obamacare did good things, but it can't fix a broken system. Premiums just continue to rise in the United States. They rise slightly slower in the Obamacare exchanges, but they rise everywhere. I just, I've, I've made an enrollment decision. I told everybody a couple of weeks ago I buy, since I'm self employed, I buy a plan off of the Obamacare marketplaces. This year I've been paying 747amonth. I was told that next year my very same plan would go up to 950amonth and my copays would go up a little bit and my deductible would go up a little bit. So I have found a different plan that is slightly better than the one I have this year and it will be 750amonth instead of 747. So OK, I've gotten a different plan. But these are, these are numbers that are criminal, just absolutely criminal numbers. Obamacare is not the solution. It was a teeny tiny band aid, a little teeny tiny band aid that made the worsening of the system slightly slower, but it is not the problem. Trump also posting Less time, less trimester, less crime, more Trump. I almost said less tribe, more crump. The meaning is basically the same, which is nothing. Trump continuing. I am sorry that the American people are being terrorized by Democrats who have decided to shut the government down to make me and other, other Republicans continue Obamacare subsidies which have been a windfall for health insurance companies and a disaster for the American people. The largest health insurance companies have seen their stock prices soar some over a thousand percent since the passage of Obamacare. Meanwhile, Americans premiums have more than doubled contrary to President Obama's promise. I'm not even going to read the rest again. The idea was that Obamacare would hold down premiums and the in marketplace premiums have increased in price slightly slower than those outside of it. A very small, small victory. And then Trump with a wall of text. I won't read all of it. Sleepy Joe Biden was by far the worst president in American history. Taking office as a result of the most corrupt election ever seen in the United States. Biden oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our nation to the brink of destruction. His policies caused the highest inflation ever recorded, leading the US dollar to lose more than 20% of its value in four years. His green New scam surrendered American energy dominance. And by abolishing the southern border, Biden let 21 million people from all over the world pour in, including from mental institutions and insane asylums. None of this stuff is true, but Donald Trump is back to I really won in 2020. Donald Trump is back to the Green New Deal is a thing even though it is not the law. And then finally, Donald Trump says, how easy should voter ID be to get from the radical left Democrats? There should be nothing easier, right? Well, out of 47 Dems, we don't have even one vote from them. That is for one reason and one reason only. They want to cheat. They are a bunch of scoundrels, cheaters and psychopaths. Terminate the filibuster and make our country take our country back. Approve Voter id. Make America great again. Of course I have no problem with voting voter ID in theory. Remember that illegals voting, they can't even register to vote. What is he talking about? Voter ID would be fine if the IDs were genuinely free to get, meaning they don't require subsequent documents that are not free and there was a way to obtain them without having to take a day off from work, because there are people who can't afford to do that. And so voter ID in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem is the implementation. One of Donald Trump's worst meltdowns overnight, morning, afternoon and evening. Posting endlessly lies. And this is what he spent the weekend doing as the government was shut down. People are going hungry. Nine hour delays at airports, a complete and total farcical disaster. Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're reframing it. So it all sounds a little more palatable. And that is why I use ground news. This is a news comparison tool. It doesn't just feed you headlines, it shows you, here's how different outlets, left, right, center, are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias catch stories that your usual sources might downplay or not cover at all on everything from immigration policy to economic shifts. If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, ground news is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And Ground News is offering my audience 40% off their top tier Vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to Ground News, slash Pacman or enter the code PACMAN in the app to get started. The link is in the description I had a conversation with Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton. Now this is a really interesting situation. Seth Moulton is vacating his congressional seat to primary Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, the seat that is being vacated by Seth. We have friend of the show Dan Ko who has filled in for me before running for that seat and so far that campaign is doing really well. I spoke to Seth about, number one, the age factor as a reason that he is choosing to primary Senator Markey. I spoke to him about areas in which he disagrees with his own party, the Democratic Party. I asked him whether he would have voted to end the shutdown along with these eight other Democratic senators, these eight Democratic senators last night and so much more. I think it's a really interesting conversation. We also talked about him returning a PAC money. Let's get into that conversation now. I want to start on this issue of generational change and age. I'm very interested in it because I've been saying we do have a sort of gerontocracy here in the United States. And whether it's an issue of an age limit or term limits or some combination of years plus age like some places employ, I am interested in the idea of having elected officials that on average more closely mirror the median adult age of the population. How much is the age factor playing into the timing and choice to start this primary against Senator Markey? And how much are non age factors at play?
- [40:49]
D
Listen, I think one of the fundamental things that Democrats need to do is listen more to the people that we represent. We're a party known for standing on a pedestal and preaching down at people. And I'll just say that when I walk around Massachusetts, I hear people talking about aids, talking about the need for new leadership. And it really is this sense that old people control the party and there's a massive leadership vacuum. So it's time to let a new generation of leaders stop, step up and.
- [41:19]
A
Take over when it comes to the age issue. I also am sort of sensitive to the idea of age versus sharpness and acuity. Sure. And I think there's a big difference between someone, you know, like a Bernie Sanders who seems not to have lost a step at all and you know, there's a list of folks that we could include in the kind of examples where we do have concerns there. What when it comes to your opponent, is age alone the factor or do you have any concerns around acuity or sharpness?
- [41:52]
D
No, it's really a sense that it's just the establishment, the status quo and unwillingness to change. I mean, one of the first things I've said I will do is vote against Senator Schumer because the establishment is not getting it done. And I don't sense any willingness to go against the establishment for, from Senator Markey. You know, he's always been a go along to get along kind of guy. And I've been the opposite of that. I mean, I've been someone who's challenged the establishment my entire career, from running against an 18 year incumbent to first come to Congress, to setting up Serve America, an organization to recruit veterans from outside, you know, the party insiders like the DCCC to run in critical House races. We were accountable for more than half the seats Democrats flipped in 2018 to take back the House, House the last time Trump was in the White House. And so I've never been, will never been unafraid of challenging the status quo. And I'll tell you, David, sometimes that's a pretty unpopular position in our party. Right. That's not always loved. But right now voters tell me they feel it's, it's urgently needed.
- [42:57]
A
If you were in the Senate right now, would you have voted to reopen the government with this group of senators last night who, who want to do that with what seems to me nothing more than the promise of a middle of December vote on what to do about the health care subsidies?
- [43:13]
D
Absolutely not. I mean, I just don't even understand what is going on here. And I have to ask the question, Senator Schumer, what are you thinking here you are the leader of Democrats in the Senate and it looks like you just had the longest government shutdown in history and got nothing in return for opening government back up. Meanwhile, you have Donald Trump literally going to the Supreme Court to sue the, to keep people in breadlines. He's trying to use the Supreme Court to prevent getting people the food they need to survive the weekend. I mean, it's insane. And you're going to give in to this. That's not you.
- [43:53]
A
Would you. When we spoke to Congressman Jake Auchincloss, he presented an idea that many in my audience liked, which is that the important departments of our federal government should really be funded, number one, separately from this process that leads to a shutdown and number two, on different timelines. So like for Example, this is just, this is just an example. Maybe DoD, because of its importance and, and relevance is on a five year funding cycle which might overlap one way or another with other departments and with who's in power. On the other hand, Maybe transportation is 10 years or maybe it's only 2. The point is take away leverage from these shutdowns to cripple elements of the government. Do you like an idea like that?
- [44:44]
D
I mean, look, I think there's, I used to sit in the Budget committee and always advocated for having larger or longer budget timelines because we would make much better long term decisions for the country if we weren't always trying to do short term funding.
- [44:58]
A
Right.
- [44:58]
D
And trying to meet some, some monetary target a year out or even 10 years out when investing in something like education has horizons that are 20 or 30 years. So I agree with that. In general, by the way, making DoD a five year timeline just would be way too slow to keep up with how rapidly war is changing. I mean, on a five year timeline we would have missed the whole drone revolution happening in Ukraine because that war started less and less five years ago. So you got to be careful about what timelines you choose, especially in such a fast paced world. But in general, the idea is a good one, but the focus should really be on just where are the places where we need to have longer timelines for investment to make the right decisions for the American people instead of always making short term political decisions that just benefit people's political careers.
- [45:49]
A
On the topic of the tax system in the United States, I often ask this question and I get very different answers. Where would you like to see the top marginal tax rate set at the federal level? And at what income would that kick in?
- [46:07]
D
You know, I don't know what the exact numbers should be, but here's the bottom line right now. It's incredible that after years of complaining about billionaires, private equity folks and everyone else sort of getting off scot free and not paying the level of taxes or the rates taxes that their own assistance pay, that, that hasn't been fixed and actually the Trump administration is making it a lot worse. So what the American people want is not just a bunch of wonky politicians saying, okay, well this is the number that we need to hit, but to really feel like everyone's just paying their fair share. I don't like a tax system where there's a bunch of people who pay nothing. I think it's a great idea for everyone to feel like they're pitching in, but it's also the Case that you shouldn't get tax breaks because you have a private jet. You shouldn't get tax breaks because you have friends at the irs. The New York Times reported recently that They've awarded about $250 billion in free tax breaks to corporations that just have good lobbyists connected with Trump, Trump administration officials working at the irs. I mean, that's insane.
- [47:13]
A
Well, let me put it a different way then, if I can, and I.
- [47:15]
D
Don'T mean to avoid answering the question. I just, Yeah, I think, look, I don't know the exact number is, I'll be honest with you. But clearly what we have right now is not cutting it.
- [47:24]
A
That's fair. And even without knowing the exact number, I'll put it a different way. For a long time, the debate in this country has basically been should the top tax rate be 37 or 39.6? That's, that's where a lot of the debate has been. There is an approach, and to be honest, I am not a let's reach for higher income taxes as the first step. Let's actually look at what we're spending, where we're spending, etc. Right. But there are some who would say we absolutely need a top marginal tax rate that has a four at the beginning of it. There are others who would say it would be five or. Ok. The other approach would be, actually what we need to really be doing is looking at capital gains because the very wealthy are not really earning income, which is affected by that top marginal tax rate anyway, or looking at a minimum tax that is stronger so that the scenario you describe isn't possible because you can't deduct and loophole your way down even though you're in that top tax bracket. Do you favor an approach of that top number should be bigger than 37 or 39 or more the latter that I just mentioned about dealing with deductions, capital gains, etc.
- [48:31]
D
I think I'm a little bit more in favor of the latter. I think that, you know, it'd be reasonable to raise the top marginal rate a little bit. But there's a way in which there's, you know, we, we want to incentivize investment when it creates jobs, when it makes our society better. Like we want to make it really cheap, you know, percentage wise to invest in infrastructure, for example. I'm a huge champion of infrastructure. I have the most ambitious high speed rail plan in America today, which by the way, isn't even, you know, candidly as ambitious as what they're doing in China. But, but that's the kind of investment that we need to be making in the future of our country. And we should incentivize that investment and make it cheaper for, for it to be possible in the US but there are a lot of people in America who have so much money that they don't work at all. Like, they're just sitting on wealth. Yes, and, and that's the, that's the problem, that wealth is not productive. It's. It's productive in the sense that it allows them to have private jets and private yachts, but it's not doing anything for the rest of us. It's not doing anything to make the country better. And that's where we should actually be looking at taxing.
- [49:39]
A
I was interested to hear that you're returning some money that was previously given to you by aipac, and I'm personally very interested in this. As someone who recently has been accused of having a show funded by AIPAC money, I've never received a penny, never mind a dollar from aipac. But I'm very interested in the sort of cultural presence that this is having right now. Senator Booker recently did an interview with, with Jennifer Welch where he was asked about this. Governor Gavin Newsom was asked about, about APAC funding. Talk to me about why and what do you think is the reason why this is getting so much attention today.
- [50:21]
D
Look, I think it's getting attention because there's a difference between supporting a country and like, supporting Israel and its right to defend itself, its right to have its citizens thrive in peace, and supporting a partisan agenda, which is really what AIPAC has decided to do in just unabashedly supporting Bibi Netanyahu no matter what he does. And they're also choosing sides in American politics, and I think in both cases, they're on the wrong side. I want a strong US Israel relationship, but I do not support Netanyahu. And I've been very, very strongly outspoken against many of the things he's done, especially the conduct of this war that has left so many innocent people killed, which takes nothing away from the horrific attacks on October 7th. But the bottom line is that we shouldn't have innocent people dying in this conflict whenever we can avoid it. And that's one of the many disagreements that I've had with Bibi Netanyahu. And too often I've seen, seen AIPAC just side with Netanyahu. So after trying for a while to get them to distance themselves from Netanyahu and from his leadership and from his decisions, it became apparent to me that they weren't going to do so, and so I declined their support.
- [51:37]
A
One of the things that I find really interesting about the discussion around this is that I think in a lot of circles, it's become a proxy for something different. In other words, that the APAC money in and of itself isn't really the issue, but it's a desire from some to have elected officials take certain positions on the actual conflict. And it sounds like what you're saying is you've been clear about your positions on the conflict for a period of time. You just, if I understand you correctly, now believe that AIPAC is an unproductive interlocutor of sorts between you and what you would like to see happen. Is that a fair assessment?
- [52:18]
D
Yeah, it's a great way to put it, in fact. And there are plenty of other interlocutors that I think are being more effective. AIPAC says its mission is to strengthen the US Israel relationship. But if you just look at Congress right now and the number of lawmakers who are disagreeing either publicly or privately with aipac, and it's starting on the right, too, it's not just an issue on the left. It's really hard to say that they're significant succeeding in that mission. Israel's our most important ally in the Middle east, and yet we should be able to disagree with them and their government. Right. Like when I go overseas and I meet with the U.S. chamber of Commerce, you know, they don't say, oh, well, you know, we're the US Chamber of Commerce, so of course we support Donald Trump and the tariffs. No, they think it's terrible and they're not afraid to say so, you know, and they have an important role in facilitating the relationship between, you know, our economy back here at home and our economic interests abroad. That's why they have presence in cities all around the globe. That's why congressional delegations meet with them when we travel. So I just wish AIPAC would more broadly represent the true range of opinions of supporters of Israel in the United States and also Israeli Jews. I mean, let's not forget that Netanyahu was booed in Hostage Square when the hostages were returned. I mean, that should have been his triumph. And he was booed by his own people. So clearly there's a lot of diversity of opinion here. And I would like to see AIPAC.
- [53:48]
A
Better represent that last thing I want to ask you about. What issue right now would you say you are most distant from the kind of median view of Democrats in the House and Senate right now? Where you find yourself saying, here's where I really believe that I am furthest from the average of my colleagues.
- [54:10]
D
Well, it's an interesting question, because if you talk about what people are saying behind the scenes, it's very different than what people are saying, you know, in person. Right. And just in this Senate race, for example, going all over Massachusetts, I'm talking to a lot of people, including a lot. A lot of elected representatives who endorsed Ed Markey because Senator Markey asked for their endorsement a long time before anyone was in this race. And ostensibly, they're out supporting this senator, who is our junior senator, and he'd be 86 at the end of his next term if he's reelected. And yet privately in person, they tell me, seth, we desperately need new leadership in our party. And this is a position that I found myself in before. Back in 2018, a lot of the Serve America candidates that I supported, including people. People like Abigail Spamberger, who just became governor of Virginia, and Mikey Sherrill, who just became governor of New Jersey. I mean, these are amazing leaders, and many of them ran on a platform of new leadership in the Democratic Party. And I was hearing this from many of my colleagues in Congress as well, but very few were willing to stick their neck out and actually fight for it. But I think this is a time when we need to fight for leadership that's new and different and bringing new ideas to the table and is willing to break with the status of quo. That's not easy for the establishment to do, but I'm one of the few who's willing to stick my neck out and try to get it done.
- [55:29]
A
Okay, so let me push back a little. I don't think I necessarily heard an answer to my question there. So, for example, I think I'm on nuclear power, quite different from the average of the left, where I've become convinced that a lot of the concerns about safety are not accurate. Although I'm not going out there saying, let's do nuclear, I want to go to renewables, I have a different view on the safety of nuclear. For example, is there some issue, whether it's tax, energy, whatever, where you say, here's where. I think I'm less in line with where my party is on this issue.
- [56:01]
D
I'll give you an example. It's another. Another issue where the science doesn't always line up with the facts. Okay, GMOs. Everyone hates GMOs in the Democratic Party because we want to go to Whole Foods and buy organic stuff, right? Yep. But most People can't afford to go to Whole Foods. And in fact, a lot of people would literally be dying in Africa right now without GMOs, because they enable crops that require a lot less water and can be productive with the same nutrients.
- [56:26]
A
So.
- [56:26]
D
So you have to always be careful that you're not just genetically engineering the environment and that things don't get out of control. I mean, of course there are reasonable concerns here, but actually, GMOs literally feed a lot of the world. Like, they save a lot of lives and they protect the environment where they can grow crops and not use as much water as would otherwise be required. So, you know, for, again, those Democrats who like to stand on a pedestal and preach about, you know, how perfect they are and they can afford to go to Whole Foods, then buying all organic is great, but the rest of us have to live in the real world.
- [56:59]
A
I'm with you on this one. And by the way, we have not determined that GMOs are less healthy for human consumption. And it has been studied, despite what a lot of people say. So I'm very much on board with you on that one.
- [57:12]
D
And by the way, like, I was shopping in a farmer's market last week, weekend, and, you know, when. When people can afford to do that and when you can support local businesses, you know, I'm all for it. And we got some amazing tomatoes that my girls loved. Right? So, like, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with local or organic farming, but you got to look at the big picture and realize that there are a lot of people, like the folks who are standing in line just trying to get food while Donald Trump is trying to shut down food pantries right now, who can't afford that and then go overseas and, you know, see how struggling, how people are struggling to eat in a lot of parts of the world and are only surviving because of this innovative agriculture that in many, in many cases was brought to them by the United States of America.
- [57:55]
A
We've been speaking with Congressman Seth Moulton, now running in the Democratic primary to be senator from Massachusetts. Really appreciate your time today. We're following this one closely.
- [58:04]
D
Absolutely. Thanks so much for having me.
- [58:07]
A
You've probably heard me mention AG1 before. It's part of my morning routine. Just gives my nutrition a daily boost. The team behind AG1 has now created a nighttime option. It's called Ag Z. It's just a drink designed to help you unwind before bed and get better rest on the nights that you need it. AGZ is non habit forming. It's a blend of herbs, adaptogens and minerals. No melatonin. Each serving provides 250mg of highly bioavailable magnesium. That's over half of your daily value, along with other carefully selected ingredients. The idea here is support relaxation, improve sleep quality. Very simple concept. Just like AG1 helps you get more out of your day, AG Z can help you get more out of your night. If you want a tool you can reach for when you want to calm your body and your mind, recharge and wake up. Ready? This could be it. Go to drink ag1.com/pacman Get a free frother with your first purchase of AG Z. The link is in the description. What you are about to hear is not subtle. This is not some deep, complex conspiracy theory. This is one of the most clearest, most brazen pay to play schemes that we have seen in American politics. It involves a convicted money launderer, a presidential pardon and a flood of cash into Donald Trump's family business. Now it starts with a guy named Changpeng Zhao, or cz, the founder of Binance. Binance is the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange. Now back in 2023 pleaded guilty to some very serious charges. He admitted Binance was essentially a washing machine for criminal cash and it was letting groups, and this even includes Hamas, move millions of dollars. Prosecutors flat out said CZ has harmed the United States national security. He did his four months and he was released. Just a couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump issued him a full pardon. Now a reminder, Trump said in 60 in his 60 Minutes interview, he has no idea who the guy is or anything about it.
- [60:24]
C
This year the president has pardoned or shortened the sentences of more than 1600 people. The latest pardon was for a cryptocurrency tycoon who is known as cz. The company CZ founded, Binance helped boost the profile of the Trump family's crypto firm, World Liberty Financial. He pled guilty in 2023 to violating anti money laundering laws.
- [60:49]
A
Right.
- [60:50]
C
The government at the time said that he had caused significant harm to US national security, essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. Why did you pardon him?
- [61:02]
D
Okay, are you ready?
- [61:02]
B
I don't know who he is.
- [61:04]
D
I know he got a four month sentence or something like that and I heard it was a Biden witch Hunt.
- [61:09]
C
In 2025, his crypto exchange, Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty Financials Stablecoin. And then you pardon how do you address the appearance of pay for play?
- [61:26]
B
Well, here's the thing. I know nothing about it because I'm too busy doing the other.
- [61:30]
A
So listen, by Trump's own standards, if he really has no idea what's going on, then the pardon should be invalid. That's what he said about Biden, but of course we don't believe that. And when you look at the details, you see, wait a second. Trump's kids now run a crypto company called World Liberty Financial. They issue a stablecoin. Think of a stablecoin as sort of like a crypto dollar. It's backed by US Treasuries, which earn interest for the company that issues them. So In May of 2025, a massive UAE backed firm called MGX decides to settle a huge $2 billion investment into Binance. And how did they move the money? They used the Trump family Stablecoin. This is not an accident. This boosted the Trump family's company, World Liberty Financial. If you run the numbers, 2 billion in reserves earning 4% interest is like 80 million directly into the Trump family pockets. Trump's wealth has exploded. Reportedly, Trump's own wealth has gone up by billions of dollars. And the natural question is how much of that is because of the link to World Liberty Financial reports are that the family made over a billion dollars from crypto just this year alone. So look at the timeline. You tell me this is a coincidence. CZ admits he helped criminals and terrorists move money. Binance facilitates a multibillion dollar deal that enriches Trump's family enterprise. Trump then pardons and then goes on 60 Minutes and goes, I don't know who he is. I don't know anything about it. And when Norah o' Donnell asks him point blank about the appearance of corruption, Trump goes, I'm too busy to know anything about the pardon that I signed. He attacked Biden for supposedly not knowing about the pardons that he signed. And then Trump goes, I have no idea about it at all. And the corruption just keeps going because a few Months before the $2 billion UAE investment, Trump approved a deal sending the UAE a massive shipment of advanced US computer chips. Chips with major national security implications. And the concerns were, are these going to end up in China? That was brushed aside. And the next thing you know, UAE is pouring billions into Trump's family crypto business. It is really hard to see this as anything other than a quid pro quo. And finally, policy follows profit because Trump successfully pushed Congress to pass the Genius act, which creates a regulatory framework for these Very stablecoins. Why? Because right after promoting the bill, Trump's family became one of the largest issuers of stablecoins in the world. It's all in the open, guys. He's the sitting president, the top US Financial regulator and a dominant player privately in the very market that he is regulating. Now, ethics experts looked at this and said this is like the greatest conflict of interest you could imagine. It's corruption in 2025. No, no suitcases full of cash. It is billion dollar crypto deals that happen to align with presidential pardons and policy decisions and the crypto company that your kids are running. The only remaining question is, are voters going to let him get away with it? Donald Trump's worst nightmare just happened. He was brutally, brutally booed by a massive audience at a commander's football game. If Biden ever did what Trump does in this clip, by the way, can you imagine, I.
- [65:18]
D
State your name.
- [65:20]
A
I and state your name. If Biden did that, they would be going, oh my God. Biden read the instructions. He read the instructions off of the piece of paper. Just brutal, brutal booing. He's. Here's some broader context of this. Trump looks shell shocked. Pete Hegseth looks shell shocked standing next to him. Welcome to the 45th and 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hay. As the president spears in the seas of Arab United States military. Just overwhelming, overwhelming booing. Here's another angle from inside the crowd. This goes to one of Donald Trump's greatest insecurities. Trump wants to be liked. Trump wants to be adored. Trump wants adulation. And going into a football stadium and being just brutally booed in this way is the, one of the biggest triggers to this guy. Now, the part that quite frankly I found most disgusting was that Trump went up in the broadcast booth with the Fox NFL broadcasters and he starts peddling his same political lies. 17 trillions coming in, groceries are down at a football game, disgusting to combat war, etc.
- [67:23]
B
And you kind of take some of the same strategies. We'd love to hear your thoughts about, about where we are as a nation, how we're doing well, we're doing great and recruitment is doing phenomenally. People have spirit. Our stock market hit an all time high.
- [67:37]
D
Prices are coming down.
- [67:38]
B
We inherited a mess. Prices are coming way down.
- [67:41]
A
And I'll look at these guys just nodding.
- [67:44]
B
Our country has over $17 trillion being invested in it, which is a record. So we're doing.
- [67:49]
A
Here's my view. I don't have a problem with a President being invited into the broadcast booth. But if the President goes into political propaganda and you just not along, you are furthering the propaganda. I understand. You know, after 9 11, there's video of George W. Bush going to Yankee Stadium to throw out the first pitch. The crowd is united. It was seen not as a partisan, but as a patriotic thing where we have just suffered a great tragedy in the United States. Whoever happens to be president, be it a Republican or a Democrat, shows up. And it is not partizan in that way. And in that sense, whether it's Biden or Trump or Obama, welcome them into the booth. But you either have to ensure that it is not political or you've got to be prepared to, to do something, even if it's just not nodding along like a sycophant. Otherwise you are participating in the propaganda and maybe that is exactly what, what they intended to do. Small detail. Donald Trump as he was getting brutally booed. His hands just rotting and covered in this incredibly sickly looking makeup. It is continuing to be a problem, the hand bruising. We still don't really have an explanation, even though they insist everything's fine, everything is completely, totally cool. Caroline Levitt is Donald Trump's White House press secretary. And she is now competing to be the biggest Trump suck up. Sometimes we end up wondering, why is she allowed to keep talking in this role when it seems so damaging to the White House and the administration. Other times it's like, oh, I get why she's allowed to keep talking. There is nothing Trump can do that she won't praise. Here is Caroline Levitt, interestingly, admitting out loud they're afraid of checks and balances if we don't win. Here is a list of the things that Democrats are going to do. And much like when MAGA Mike Johnson had this realization last week, there is some truth to the broad concept. Take a listen to this.
- [70:01]
C
President is 100% right about this and he wants Republicans to get tough and get smart. Smart. And we know that if Democrats, God forbid, are ever given the keys back to power in Washington D.C. they will end the filibuster. 49 of them in their party already voted to do it. The only reason it got held up is because two voted against and those two are no longer here. They got run out of town by radical leftists who have totally taken over the party. So the President is saying, we have three years of me in the Oval Office to do everything the American people want us to do. Let's take advantage of this historic opportunity, get rid of the Filibuster now before the Democrats can do it, impact the Supreme Court, make Puerto Rico and Washington D state, D.C. states, and all of these other radical ideas that they want to implement. It's the right strategy and it's based on reality. And the current opposition to the Republican Party is truly the most radical left party we've ever had.
- [70:56]
A
You know, they are terrified. They are terrified of democracy actually functioning. And so she's saying, if they get power, they will end the filibuster. We should end it. And of course, Donald Trump is trying to end the filibuster right now. Let me remind you what the filibuster is. In the Senate, Most bills need 60 votes to move forward. And any senator can filibuster, basically keep debating forever. You don't even have to stand and talk anymore. Just the threat is enough. And so when they talk about ending the filibuster, what they mean is change the rules in the Senate so you need only 51 votes, a simple majority. Or if it's 50, 50, the vice president can break that tie instead of 60. If you only need 51, it makes it much easier for the party that is in power, but by a small margin, like, for example, 5050 or 5149, to pass a whole bunch of laws. And so you could do this a few different ways. You could abolish the filibuster entirely. You could reform the filibuster so that it's harder to use, or you could just create a list of types of bills that don't need 60 votes. This is not a protection of tradition or whatever. This is protecting minority rule. That is what this is really about. One more clip from this totally deranged Lara Trump interview of Caroline Levitt in her new office. Here she is. Take a listen to what she has to say.
- [72:22]
C
We are in your new world. This is your new office. What I think is great from this office, Caroline, is you can actually see out there where all the press lines up on what you guys call Pebble Beach. Right, right. Do you check them out and see? See who's looking like they're trying to get tough?
- [72:36]
A
Oh, yeah. I can see the palpable disdain for a free press.
- [72:40]
C
See the vultures, they just gather out there. And, you know, we have so many amazing spokespeople for the administration. We have Stephen Miller out there a lot, Kevin Hassett, you know, the president's whole team, they go on TV and then the press just lunge at them, like asking questions. So when I see a crowd building. I know someone's about to go out there and have a little spicy time with the press. So that's always fun to witness.
- [73:02]
A
Yeah, really hard hitting stuff from Lara Trump. I keep going back and forth. Is Caroline Levitt the worst press secretary ever or is she the best in if you were Donald Trump in the sense that there is nothing that will make her run out of eagerness to continue being a sycophant and defender of Donald Trump. She's either really bad at her job or really good, depending on whether you think that the job being done correctly is telling the truth or you think the job being done correctly is defending any harebrained opinion or statement from the guy you work for. Who happens in this case to be Donald Trump? I quite frankly can't tell you. But I can assure you that the bigger the cross that she hangs from her neck, the more of a reminder I have that her behavior is very much not Jesus. Like now on the bonus show today we're going to talk about the full list of Democrats who voted to end the government shutdown. The implications we are going to talk about two BBC leaders quitting over the biased editing of a Trump documentary. And finally, the Supreme Court says they will not revisit the landmark same sex marriage precedent. It seems they're not going for it right now. Some in MAGA world are curious. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com I'll see you then. We'll be back tomorrow.