← The David Pakman Show
Loading summary
Transcript119 lines
- [00:00]
A
Oh, hey, welcome to gift wrapping.
- [00:02]
B
Whoa. So is Saldana.
- [00:03]
C
Hey, can you wrap these please?
- [00:05]
A
Wow.
- [00:05]
B
IPhone 17s.
- [00:07]
C
You splurged at T Mobile. You can get four iPhone 17s on them. The new center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies. It's the perfect gift for everyone.
- [00:15]
A
I'm the worst. I only got my mom a robe.
- [00:17]
C
Well, it's better than socks.
- [00:19]
A
So I have to trade in my old phone, right?
- [00:21]
C
No AT T Mobile. There's no trade ins needed when you switch. Keep your old phone or give it as a gift.
- [00:26]
B
Incredible.
- [00:27]
C
In fact, wrap up my old phone too for my aunt Rosa.
- [00:30]
B
Forget that.
- [00:30]
C
Aunt Liz will be jealous.
- [00:32]
B
Sounds like my family drama.
- [00:33]
C
Oh, I got it. I'll give it to my abuela. I'll take reindeer paper with. Hey, where are you going?
- [00:37]
B
To T Mobile. The holidays are better. AT T Mobile get four iPhone 17s on us.
- [00:42]
A
No trade in needed when you switch plus four lines for just 25 bucks a line. And now T Mobile is available in US cellular stores with 24 monthly bill.
- [00:49]
B
Credits and 4 eligible board ins on.
- [00:51]
A
Essentials for well qualified customers bought or pay plus taxes fees and $35 device connection charge credits and administration balance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel contact US Finance Agreement. 256 gigabytes. $830 required.
- [00:59]
B
Visit t mobile.com the Cracks in the economy are getting wider as we now learn that private companies are losing over 13,000 jobs a week. The White House has shut down just about every official economic reporting system that they could. They didn't like the jobs numbers, they didn't like the inflation numbers. They don't want a GDP report, so just shut the entire thing down. And the Fed is going to be making interest rate decisions with no official data because Trump just doesn't like the numbers. Meanwhile, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has a brilliant plan to fix air travel. No more pajamas on planes, no more slippers on planes. But doing nothing about the actual air traffic control issue. And meanwhile, the cases from Trump's DOJ against James Comey and Letitia James have been thrown out. Turns out Trump's hand picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan wasn't even legally appointed and by the way is incompetent. And Pam Bondi is pretending like this is only a small and temporary setback. Donald Trump's press secretary Caroline Levitt having some of the worst 24 hours since she took the job. And we will also hear from attorney Mark Elias about a major, major case that you are not going to want to miss. We've Got a great bonus show for you. Thank you. Thanksgiving is coming up. I'm wearing a completely outrageous sweater, which will certainly throw 10 to 12% of the audience into an absolute tizzy. And we're still donating new membership monies received to Feeding America through Thanksgiving. Trying to do something about hunger in the United States. The economic news is not so good and the administration is kind of panicking to figure out how to hide this. So, as many of you know, we are not getting official jobs reports right now. Trump didn't like them, so he fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And we have no more official jobs reports. But there are other jobs and payroll data tracking companies like ADP, which give us information. And generally speaking, the ADP numbers tracked the BLS numbers. So they at least give us an idea. Well, the ADP numbers now say that private companies have been losing 13,500 jobs every week for the last month. There's multiple elements of significance to this. Number one, this is a jump in job losses from where we were just recently. Number two, one of the arguments from this administration has been, listen, the overall jobs numbers don't really paint an accurate picture because, yes, we are losing some government jobs, but that's by design. Doge came in and they found fraud, waste and abuse. And they are getting rid of jobs that we don't really need. So what really matters is the private employers. However, the ADP data focuses specifically on private employers and that data is getting worse. Like I said, 13,500 jobs a week now being lost by private employers. And the only reason we even know this is because of adp, because Trump killed the actual jobs report. He fired the BLS commissioner, canceled the October jobs report, canceled the inflation report. Third quarter GDP report is either delayed or scrapped. Who knows? So we are now relying on an ADP spreadsheet because the President was so terrified of the official numbers that he said, no more. Now, this shouldn't surprise anybody. This is the guy who said, I don't like how many Covid cases we have. Stop testing for Covid. And as we all know, if you don't want to be pregnant, just don't take a pregnancy test. And then, voila, you aren't pregnant. He admitted to cooking the numbers on Covid cases. He has found a way to try to cook the numbers. Unemployment. But it's not working. He's doing the same thing. He always does the same thing. Not only is it Covid cases and job losses, but it's inflation data. It's the same playbook every single time. Now, meanwhile, there's an increasingly wobbly economy. You look at all aspects of what Trump is doing. The tariff regime, obviously terrible for the economy, we know that. But the mass deportation plan often is talked about appropriately in ethical and moral terms, which makes sense. But it's also an economic issue. The mass deportation plan, carried out to its full potential, would knock about 7% off of the GDP. Q1 GDP growth was negative. Q2 bounced back to some degree. We've got accelerating layoffs. And now we are about 15 days from the Fed meeting to decide what are we going to do with interest rates. They'll have no official jobs data. They're going to have no consumer Price index. They're going to have no GDP print. They are going to run a 27 $30 trillion economy on guesswork because Trump has canceled the data. Now, we are going to get a little bit later on in the show to Republicans now blowing the health care rollout. Now, as, as we've talked about before, health care is a moral issue, it is an ethical issue, it is a public health issue, but it's also an economic issue. If people don't have health care when they get sick, they can't go to work if they're unable to get appropriate treatment. So all of these stories, health care, deportation, all of it in some way links back to the state of the economy. None of this projects strength, none of this projects competence, and none of this projects confidence. It's all an administrative meltdown. Now, meanwhile, you still have magazines who say Trump's a businessman. He's running the country like a business. He's good with money. But of course, if you look at the multiple business bankruptcies and you look at the fact that every time this guy gets in, the deficit explodes. If you look at the fact that Democratic presidents on average are stewards of nearly three times the job creation as Republicans on average, you have to accept the record for what it is. You know, facts don't care about your feelings. They're not good with the economy. They're not good at creating jobs. And right now, the economy is ending each month with fewer jobs than it started. Now, when we eventually get real numbers, if they ever come out, we might learn that this is even worse than what the ADP and other data suggests. One final note, on the Democratic Republican thing, there are lots of ways in which presidents don't directly influence or control job creation. We have global business cycles. We have black swan type one off events, natural disasters. There's a lot that goes into job creation. But there are some things presidents can do to influence job creation. They relate to government spending. They relate to tariff and tax policy, they relate to trade agreements, etc. If we go back to Truman onward, okay, net jobs added Under Democratic presidents, 71 million. Under the Republican presidents, 29 million. Now, you might say, well, we haven't had the same number of years of Democratic and Republican presidents. Correct. You are now thinking, if we do it on a per month basis, going all the way back to Truman, Democratic presidents on average add 164,000 jobs a month. Republican presidents on average add 61,000 jobs per month. Presidents don't control everything about jobs. But when you start looking at 100 years and you see this extraordinarily notable trend, you have to at least say to yourself, well, there must be something that Democratic versus Republican presidents are doing that allows or encourages more job growth under Democrats. And that is absolutely the case. We've talked about what those things are, and the record is extraordinarily clear. All right. Donald Trump and Sean Duffy, his transportation secretary, have come up with a plan to save aviation. It's courageous, it's patriotic, it's masculine and it's chivalristic and all of this stuff, but it is being ridiculed to high heaven. Now, I hear me out, okay. I think some of the stuff Sean Duffy is suggesting is pretty good. It's just not a solution to the aviation and air traffic control problem we have in this country. I don't know if people are going to be upset with me for this, but some of the things that Duffy is proposing, I agree with completely. I'm going to tell you in a moment. Let's listen. And we have to make sure that all of our audio is configured correctly. And now it is.
- [10:26]
D
We've seen, we've seen an uptick in maybe a degradation in some in the airspace. And so I thought it is appropriate to. Again, I can't let. You can't legislate that. Right. You can't mandate it. But I think if you ask people, could we do better, could we be better? I think you won't get a better result unless you make the ask. And so I'm just making the ask. Let's all travel better together. And again, I think it honors our country, it honors our families, it honors, you know, our fellow passengers. And so I've made the ask. And again, I think we can do a better job. And by the way, there's most flights are pretty darn good and people do behave really well. With one another. It's just a few of those times where, again, don't take your shoes off and put your feet on them. You know, the chair ahead of you. That's just. Or maybe don't play your movie without headphones on. Do some simple things that can annoy the folks around you that you would. I mean, you. We don't have to do that. And so just be cognizant and courteous.
- [11:26]
B
Yeah, Listen, I have to tell you, we have a real problem on airplanes. Okay, stop with the kicking my seat. Just please stop kicking my seat. Okay? Stop shaking my seat when you get up to go to the bathroom. Please stop taking your shoes and socks off on the plane and pressing your feet barefoot up against the bulkhead and then crossing your feet to the point where your bare sole of your foot is now near my crappy little bag of pistachios or whatever it is. I agree with all of this stuff. Putting your long hair over your seat so it covers the TV screen on the TV screen that I'm trying to watch. I agree with all of this stuff. And keep your socks on. By the way, here's a picture of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. On a commercial plane with no shoes and no socks on. I agree with this stuff, but this is not what the Secretary of Transportation needs to be focused on. We've got to deal with air traffic control. We have to deal with airport meltdowns. We have to deal with ground stops. We have to deal with understaffed or under trained individuals. And by the way, it's sort of rich to say that now they're all worried about decorum when this is maga. This is maybe the least decorous political movement that I have ever, ever, ever seen. But listen, I could give you more. Why are you pushing up to the gate before your group is called? Just wait for your group to be called. Why are you stepping in front of me? When I see on your ticket that you're in group nine and row 55, it's going to be a half hour before you board. Why are you walking all the way up to the gate right now? I try to be there on time. I board with my group even when traveling with kids. And. And the headphones. I was just on a flight recently. There was a guy watching a loud show with no headphones. Put the headphones on. But in all seriousness, how about getting people trained, competent. Let's get fully staffed air traffic control. That's what we fundamentally really need here. Here's Sean Duffy offering more advice. What about Helping weaker people put their bags up.
- [13:48]
D
Let's try not to wear slippers in and in pajamas as we come to the airport. I think that's positive. If we can help someone as we're getting on the aircraft that might need some help putting their bag in, in the overhead bin. And you're a little stronger, a little buffer. Yeah, you've been lifting, you know, stand up and, you know, offer to grab that bag and put it up for someone who's having a more difficult time.
- [14:10]
B
Listen, in all seriousness, all this stuff is completely fine, but it's another example of putting the individual ahead of the structural. And this is something that Republicans, and sometimes it's not even a Republican thing, we just often see in society. We have a structural problem and you have a legacy and corporate forces that try to make it about individual action. You know, a classic example is the plastic straws. And you look at the carbon footprint of straws and you see individuals being told, listen, you got to use a crappy paper straw, or we've made straws out of pasta noodles or whatever. You've got to now suffer with a crappy straw. And meanwhile, it's really industrial pollution that is the vast majority of the carbon footprint. And it's the transportation sector. And it's like, okay, listen, we can have the straws or not, but even the idea of pushing the responsibility for dealing with this onto the individual to choose a paper straw instead of a plastic straw doesn't really make sense. And similarly, what we are seeing here is these. We have structural issues with aviation, airports, infrastructure. A lot of our airports really are pretty, pretty crappy. We still have air traffic control issues, etc. And saying, hey, help, don't wear pajamas and help somebody put their bag up. To their credit, there was a reporter who asked about this and said, you're kind of putting the onus on the passenger. And is that really logical? Here's how Sean Duffy answered that.
- [15:37]
E
I was talking to passengers this morning about your civility campaign. They feel like it's putting the onus on passengers to create a more pleasant air travel experience. I know you're putting billions of dollars into this revamp for ATC to make that better, but can you talk about what you're doing immediately on your end to help with the air travel experience and talk directly to passengers here?
- [15:59]
D
Well, so I would just tell you, I mean, yes, can everyone do a better job? Can TSA do a better job? Can we do a better job as we bring more air traffic controllers online and we get a Brand new air traffic control system system up and working. So we have less delays and less cancellations. Yes, those.
- [16:15]
B
Yeah, that's fewer delays and fewer cancellations. Anyway, that's what we're talking about, Sean. That's what we need you focused on. Okay? It's fine to not wear slippers to the airport and people listen. It sounds dangerous. I think you need to wear a proper shoe at the airport regardless. But let's, let's fix some of the structural issues, which he seems completely in over his head with. Donald Trump just got arguably the worst legal news of his presidency, and it is not even close. A federal judge has thrown out the criminal cases against James Comey and against New York Attorney General Letitia James. These were partizan witch hunts, to use Trump's term. Those have now been dismissed, and the reason is an utter humiliation. The prosecutor that Trump picked to go after his enemies was not legally appointed. It's not rumor. It is a judge saying the prosecutor that Trump installed to get revenge didn't even have the authority to file these indictments. That means every action that Lindsey Halligan took, the grand jury presentation, the signatures, the charges, it is all flushed. Now back up for a moment. Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor, she worked for Trump. She had zero prosecutorial experience. Trump forced out the U.S. attorney in that district, pressured his own attorney general, and then pushed Lindsey Halligan into the job because career prosecutors refused to charge Comey. And James, they said, we don't have the evidence, sir. And Trump doesn't care because he wants headlines and he wants revenge and he wants retribution. So he wanted to prove he could do that, which he was actually accusing Biden of doing when Biden was president. And now a federal judge has said, you can't do it. You just can't do it. CNN broke in with news of this.
- [18:07]
E
In a minute, but we actually got some more breaking news. So this time, and this is big, we have learned that the Justice Department's case against former FBI Director Jim Comey and the New York Attorney general have Both been dismissed. CNN's Caitlin Poland is covering this. Caitlin, okay, what happened here? I don't know which case you want to take first.
- [18:28]
C
Well, they both are being dismissed and.
- [18:30]
F
For essentially the same reason that Lindsey.
- [18:32]
C
Halligan, the Eastern District of Virginia interim US Attorney sent there by Donald Trump, not Senate, confirmed that she doesn't have the power.
- [18:42]
B
Oh, it's so funny. From a more comedic standpoint, here is Fox News coming to the same realization.
- [18:48]
F
Forgive me, but we have some breaking news. We'll write back A Fox News alert. The case against former FBI Director James Comey is getting dismissed. The judge ruling the appointment of interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan violated the Constitution.
- [19:04]
B
Just a little tiny problem. It happens to completely violate the Constitution. Here is James Comey weighing in on it.
- [19:13]
G
I'm grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking. But I was also inspired by the example of the career people who refused to be part of this travesty.
- [19:32]
B
Yep. So listen, this is what Trump told us Biden was going to do. He was going to weaponize the Justice Department. He was going to go after his enemies, and he was going to break norms. But a judge says Trump's doing it. Trump's doing it, and he's doing it really poorly. So poorly that we're throwing it out. Comey's lawyers said this was vindictive from day one. Letitia James said she was going to keep charging, charging forward because the allegations against her are completely baseless. Now we are, after the break, going to look at Attorney General Pam Bondi saying, this is not the end. We're going to do it again. We're going to keep going here. But I don't believe that this is going to happen. And, and this is what happens when you put people with no qualifications in jobs designed to uphold the law, which is that they can't do it. You torch your own cases, you humiliate your own Justice Department, and you prove that the critics are right. Biden wasn't doing it. You were doing it, and you're doing it incompetently. So it's a relatively simple story. Trump tried to prosecute his enemies, which is what he said Biden was doing. Biden wasn't doing it. Trump is. Trump didn't find a way to do it competently, and Trump has not yet found a way to do it legally. What an embarrassment for the orange president. When I was preparing for my last trip to Italy, I didn't want to spend weeks and weeks trying to learn Italian with the typical apps where you get, you know, flashcards and games, and it doesn't really translate to talking to people. And this is why I turned to our sponsor, Babbel. This is a method that works, and it works quickly. And what really stood out to me was just how personalized Babel feels. The app was instantly adjusted to my level. I wasn't wasting time on things I already knew. And the review system is really good at making sure that things stick. Babble's lessons come in 10 to 15 minute chunks. I fit that easily into my schedule. I saw the progress. Before I knew it, I was ordering a cappuccino and their version of a croissant. It's a Cornetto. Anyway, I was impressing everybody. People loved it. Babble is not just about memorization. It uses interactive dialogue spaced repetition tips that make the learning feel way more natural. And my audience can get up to 55% off at babel.com/pacman. The link is in the description. Every year there's that one person in the family who somehow gives the perfect gift. Our sponsor, Aura is basically the hack for becoming that person. A couple of years ago, I preloaded an Aura frame for my mom with baby pictures. She loved it. It was one of those gifts that really stole the moment everybody stops what they're doing to look at the photos. It's still there in my mom's living room after all these years. She loves it. You can preload photos onto the frame before gifting it. Even if you have Aura send the frame directly to the recipient, it's easy for everybody. And then you and the recipient can keep adding photos from anywhere using Aura's app. Every frame comes in a premium gift box. It feels like a polished, thoughtful gift, whether you're handing it over in person or having Aura ship it directly. And you'll get $45 off the best selling Aura Carver mat frame. When you go to aura frames.com and use the code PACMAN at checkout, it's Aura's best sale of the year. And the link is in the description. All right, so we looked earlier at this absolute legal collapse of the criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James. Donald Trump had selected a prosecutor who wasn't really a prosecutor. She had no experience prosecuting. Her name is Lindsey Halligan. All of the cases have been thrown out. The entire thing has completely collapsed. The question immediately became, are the Trump Are Trump's tools going to try to refile charges? Are they going to try to figure out a way to move forward with this? I believe the answer is no. But at least for now, in an attempt to save face, Donald Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi says that yes, they're going to try to find a way to keep keep going forward. She is pretending that she still has credibility. She's pretending that they didn't just get crushed and launched to high heaven. And Donald Trump is not going to Ultimately like the outcome. But here is Pam Bondi walking out and delivering what is really one of the most unintentionally funny statements of the week, which. Which says a lot, given what's going on at the White House. She says we are still going to do everything we can to hold James Comey accountable. Well, it seems like he's been held accountable. He didn't do anything. And now the charges have been dropped. But that is not the perspective from Bondi. Take a look at this.
- [24:11]
A
If I could just get your reaction to the James Comey James cases being dropped today.
- [24:16]
B
Back in Washington, James Comey put out a video.
- [24:18]
A
He said, this matters most because a message has to be sent.
- [24:21]
B
The President of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to now notice. By the way, Pam Bondi already has a piece of paper telling her what to say. She's not even listening to the question she heard. Oh, the question is about those indictments. She's now just, you could say anything. You could ask about, you know, whether tricks really are for kids. And then she would give you. What she's about to say is political enemies.
- [24:45]
A
Your reaction to the cases being dropped into that?
- [24:47]
F
Sure. We'll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct.
- [24:59]
A
What is your reaction to his statement?
- [25:02]
F
I'm going to keep going on this.
- [25:04]
B
I'm not, you know, I'm not.
- [25:05]
F
I'm not worried about someone who has been charged with a very serious crime.
- [25:11]
B
Right. This is what you say when you hope nobody reads the ruling because the judge didn't slightly reject these cases, the judge didn't narrowly dismiss them. The judge walked in with, like, a legal flamethrower and just torched the entire thing from the indictment signatures all the way down to the theory of the prosecution. And so what we end up with here is Pam Bondi having to pretend that despite Trump's selection of Lindsey Halligan as prosecutor, not legally appointed, has no business doing this. It's unconstitutional what was done. It's like if you say, hey, we'll get the windows on the house fixed, don't worry. But the foundation has completely collapsed and there's not really a house left. That's what Pam Bondi is trying to do. This is after you burn the food to a black crisp. Pam Bondi comes in and goes, I might add a little bit of seasoning. It doesn't matter. The thing's been burnt to a crisp already. And so what Pam Bondi is doing Here is, she's performing for an audience of one. That one person happens to be the same color as a traffic cone. You know who he is. And she knows he's watching. She knows that he wants to hear her promise of revenge. She knows he is expecting to be given some kind of soothing pablum so that he doesn't turn away from this thinking, my people failed me, which, of course, they did. Bondi is essentially saying, sir, don't worry, we'll appeal, appeal, appeal, and it's all somehow going to get fixed. And yet, and yet we all, if that happens, end up in the position of more of our tax dollars being spent on Donald Trump's completely insatiable desire to for vengeance and retribution. Because none of this was ever about justice. If I believe James Comey had really committed a crime, I would say, go ahead, go do it. Do the thing. But this was never about the law. This was never about accountability. This was just Trump trying to punish people who see he saw as having crossed him and trying to project strength. It has blown up. And I believe this is the end of these prosecutions. You know, it would be hilarious if it wasn't a tragedy for me to tell you that once again, Donald Trump's health care plan has been delayed. We were told we are finally going to get that health care plan. It is coming. We've almost got it. And once again, it's just going to take a little bit, just a little bit longer. Here is CNN as they were reporting about the forthcoming health care plan breaking in and going, wait a second, we have breaking news. It's like an SNL skit. It's been delayed.
- [27:58]
C
We're learning President Trump is planning to unveil a new health care proposal. And at this point, we're still waiting to know exactly what's in it, but we're told it could include a temporary extension of the Enhanced Affordable Care act subsidies, which are due to expire at the end of the year. They were at the center of the government shutdown. However, the subsidies could come with some fresh, fresh guardrails that could include new income limits.
- [28:19]
B
And so remember, so far, they believe that it's coming as early as, as when they were on the air. And then they're going to break in and go, it's been delayed.
- [28:27]
C
Why are meant that everyone pay some form of a premium? Now, we should note that if the subsidies do expire, millions of Americans are expected to see their premiums more than double next year. Zach Cooper is joining us now. He's a professor of health policy policy at Yale University. Zach, thanks for being here. As I noted, we are very much still waiting for specifics here. Oh, but and I'm sorry, this has actually been. Sorry, Zach, we're getting breaking news while I'm talking to you. I have learned that the White House has postponed its inspected unveiling of this new health care proposal. It was expected to be unveiled today. We'll learn more, hopefully, about that in, in the coming moments.
- [29:07]
B
But, yeah, it's just, it's just going to be another couple. It's going to take a wee, a tip. Bit longer. It's going to take. It's like an SNL skit. And FOX News was getting all excited. We're going to get. With five years in the making, we're going to finally get the plan.
- [29:24]
C
That's a big news. On the health care front, President Trump is reportedly set to announce a general framework to address health care costs and fix Obamacare subsidies. The president is calling on Congress to send him a bill that would stabilize the expected spikes in Affordable Care act premiums. Now, according to these reports, the announcement could come as soon as today from the White House with remarks from the President and CMS Administrator, Dr. Mehmet Oz.
- [29:50]
B
Unfortunately, there will be no remarks from Trump. There will be no remarks from Dr. Oz. Now, we already covered on the bonus show yesterday that it's all complete and total nonsense. There are essentially two options. Number one, you just put the subsidies back in place. And the reporting is Trump's thinking of putting the subsidies back in place for two years. What choice does he have? On the other hand, the possibility is you've got to really restructure this entire thing in a way that fixes the systemic problems. The problem with that, as I've talked about before, is that Republicans don't believe in any of those structural fixes. And so it's sort of putting them between a rock and a hard place. And as a reminder, this was Trump's promise in July, not of 2025, but of 2020. Remember this infamous day in history.
- [30:40]
G
I want to talk to you about Obamacare. Since the pandemic hit, millions of people have lost their jobs and thereby lost their health insurance. And almost a half a million have signed up for Obamacare. Your administration just announced that you're signing on to a lawsuit to overturn Obamacare and replace it. Why does it make sense to overturn Obamacare with which people now are relying on? Democrats are going to say the man who's wanted to kill Obamacare is going to Take away the protection for preexisting conditions.
- [31:09]
H
First of all, we got rid of the individual mandate. Preexisting conditions will always be taken care of by me.
- [31:14]
B
By the way, notice how much more articulate Trump was even in 2020 in Republicans, 100%.
- [31:23]
G
But you've been in office three and a half years. You don't have a.
- [31:25]
H
Well, we haven't had. Excuse me, you heard me yesterday. We're signing a health care plan within two weeks. A full and complete health care plan.
- [31:35]
B
Yeah. Anyway, that promise did not ultimately come true, as many of you know, and it never made any sense even from the get go. Now, realistically, it just seems that what they're really going to do at the end of the day is realize we can't actually do anything in the 35 days left in the year other than some version of extending the Affordable Care act tax credits. And if you look at the betting markets, they seem to think that that's ultimately what's going to happen here. There are, on Kalshee, there are three different questions related to this. Will a bill that pre fund pre funds, HSAs and FSAs become law this year? Those percentages are spiking now as it seems inevitable that the administration is going to have to do something on on the question of will the House pass a bill to extend the ACA premium tax credits this year that has also spiked now to a 60% chance in the betting markets On Kalshee and on the question will the ACA premium tax credits be extended this year, also spiking there in the last 24 hours, everybody is seeing that there's really three options. You do nothing and you let it expire. Premiums double for people within those markets. It's a political disaster. It's an ethical and moral disaster. It's an economic disaster. That's option one. Option two, you genuinely restructured the health care system in the image of the sorts of things people like me have been advocating for. They have no willingness to do that, no interest in doing that. Or three, you throw a bone and you go, all right, we'll extend the credits for a little bit. And it increasingly seems that that's what they're going to do. It's good if they do it, but it is just yet again, this stupid political football that really doesn't solve anything long term. Scott Bessant is telling people to uproot their lives for $25, move out of blue states and go to red states. This is one of my favorite clips of the week. I'm going to explain this. Okay, Here is Bessant with an idea. What do you do about your personal inflation rate? Here is his. His idea, Chris.
- [33:49]
G
And I can tell you that the Council on Economic Advisers has a study. You know the best way to bring your inflation rate down? Move from a blue state to a red state. Blue state inflation is half a percent higher. And that is because they, they don't deregulate. They keep prices up. Energy is higher.
- [34:09]
B
Just look at how satisfied he looked. There's this moment where there's this smirk on his face, right? He here, this smirk. This is the smirk of a guy who thinks he's just done a big boy. He thinks he just found a really clever one. Now here's the thing. I looked for the data. Besent says inflation is half a point higher in blue states than in red states. I looked for that information. I couldn't find it. I don't know whether that's true. But let's imagine for a moment that Besant is right. Just to show you how weak this idiotic argument is, suppose that a household spends 60 grand a year on everything, okay? Housing, food, get. Just let's pick it $60,000 a year, okay? A 0.5 percentage point higher inflation rate means, for example, if in the red states inflation is 3%. In the blue states it's 3.5%, okay, that's like $300 a year. That's like $25 a month, okay? So what he's basically saying is in the blue states, your cost of living will go up by $25 a month more than it will go up in the red states. He is saying to families, solve your inflation problem by moving from a blue state to a red state. Now, aside from losing out on that savings just because of what it costs to move, right? Like ridiculous. Forget about that even what he's ignoring is that people make way more money in the blue states. Blue states are well above the national median income. You look at Massachusetts, $107,000 household income. Maryland, $102,000 household income, California, 90,000. And then you look at Mississippi where the household income is 55,000. Louisiana, it's 58,000. West Virginia, it's 60,000. So in his, you know, the idea here is move from a state where on average you will make a lot more money pay to move to a state where you will make, you will make less money to fix your family's inflation by saving 25 bucks a month. But your salary might go down by $20,000. Now, this puts aside for a second that life expectancy in blue states is higher. This puts aside that access to health care is greater. Bessant's hack is take a pay cut, move your kids into on average, worse schools with weaker health care systems and take all the cost that it takes to move to save $25 a month in inflation while maybe shaving time off of your life expectancy. That sounds good to anybody. Have at it, hoss. 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 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. 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, doxing, harassment, and Incogni's 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. It's great to have Mark Elias back on the program. He's a top Democratic election lawyer and actually will be arguing before the Supreme Court on December 9th in defense of federal limits on coordinated spending between parties and candidates. Mark, it's so good to have you on. I want to get into the meat of this case, so maybe, maybe we start there. I mean, what is that issue in this particular case?
- [38:51]
A
Yeah, so the campaign finance laws, when they were originally enacted, had both contribution limits, expenditure limits, and reporting requirements over time. The Supreme Court has said that limits on independent expenditures are suspect and mostly have fallen. That's what Citizens United was about. But they have upheld coordinated party spending limits. And that's the idea that if you make an expenditure, if you spend money and you are coordinating with a candidate, then it's just another form of contribution. And so the national parties and the state party committees have had a very higher limit than any other spender in American politics that allows them to coordinate some amount of their spending with People running for House, Senate and president and Republicans have been trying to strike these limits down for literally decades. I mean, one of the very first briefs I ever filed in the US Supreme Court as a young associate was in a case where they were trying to strike down these limits to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of money. They lost that case. And, but they have tried several times to, to bring another case forward, and that's what this case is about.
- [40:02]
B
Can you talk about so. Well, like, there's, there's, let's go through this in parts. When we talk about coordination, is there a legal debate as to what counts as coordination? Because, like, you know, I've met, I guess you would call them operatives over my time doing this, and they sort of explain, like we work with a particular caucus, for example, or something like that. But, like, what determines legally if you're coordinating? Is it the nature or type of communications you have or whether you speak to the candidate versus their staff versus campaign associates? That, that sort of question, I guess, is there.
- [40:40]
A
Yeah. So, you know, this comes up a lot with super PACs is what does it mean to coordinate. What does it mean to coordinate a communication? And the rules there can be a little arcane and, you know, and there are, as people have pointed out, various ways to, you know, circumvent them or to, to, to allow more signaling between spender and, and beneficiary.
- [41:03]
B
Right.
- [41:03]
A
But when we talk about the parties, when we're talking about coordinated, we're talking about fully coordinated. In fact, we're oftentimes just paying about the part where, in fact, we're oftentimes just paying about the part. In fact, we're oftentimes just talking about the parties paying bills incurred by the campaign. So when we talk about party coordinated spending, I want you to think about this, David. You run for, for House of Representatives and you take a poll and there is a bill for $10,000 to you from the pollster, you literally just hand it to the National Congressional Campaign Committee and they pay your bill. So when we talk coordinated spending, no one is arguing here that it's not really coordinated or that it's, you know, somehow should be on the, you know, on the bubble. This, what the Republican Party wants is essentially the Republican Party's funds to be able to use in unlimited amounts to simply pay the bills of their campaigns.
- [41:57]
B
How do you prepare? Do you prepare differently if you're going to be arguing before the Supreme Court than you would in other venues? And how do you prepare? Prepare?
- [42:06]
A
Yeah, it's a really Good question. So I've argued four cases in the U.S. supreme Court. I've argued hundreds of cases in lower courts. And it is a different preparation and for, for two reasons. The first is that, you know, when you are making an argument to nine justices, you are trying to get a majority of five or more. You know, typically when you're arguing before a court of appeals and there are three judges, you're, you're, sort of, you're, you're, you're, you're aiming your, your answers at all three, just at all three judges. Right. Like you're, you know, there's not a huge number of cases that split. When they do, it's two, one. Right. It's a, it's a relatively small thing. Whereas the Supreme Court, you have a very wide ideological spectrum of judges. And so you have to be mindful of what each individual justice is, their ideology is, or their jurisprudences, and kind of how you put together a coalition of five. So that's one thing that's very different. The second is that argument before the Supreme Court has a certain, a certain protocol and a certain sort of set of norms and theater around it. And part of that is that justices tend to be very active and ask very, very probing, probing and hard questions. Sometimes they're probing and hard questions, you know, because there are just hard issues. And presumably if the Supreme Court's taking the case, there are close questions and hard issues. And sometimes it's just justices trying to communicate with each other by raising questions with you. So you have to have a much broader command of the material and related areas of case law that might come up, you know, by, from one justice that, that in a three judge or certainly a one judge, you know, you really wouldn't expect.
- [43:53]
B
Do they basically run on time at the Supreme Court, or is there often like a hurry up and wait type of situation?
- [43:59]
A
So they always start on time. The gavel, like the gavel goes down and the justices come out promptly on time. What's different from the last time I argued in the Supreme Court is that different. Chief justices have run their courts differently. And John Roberts, when he was chief before COVID you had a certain amount of time, so you might have 30 minutes to argue. And what that meant is that when the clock, when the, when the red light went off, okay, which meant you were at 30 minutes, you would finish that sentence and sit down like that was it like you had 30 minutes. You didn't have 31 minutes or 35 minutes. You had 30 minutes. And in Covid, the Justices adopted this new procedure, which they've essentially kept, even though Covid is over, in which you have a certain amount of time, and then the Chief justice calls on each individual justice to ask any additional questions they have. So these arguments can last quite a long time. You know, it used to be that, that if there were, if there were two arguments scheduled for an hour apiece, you could, you could be sure the first argument will be done on the hour and the second argument would be, would begin a minute later. And like, you'd be done in two hours and maybe two minutes. The two minutes just being the time between the arguments for the lawyers to shuffle places. Now, these cases can go on, you know, the arguments, arguments set for an hour could go on for two hours or two and a half hours, as we've seen, because of this new procedure.
- [45:30]
B
If we get back to the substance and the kind of heart of this, in the broader context of political spending in general, you know, we, we've had over the last decade or whatever period of time, 15 years, arguments and, and cases related to individual contributions, super PACs, so called dark money. Now we're talking about coordinated spending. Do you believe that if there is to be sort of a solution to the status quo of money in politics, that it is going to come piecemeal incrementally through taking up one piece of it at a time, or do you believe that there is going to have to be some broader change to the infrastructure around money in politics? And is that even realistic?
- [46:15]
A
Yeah. So look, I think if we're going to have reform around campaign finance, it's going to have to be legislative. I mean, what's happening in the courts, let's just be clear, has been the systematic dismantling of the campaign finance laws and the campaign finance system. You know, I, as I've been preparing, I've been, you know, going back and obviously looking at past campaign finance cases, which, you know, the good news is I began life as a campaign finance lawyer. I've litigated campaign finance cases actually longer than I've even litigated voting cases. So I'm pretty familiar with them. And David, to be honest with you, you have to go back quite a bit of time to find the last time that the Supreme Court has upheld a campaign finance law and to find an instance in which the Supreme Court has affirmatively, like, affirmatively restricted money in politics, you have to go back decades upon decades. And so, you know, what we're trying to do in this case, the reason why the Democratic Party, which is Who I represent got involved in this case is because the Department of Justice refused to defend a law that past departments of justice have defended, both under Democrats and Republicans. The Trump administration won't defend this provision of the campaign finance law. So the Democratic Party stepped forward and says, we'll defend it, and I'm arguing to defend it. But if we're going to have meaningful reform, which we obviously need at this point, whether I win this case or don't win this case, we are going to need reform that's going to have to come through the legislative process.
- [47:38]
B
When it comes to the issue of super pacs, do you believe that the issue of super pacs is directly related to this question of coordinated spending, or should we really be thinking about these as two separate issues?
- [47:52]
A
Well, so here is the danger, David, is, you know, one of the questions I oftentimes get about this case is, well, you know, what's the harm if parties can coordinate unlimited amounts of spending? I mean, after all, aren't they moderating forces in politics? And, you know, isn't that good in an age of super PACs? And, you know, my first answer is, that's a question for social scientists. I think the data is less clear than people think. But it's not, it's certainly not a constitutional provision. The fact is, the founders were quite suspicious of parties. So there is nothing in the Constitution that, that suggests that, that, that, that that's constitutionally protected. So that's kind of a legal answer. But the, but the second thing, David, is that what the Republicans are trying to do here is to say that if you fully coordinate the, the spending and, and under existing law, that was treated as a contribution. Right? Because after all, if you're a candidate and I just pay your bills, that's this equivalent of giving you cash. If the Republicans win here, they are essentially going to win one of two ways. Either they're going to say the contribution limits fall, right? Because, yes, it's a contribution, but there are no limits on contributions from parties to candidates, and that will be a big deal. Or they will say that, that there is, in fact a difference between coordinated spending and a contribution, and that coordinated spending is entitled to more of the protections that we associate with independent spending. Well, that creates the hole for super PAC coordinated spending, for corporate, corporate coordinated spending, for, for all manner of coordinated spending, which is just another way of saying you're undoing the contribution limits, right? Because if anyone can pick up your bill, then what, you know, and a super PAC can raise unlimited money and pick up A bill from a campaign. Like, what's the point of having a campaign finance system? Which is the reason why I believe this case is so important to the Republicans. Kind of the next way of trying to weaken a structure that has already been weakened, frankly, by a series of lawsuits brought by Republicans that have gone to the Supreme Court.
- [49:59]
B
Has this been. If we go back to Citizens United or even beforehand, is there any way to see this other than an extraordinary victory for the Republican Party the way they've been able to weaken a lot of these laws over the. The last period of time? Like, is it. Does the data point to this has been phenomenal for the Republican Party?
- [50:18]
A
Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's. I don't think you could, you could view it any other way. I mean, Buckley, Vivaleo, which is the case that decided the original campaign finance law. This is a case that goes back to the 1970s. Kind of put in place a mosaic kind of, of. Of pieces of how the campaign finance system would pick to give. Hold together. And, and what we have seen over time is a concerted effort by the Republican Party to pick various tiles out of that mosaic. And starting in the last, you know, I guess it's 20 years, right? Citizen United was 2010, but it was even a little bit before that. The tiles that were being taken out of this mosaic were bigger and bigger pieces. And as I said, you know, you have to go back a while to find an instance in which the Republicans have not won a case that they have brought in the Supreme Court involving campaign finance. So, look, I'm the first one to say that we have had enormous success and Republicans have not had success in the voting rights arena, but when it comes to the campaign finance litigation, you know, the Supreme Court has very, has adopted a very narrow definition of what can be regulated, and Republicans have systematically, you know, narrowed that narrow definition with some effect.
- [51:34]
B
Well, we are going to be watching this extraordinarily closely. Do you get nervous before these, like, do you use beta blockers, for example?
- [51:40]
A
You know, I don't use beta blockers. I think, I think I must have, like, been too old for beta, like, to understand that beta blockers would work, because Lord knows I would have, I would have probably done it earlier in my career. I get nervous in the preparation. I don't actually get nervous at the court. You know, I don't know what you're like in preparing for your, for your, for your podcast and video videos that you produce, but I get nervous like, in the production, in the, in like the preparation phase. But then once the court, once everyone is like going like, I'm kind of like settled down.
- [52:23]
B
All right, we are going to watch this extraordinarily closely. December 9th, Mark Elias is going to be arguing before the Supreme Court in this critical case. Mark, always great to talk to you. I appreciate your time.
- [52:35]
A
Thanks. And I look forward to maybe coming back after the argument's over and talking more.
- [52:40]
B
A pending Supreme Court case could strip our Fourth Amendment rights and allow immigration agents to come into our homes for any reason. No probable cause needed. All while Republicans try to twist things so that you think this is all great for America. This should be the biggest story in the US Right now, but it's almost impossible to keep up with the millions of moves that Trump is making every single day. That's why Ground News exists. Ground News is an app and website that exposes the blind spots and spin before it takes control of our opinions. Ground News is the smarter, more reliable way to stay informed when MAGA is being banking on us getting distracted. I'm partnering up with Ground News to give you 40% off the same vantage plan that I use, so you'll pay only five bucks a month for all of their premium features. Just go to Ground News, slash pacman or use the code pacman in the app. When you sign up, the link is in the description or scan the QR code. Donald Trump's press secretary, Caroline Levitt, had another disastrous interaction with the media. I genuinely wonder whether she goes home at night and thinks thinks that these went really well and that she was strong and powerful and all of is humiliating every single day. And then later she went on Fox and it wasn't much better. We'll get to that. So Caroline Levitt speaking to members of the press outside the White House and a lot of the questions that were coming up led to her either telling obvious lies or having to do cleanup for the large toddler that lives inside of the White House. First question she was asked, what about this whole idea that Trump is now pushing of replacing American workers with foreign workers through H1B visas? Trump talked about it recently. There are some in maga, like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who like this idea. Caroline Levitt goes, what? Who said that? No, no, no, Trump never said that. I wanted to ask you, is it.
- [54:44]
D
MAGA to support American workers being replaced with H1B visa holders? Are Americans not capable of filling most of these positions?
- [54:51]
F
Who supports getting American workers getting replaced?
- [54:55]
D
I know the President mentioned that he wanted to bring in some workers that he could eventually send back.
- [54:59]
F
In regards to the president does not support American workers being replaced. You are mischaracterizing what the president said. The president wants to see our American manufacturing industry be revitalized better than ever before. That's part of what he's doing with his effective use of tariffs and cutting good trade deals around the world.
- [55:16]
B
No, no, no, Caroline, that is not what Donald Trump said. He was not talking about that. Here is Trump speaking last week to Laura Ingraham and it's very clear. Trump goes we just don't have the talent in the United States that we need. We've got to bring it from other countries. H1B visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration because if you want to raise wages for American workers, you can't flood the country with with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers.
- [55:44]
H
Also do have to bring in talent.
- [55:46]
B
When we have plenty of talented people here.
- [55:48]
H
No you don't.
- [55:49]
B
We don't we have plenty of talented people. No you don't. Trump says talented people.
- [55:54]
H
No you don't have you don't have certain talents and you have to people have to learn. You can't take people off an unemployment like an unemployment line and say I'm going to put you into a factory, we're going to make missiles or I'm.
- [56:05]
B
Going to how do we ever do it before? That is exactly what Trump said. We do not have the talent we need here. We need to bring it from the outside and we need to do it through the H1B visa. When Trump says things, are his words meaningless? Is that what we are supposed to believe? If we are to believe what Caroline Levitt is telling us because we just heard it and he said it many times. This is not a one off thing that Donald Trump has said. A reporter back to Caroline Levitt asks about the Republicans that are being critical of the peace plan with Ukraine and Russia. Why would they be critical? Well, it seems as though Russia wrote the peace plan. It's all good for Russia. Ukraine gives up a lot, Russia gets a lot. Caroline Levitt doesn't like the line of questioning last week. Caroline. John, thanks a lot Caroline.
- [56:58]
D
There are a few Republican senators who are critical of the 28 point peace plan, including Senator Rounds, Senator Graham, Senator McConnell. What do you say to those senators who say that this is giving too.
- [57:10]
B
Much away to Russia and has Russia made any concessions as it relates to.
- [57:17]
D
A possible peace deal concerning ending the war in Ukraine?
- [57:21]
A
Ms.
- [57:21]
F
I would point any critics to the words of the Ukrainians yesterday, in which they said that they feel very positive about this plan. They've been very involved. They have had direct input on the language of this plan and that we are in direct communication and correspondence with them. Any idea? Let me just finish with this. The idea that the United States of America is not engaging with both sides equally in this war to bring it to an end is a complete and total fallacy. And I saw a lot of misinformation and rumors and allegations against people in this building.
- [57:54]
B
Yeah, you know, the thing is, that's exactly what's going on. That is it. She just described exactly what is going on. Ukraine and Russia are not being dealt with equally. Donald Trump is treating Putin with kid gloves and pushing a peace plan that is phenomenal for Russia. Trump has been extraordinarily dismissive and aggressive with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and is pushing a peace plan that is not particularly good for Ukraine. That is exactly what is going on. The topic of Trump's meeting with Zoran Mamdani came up, and the belief of Mamdani's that Trump is a fascist came up. How did Caroline Levitt handle that one? Let's look.
- [58:42]
F
Sure, go ahead, Kara.
- [58:47]
C
After they had some free meeting.
- [58:49]
F
Any comment from the White House on that? I think talk is cheap, and I think that the president is going to judge Mamdani by his action.
- [58:57]
B
Mum. Dami. Mumdami. This is the new Kamala that he.
- [59:01]
F
Takes to New York. The meeting was positive, as you heard from the president last week. And I think the fact that the president is willing to meet with somebody who said those types of things about him shows that he really is interested in being a president for all Americans, regardless of where they live or who their leader is. He wants what's best for New York. He loves New York City. He helped build the skyline. He spent his whole life there.
- [59:23]
B
And, you know, I want to focus on that. He helped build the skyline, and he spent his whole life there. Yesterday we were kind of speculating, what is Trump's angle here with being nice to the New York City mayor elect. Is it some kind of master manipulation tactic? Like what? What is it? What underlies that? This and what a bunch of you wrote to me actually relates to the skyline idea. And it's the following idea. Trump, at some point wants to go back and just build in New York City. And what better way to get a shot at permit approvals, zoning variances, and construction permits, all of this than buddying up with the mayor. Could it be that simple? Could it be that that is the simple explanation of why Trump was nice to to Mamdani? I don't know. You tell me. Caroline Levitt asked about the damn health care plan and she goes, oh, there are really strong discussions happening.
- [60:24]
D
Take if the president does announce.
- [60:31]
F
I know there's been a lot of reporting on this from yourself as well, Jake, over the last few days. I will tell you that health care is a topic of discussion that's happening very frequently and robustly.
- [60:42]
B
And that's right. Frequent and robust. Thank you.
- [60:45]
F
By the West Wing. Right now, the president's very much involved in these talks and he's very focused on unveiling a health care proposal that will fix the system and will bring down costs for consumers. As for the details of those discussions, I'll let the president speak for himself. As you all know, sometimes you report things and then President Trump comes out with an announcement and those things are not always true from what you hear from sources inside the building. So I'll let the president speak for himself.
- [61:10]
B
Right. Trump's we, we are going to get that health care plan right after Infrastructure Week 2017. Oh, man. So anyway, she what's kind of funny about these conversations with the press with Caroline Levitt is she increasingly doesn't actually have anything to add. She often doesn't know what Trump said or she misstates what reporting has been and it is of zero added value. It's almost like the press should stop speaking with her. Caroline Levitt also appeared on Fox News and it didn't go particularly well. The new position, I guess, of the White House is if the president does it, it's not illegal. Who does that sound like? It sounds like a guy named Richard Nixon. And Caroline Levitt is now going forward with the idea that the last thing soldiers or members of the armed services should ever be in the position of doing is evaluating whether an order from the president is lawful. The only little problem with that is that that is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Take a listen to Caroline Levitt.
- [62:18]
F
They can't answer the question, Martha, because there is no answer. They can't identify illegal orders because there are no illegal orders orders. But they were suggesting again to the 1.3 million active duty service members in the military today that if you think an order is illegal, you don't have to follow it. Actually, that's against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It explicitly states, and I want to read this language precisely, that service members have a legal obligation under the US UCMJ to obey lawful orders, and that orders are presumed to be lawful. You can't have a soldier out on the battlefield or conducting a classified order questioning whether that law, that that order.
- [62:58]
B
Is lawful, or notice that she introduced the word classified. Why is she adding the word classified? Nobody. The six Democrats who said, hey, members of the armed forces, remember you have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. No one said anything about classification. She's adding that in. And that is calculated. It was a very bad day for Caroline Levitt here. She argues there's never been an illegal order given because this is an administration that abides by the law.
- [63:33]
F
They were leaning into that experience to try and give a wink and a Nod to the 1.3 million active duty service members who served, serve in our United States Armed Forces and essentially encourage them to defy the orders of their commander in chief, which is illegal, by the way. Let me be very clear. Not a single order this president or administration has given to our military has ever been illegal, nor will it ever be. This administration respects and abides by the law, and these, these officials know it. They are trying to sow chaos and destruction, trust, distrust, which is a very dangerous thing to do within the military's ranks. This.
- [64:13]
B
Listen, she's wrong. She's just lying, okay? They're just lying about this. Under U.S. military law, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ members of the military are required to disobey illegal orders. Not only is refusing illegal orders allowed, there are cases where it's mandatory. The UCMJ does not require blind obedience. You look at Article 9091, 92, you get punished for disobeying lawful orders. And the word lawful is essential. Unlawful orders are not protected. Now, Trump has a long history of pushing the military towards unconstitutional, unlawful or improper orders. In several cases, the military either refused or slow walked or redirected Trump's demands because they put them at risk of violating the law. Trump's demand to deploy active duty troops for domestic law enforcement. Trump's order to shoot migrants and shoot them in the legs. Remember multiple reports about that? Trump's attempt to use the military to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. In late 2020, Trump and his advisers, including Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell and who else was involved? Rudy Giuliani. They looked at using the military to seize voting machines, to rerun elections, to declare emergency powers. They're all over improper stuff. And Caroline Levitt's view is if the president does it, it's not illegal, nor would he ever suggest anything illegal. Unfortunately, that's just not reality. It is not reality. Asked on Fox News about the dismissals of the charges against James Comey and Letitia James, here's what Caroline had to say.
- [65:57]
G
I'm grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking.
- [66:11]
C
What's White House response to that and what can we expect will happen next? Caroline?
- [66:16]
F
Well, what I will say is that everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress. It's as clear as day. And this judge took an unprecedented action to throw these cases out to shield James Comey and Letitia James from accountability based on a technical ruling. And the administration disagrees with that technical ruling. We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsey Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position, but she was, in fact legally appointed. And I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this and very short order. So maybe James Comey should pump the brakes on his victory lap.
- [66:50]
B
My prediction, it really is a victory lap and it doesn't make any sense to refile these charges. Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed. I believe the judge is right and I think this case is dead. What a terrible day. If you are Caroline Levitt, it's not so bad if you're on the outside looking in at this completely farcical way of communicating with the American public. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We will talk about Texas men who have been indicted in a plot to take over the Haitian island. We will talk about the US Being ready to cut support to scouts because they are attacking boy friendly spaces. Dear God. And whatever happened to that Trump phone? Remember the Trump mobile phone that was going to be out? No one's seen it. Where is the money that people put into it? We're going to dig into all of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com There would be no greater pleasure for me than seeing you join the bonus show.
- [67:58]
I
Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising. From Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.