← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
7/15/25: MAGA meltdown over Epstein coincides with Trump tariff collapse
01:05:01
-- On the Show: -- Hakeem Jeffries, House Democratic Leader, joins David to discuss the "big beautiful bill," his nearly 9 hour speech on the House floor, MAGA tearing itself apart over the Epstein files, and much more -- Ghislaine Maxwell says...
Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:08]
David Pakman
Welcome to the show. What a busy day. Just a reminder, if you want to get a preview of what is on the show each day condensed into three minutes, just the news. The analysis is on this show, but if you want just the news, what are the stories on the show? I'm now doing a daily three minute podcast which you can get on our substack, totally free substack.David Pakman dotcom comes out around 10:30, 11:00am in the morning Eastern time. You can check that out. And one of the things that is just a massively growing story now involves not only Jeffrey Epstein, not only Donald Trump, but also G. Lane Maxwell. The news is that Jeffrey Epstein associate G. Lane Maxwell has the list and appears to be willing to testify. But Republicans do not want that and they held a late night vote last night to try to prevent it from happening. So here's kind of the way it all shakes out. The Epstein scandal almost seemed kind of dead and buried for a little while, but it's now completely back and ripping MAGA apart. And G. Lane Maxwell says she's ready to testify before Congress, not in like a closed door deposition type of situation. She wants to go public. And the kicker is that according to sources, no one from the government has even asked her to talk. She's the person doing time for Epstein's child sex trafficking operation and apparently she's been sitting on a story that could blow the whole thing wide open. We're told no, there is no list of clients anymore. Anymore. But reportedly she has the list and she's willing to come clean about it. Now let's connect the entire thing because there's a sort of a why now, why, why in this moment kind of situation. There is a lot of pressure on the Trump administration right now because Pam Bondi is under fire from within MAGA for allegedly botching the investigation or some are saying she's participating in the COVID up here you've got conservative media, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, many of these people are turning on Trump at least over this. And Trump is freaking out on Truth Social. He's lashing out at people who say we need accountability here. He's saying that he is being transparent and it's just there's no list. And stop talking about Epstein. And then you've got people like Roger Stone who is not exactly known for the calm, rational takes. He's out there going, oh, Maxwell has nothing on Trump at all. Which is weird because no one even really asked about Trump. Like if we just say Maxwell is sitting in prison, she has a list. She knows where the bodies are buried. And the first thing people come out and say is, oh, Trump's not on the list. Who mentioned Trump? We, we're just saying she has a list. Let's hear what, what's on the list? Who's on the list? Now here is where it starts to get even more interesting. The DOJ and the FBI now are saying there is no list and no further charges are coming. It's sort of like a case closed moment that no one believes because now we are learning they always claimed to have the list. Maxwell says she has the list. There's no deal on the table, there's no immunity being offered. If she just wants to tell the truth and she has the list, you would think that prosecutors and investigators and members of the Trump administration, all of whom say we want transparency, would be eagerly awaiting Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony. Well, as we'll talk about in a moment, Republicans voted to say absolutely not. So you have to just kind of be honest about the possibilities here. Maybe the FBI missed something. He huge here. Oh, it turned. We thought there was a list and there isn't. And we thought there were coconspirators and they're, they're not. And this is, this really is just nothing. Or the FBI under the leadership of Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and the Department of Justice under the leadership of Pam Bondi are part of trying to make the story disappear. Now, why they would do that, we are left to speculate. The natural explanation would be Trump's on the list. That's it. But there are potentially other explanations, I guess. I wish they would tell us what they are. One other aspect to this, a federal judge is reportedly preparing to release names from sealed court records related to the network. And this could contain celebrities, politicians, potentially presidents, that there's a question as to whether, despite the Republican vote in the middle of the night last night, which we'll talk about, a federal judge judge could still make that decision. And that's a question that remains to be seen. But the question that we should be asking ourselves, and maybe more importantly, because remember, this is a tool to rip MAGA apart. I actually never cared very much about the Epstein story. But what we should be asking ourselves and asking magazines to ask themselves, if Trump is really so uninvolved and so innocent, why is he melting down almost daily about this issue? Why is he doing all caps posts to troth central about it? Why is he interrupting angrily when people ask Pam Bondi a question during a Cabinet meeting going. Are you still asking about Jeffrey Epstein? Maybe it's because Trump knows the truth of the list, the clients and the documents. Stay tuned. Because if G. Lane does testify, this could implode or explode in ways that the Trump administration is not prepared for. But Republicans are trying to prevent that. So this actually happened in the middle of the night last night while you were probably sleeping. I hope you were sleeping. House Republicans voted to block the release of records related to Jeffrey Epstein. That includes witness testimony like Ghislaine Maxwell's. Ghislaine Maxwell reportedly wants to testify. She's in prison. She says, I was never offered a deal. I. I know so much. I'm willing to speak publicly on the record to Congress. And aside from not being offered a deal, Republicans are now saying no. Republicans who supposedly want transparency and accountability and law and order, they are voting, as you can see here, they voted to prevent that. The vote came during a late night Rules Committee session. Republicans shot down a Democratic amendment. It would have required the Attorney General to preserve and release the Epstein files, including who was involved, who visited, who abused. Why would you block it? Why would you protect this information? Why would you protect anyone connected to Epstein if he's really the villain Republicans made him out to be for years, including while Biden was president. Even though, of course, Epstein was arrested when Trump was president and he died in a cell while Trump was president. Because this goes way beyond Epstein. There's a report that Ghislaine Maxwell is eager to talk about the client list, that she would welcome the opportunity to testify before Congress. Not only was she never asked, now Republicans are trying to make sure she never gets the opportunity. She says there was no plea deal. She's the only one in prison. She says the government has never come to her and said, please name names. That's a little bit unusual, isn't it? You'd think it's the first thing that they would want. Unless the names are what Too powerful people that need to be protected. Trump's ag, Pam Bondi said she would release it. Then she says, it doesn't exist. We don't really have anything. There's nothing in there. And also I don't have the list. Except now Trump is saying there is a list, except it was Obama and Clinton. I don't know if he even said which Clinton. It was Obama and Clinton and maybe even Biden who created the list or whatever. Trump biographer Michael Wolf says Epstein once showed him Polaroids of Trump with topless, underage girls at Epstein's Palm Beach House. Not just photos. Photos with stains on Trump's pants. Reportedly, these are just allegations from Michael Wolf supposedly relating to 1999 or the year 2000 at Epstein's house. Michael Wolf believes the FBI had those photos that they got him when they raided Jeffrey Epstein safe. And we now have a situation where much of Trump's base is turning on him. And we're going to get to that in a moment. But you've got, you know, right wing media saying Pam Bondi needs to be fired. You've got others that are going further and saying it's not just Pam Bondi, it's actually Trump who's the problem. And this is sort of a monster they created which they've lost control of because a huge chunk of MAGA bought into Kuhnen and Kuhnen said Democrats are hiding Epstein's secrets. Well, now you can release them. Recall that Trump now says that the files do exist, but Obama and Hillary created them and. Well, so release them then and show us all of the lies that are in there that Obama and Hillary are telling. So the recap is Ghislaine Maxwell is ready to testify. We believe. Department of justice says there's no client list. Nobody went to Ghislaine Maxwell and said, come tell us the truth, which we supposedly want to know. And now Republicans have blocked with a vote. They have voted to block the release of the Epstein records in the middle of the night. And increasingly MAGA is seeing the betrayal. They are seeing that Trump isn't the guy who's going to do the exposing. Trump's the guy trying to avoid getting exposed. MAGA influencers are increasingly turning on Trump. Some of them are being a little more careful. You know, some of them go, I don't know why Trump would allow Pam Bondi to do this. But there are others, certainly Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson is getting closer to it who are straight up saying, this isn't what we were told was going to happen. Here is Tucker Carlson speaking with Charlie Kirk saying that the dismissal of the Epstein files that we are now seeing. He's not buying it.
- [10:45]
Tucker Carlson
Are you joking? You're not going to shout me down, by the way, at this point. I spent four years being shouted down by the left for asking, I thought, pretty reasonable questions. I have always felt very moderate. I'm not a hater at all. And I don't, I'm not going to become one. And I don't think my questions are insane. They may be stupid, but if they're stupid, then just speak slowly so I can Understand as you answer them, they're not crazy. And if they are, tell me how. But dismissing me out of hand by attacking my motive is not going to work. And telling me that my question is an insult to the children who died in Texas in a flood is an outrageous response. You are anyway, sorry, sorry. And I say that, I say that with love, but I voted against that kind of crap. It's not just the argument, it's the style of argument. You are not allowed to dismiss my questions as a United States citizen with a wave of the hand and an attack on my character. You get the middle finger in the face from me for doing that until you stop doing it. So I think we have an absolute right to demand sensible answers. And the first question is, who the hell was Jeffrey Epstein working for? Why did Leon Black pay him 100,000,000 million dollars for tax advice? Don't stop lying to me. It's not tax advice. I have an accountant. It's not that expensive.
- [12:04]
David Pakman
And so there is Tucker Carlson, a decided split from the talking points certainly of the administration at this point in time. I think the truth is what Tucker himself was caught texting. Remember Tucker's leaked, leaked texts exposed that he despises Trump and looks forward to when Trump is completely gone from politics. I think that was the truth. Publicly, of course, he plays buddy, buddy. And this is great, and that's great. But now it seems as though to a degree, the floodgates have opened and we have more and more of these magazines willing to say it. Candace Owens is another who has said a lot of things, including most recently, Trump is gaslighting the public. And this needs to change.
- [12:52]
Candace Owens
I can't reconcile this Donald Trump with the Trump that we're seeing right now, the Trump that is gaslighting the public right now, the Trump that I voted for across multiple elections. The Epstein scam scandal is definitely terminal cancer to Trump's MAGA movement. There's no question about that. I actually said to my husband this week, and we were talking about it, that in order for Trump to get out of this, this is how bad it is. In order for him to actually make the MAGA base forget this, like potentially move on from Jeffrey Epstein, he would essentially have to come right out and repeal income tax in the United States. And then we would be extremely happy, everyone would be very happy. And then we'd go, actually, thanks, Trump. But we still remember the Epstein scandal and we want the list. That's how bad it is. There's just no making anybody forget about this Epstein scandal.
- [13:38]
David Pakman
I, this is a growing list. This is not, you know, much of what happens in the right wing ecosystem is not really relevant to the global national rather discussion of how this administration is perceived. But when you have Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Tim Pool, Megyn Kelly, it's a very long list, right? When you start seeing those people turn and some of them are only turning on Bondi, not on Trump, I get that. But some of them are turning on Trump as well, or at least saying this is a mistake. I still like his tariff policy, I like his tax ideas. I like what he's doing on immigration. I like what he claims he wants to do on so called men and women's sports. Right. We like that stuff. But this is, this is not good. This, when you have this level of that in the right wing ecosystem, it's going to become a problem. Now the guy who's holding on is Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk, one of the biggest, most brownnosing supporters of Trump. He has just put out a statement saying he's done talking about Epstein. He just trusts the administration. He believes the administration is doing what they need to do and what's best. So other than Charlie Kirk, a lot of these, even Fox News is saying this is a ticking time bomb. Elon Musk, who of course has turned on Trump, fine. This is a real problem and what the left needs to be ready to do is exploit it. So I'm going to be speaking to the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries a little bit today. I'm going to ask him, aside from what's happening in the independent media ecosystem, should the Democratic Party be exploiting the Epstein thing or does Jeffries want Democrats to stay away from it? So that's upcoming. Make sure that you are subscribed to my YouTube channel, YouTube.com/the David Pakman Show. Support our show by checking out our sponsor, Brain fm Focus Music. They're giving you free access to their app for a whole month at Brain fm. Pacman. Once you try Brain fm, you'll quickly understand why this has become my go to music app when I just want to focus on work. In addition to music for focusing on work, they have modes specially designed for sleep, relaxation, meditation, all created by musicians working with neuroscientists. A peer reviewed study showed that Brain FM's music boosts attention, especially for people with adhd tendencies. Brain FM's Focus Music is the only music made to support ADHD. Brains Brain FM is the only music app funded by the National Science foundation because of their unique audio technology that changes the patterns in your brain. Brain FM has been an amazing tool when I just want to focus on on work. In the past I've tried Spotify or YouTube. I end up distracted or can't find exactly what would be most useful for me. So at a certain point I figured silence must be the solution Until I discovered this. Brain FM is personalized, depending on your brain type. So if you want to improve your focus or relax, give Brain FM a try for 30 days totally free. Go to Brain D Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. That's brain.fm/pacman. You know, I'll often talk to my friends about what do we really think is private on our computers and on our phones. And many people believe that their emails are genuinely private private. And it turns out that a lot of the email services are looking at your emails and can look at your emails even after you have deleted them. Which is why I recommend our sponsor Start Mail, a trusted name in secure email for more than a decade. Start Mail is based in the Netherlands. Netherlands is known for very strong data protection laws. Your emails won't be scanned, your emails won't be tracked. Start Mail will block those invasive tracking pixels so you won't be monitored by companies and by hackers. And when you delete an email in Start Mail, it is gone for good. Your data stays private. They are all in on this. With a ton of features including aliases to keep you anonymous, strong encryption with your emails, it is super easy to move to Start Mail. It's a few few clicks. Migrate your emails, migrate your contacts. You really can't go wrong. Try Start Mail for yourself completely free for seven days at start mail.com/pacman which will also give you 50% off your first year. That's star t mail.com/pacman for a seven day free trial and 50% off your first first year. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show is an independent progressive media program. Not like corporate media, not like legacy media, certainly not like Right wing media. With the funders that Right Wing media has, we are primarily funded by our audience. Becoming a member@join pacman.com is the most direct and efficient way to support the show. You can sign up there, you can use the coupon code. It will end soon for about a 50% discount. You can also request a free membership at David pakman.com/free membership. We will gift those in the order that people gift memberships. And of course you can also subscribe free to my daily substack newsletter. Substack will also randomly gift paid subscriptions to people on the list. You can get that@substack.david pakman.com Donald Trump's entire life seemed to unravel at a fiasco press conference yesterday. Trump spoke at the White House Faith office's luncheon. And it was as insane, disastrous, orange and swollen as I have ever seen the guy Trump talking about the bullshit impeachments and indictments. What a, what a sad. You know, Trump's just the biggest victim. Everybody is out to get him indicted.
- [20:15]
Donald Trump
That wasn't a word. That was in. My father's looking down, my mother's looking down that my son's not supposed to be indicted. I think I got indicted five times, impeached two times. All bullshit.
- [20:26]
David Pakman
Right, right, right, right. And the lying is really tough for this guy to stop making up. Just out of nowhere, gas is under 2 bucks a gallon.
- [20:42]
Donald Trump
The gas has gone to the lowest level in decades, and you're seeing $1.99, $1.98, 8 cents. And I saw 195 at certain states, not California, because every time it goes down, they add taxes onto. You're at 6, $7. They just add taxes. All they do is they keep adding taxes. Terrible. Governor doesn't know what he's doing. He may be, he may be a candidate, but if you, if you go by success, you can't have him be a candidate.
- [21:11]
David Pakman
I don't know that Trump is able to control the lying. I don't say that to excuse. Just seems that constitutionally he can't stop lying. And I encourage you, don't take my word for it. Just go look around. What is gas cost in your area? Is there any listener? We have listeners all over the United States in every state, every metro area. Can you find $95 gas? Right now, the national average is $3.12 a gallon, which is a fine price. He doesn't need to lie about this. Gas prices are essentially flat during the six months that Trump has been president. Once again, you don't need to lie. He has held gas prices stable despite he. I mean, not that presidents do much one way or the other, but gas prices have remained stable despite all of the things that Trump has done. The truth is good enough, but not for Trump. Then it's when it got really wacky. Here's another moment during Trump's speech and press conference and lunch yesterday where Trump all of a sudden goes, I'm really not happy with Russia. I might severely tariff Russia in 50 days. Well, that's very nice of him.
- [22:22]
Donald Trump
And one of the reasons that you're here today is to hear that we are very unhappy. I am with Russia, but we'll discuss that maybe a different day, but we're very, very unhappy with them. And we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days. Tariffs at about 100%. You call them secondary tariffs. You know what that means. But today we're going to talk about something else. And there you go.
- [22:53]
David Pakman
I told Vlad, I'm going to crush you with these tariffs in 50 days. But during the next 50 days, do whatever you want. And that's exactly what Vladimir Putin is doing. We're going to come back to that. Trump then just rambling, rambling, rambling about an unattractive rich guy so hard.
- [23:14]
Donald Trump
And the alternative is one of two things. You can either get all these things and make the economy strong, or you're going to literally have perhaps a depression where you people, so rich, so beautiful, so nice to look at, will be totally busted. And let's see how long your wife stays with you. You're beautiful. She'll stay with you for about three weeks. And she'll say, darling, I can't take it anymore. I can't take it anymore, darling, I'm leaving you. I said to one guy, he's a very, very unattractive man, but he's smart and he's rich. And I said, you better hope we get this thing passed because your wife will be gone within about two minutes. He said, you're right.
- [23:59]
David Pakman
There you go. Completely reasonable commentary from the president of the United States. And the thing about these events is if you just listen there, you sit there and try to listen to what Trump says, he goes in and out of unintelligible, impenetrable word salads and then into horrifying, horrifying either policy ideas or misunderstandings. And here is Trump still not understanding that when people seek asylum, that doesn't mean they came from a mental asylum. Trump still doesn't get that.
- [24:36]
Donald Trump
But we have people from mental institutions, insane asylums, even. That's a mental institution on steroids, essentially. But we had people coming into our country. We can't have them, and we have to get them out. But we can never forgive this administration, this past. And I'm okay with administrations. I mean, I can go through a Democrat administration, say, hey, look, they worked hard, they tried hard, but the things that they did to this country, we can never, ever forget it.
- [25:06]
David Pakman
Trump still, Trump doesn't Realize insane asylums, mental asylums are not emptying out into the United States. People are seeking political asylum. Political asylum. Absolutely and totally humiliating. And to be quite frank, this wasn't even the worst of yesterday for Donald Trump. Trump was unable to answer relatively simple questions, seemed completely disoriented, and actually became enraged with the questions that were being asked. Emotional instability, of course, maybe a little bit self conscious about his lack of awareness of much of what's going on in his own administration. But here is Trump, during the Q and A period yesterday asked, how far are you willing to go if Putin keeps escalating? Trump didn't even like being asked this question. Inappropriate escalates further. How far are you willing to go in response?
- [26:12]
Hakeem Jeffries
In what?
- [26:12]
David Pakman
In what? How far are you willing to go if Putin were to escalate, send more bombs in the coming days?
- [26:17]
Donald Trump
Don't ask me a question like that. How far? I want to get the war settled. They're not Americans that are dying in it. And, you know, I have a problem and JD Has a problem. It's a stance that he's had for a long time. They're not Americans dying, but there are a lot of people dying. And on something that should be able to be settled. And we all agree with that. This group of people, you know, we want to defend our country, but don't.
- [26:42]
David Pakman
Ask me a question like that. The problem with the question is that Donald Trump doesn't want to be put in a position to where he actually has to say that he'll do anything. If Putin does X, Trump will do Y. That's too concrete, that's too specific. That would expose Trump because Trump wants to play tough. I'm doing 100% tariffs on Russia if they keep this up in 50 days. Which means that if Putin does 49 days of whatever the hell he wants and then goes Donald Trump, no, it's time we will stop doing what you didn't want us to do. Then there's no tariffs. Trump realizes that. Trump realizes this is totally phony. And Trump was asked, why are you giving him 50 more days? Right. Like the implication being it would be much stronger, more believable, more credible if you. Because he's been doing this stuff endlessly, if you didn't give him 50 days.
- [27:38]
Donald Trump
Any questions for us? Yes.
- [27:39]
David Pakman
Thank you, Mr. President. What was the tipping point for you in making this decision?
- [27:43]
Donald Trump
Was it a conversation with President Putin?
- [27:45]
David Pakman
Was it a piece of intelligence? And why are you giving 50 more days? I think.
- [27:49]
Donald Trump
Well, I think it's a very short period of time, I think. Don't forget, I've just really been involved in this for not very long and. And it wasn't initial focus. This is, again, this is a Biden war. This is a Democrat war, not a Republican or Trump war.
- [28:03]
David Pakman
When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was a Biden and Democrat war.
- [28:10]
Donald Trump
This is a war that would have never happened. It shouldn't have happened. A lot of people being killed.
- [28:15]
David Pakman
And I think it is important, just for the sake of consistency and thoroughness, to remember that if Trump is correct, that Putin would not have gone into Ukraine had Trump won in 2020 and been president. Even if that's true, it doesn't necessarily mean what Trump wants it to mean, because it's possible that if Putin had a much friendlier American president in the White House, he might not have felt the need to go into Ukraine to try to further his goals and ambitions, because he could have done it with a soft president at the White House. So it's not really the own that Trump thinks that it is. Trump continuing to talk about Putin, says Putin fooled a lot of people. Clinton was fooled by Putin, Bush, Obama, Biden, but Trump special. I'm a special boy. My mommy told me he didn't fool me.
- [29:13]
Donald Trump
I speak to him a lot about getting this thing done, and I always hang up, say, well, that was a nice phone call. And then missiles are launched into Kiev or some other city. And I said, strange. And after that happen, happens three or four times, you say the talk doesn't mean anything. My conversations with them are always very pleasant. I say, isn't that very lovely conversation? And then the missiles go off that night.
- [29:39]
David Pakman
Right.
- [29:40]
Donald Trump
I go home, I tell the first lady, you know, I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation. She said, oh, really? Another city was just hit. So it's like, look, he's. I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy. It's been proven over the years. He's fooled a lot of people. He fooled Bush. He fooled a lot of people. He fooled Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden. He didn't fool me.
- [30:07]
David Pakman
Nope. Trump's the one guy, he's so special and so big and so strong and so smart. Trump's the one guy who avoided being fooled by Putin. What a guy. Let's give it 50 days, now 49. See if those tariffs ever happen. My bet is they do not. There is a kind of theft that doesn't involve breaking glass or cutting wires. It's the quiet kind. It's the kind that you do in plain sight, under stadium lights, with cameras rolling and applause. This weekend, Chelsea Football Club won the FIFA Club World cup. They beat PSG3.0, and it should have been a clean victory. You know, really a moment for the players that earned it. The blood, the sweat, the noise, the grit. I don't know how much blood there was. Instead, they lifted a fake trophy. Because the real trophy, the 24 karat gold sculpture designed by Tiffany and Company, worth nearly a quarter million dollars, was sitting in the Oval Office. Donald Trump had taken it and he wasn't even hiding it. Trump said, almost gleefully. They told me to hold onto it and then said, we're never going to pick it up. You can have it forever. And just like that, as if it was like a lawn, you know, a garden gnome or something like that. Trump gets to keep the real trophy. The players don't know. And even the moment when Trump was on stage presenting the fake trophy, you had players who looked quite stunned. Trump was kind of being encouraged to leave the stage and he just refused to go. Take a look at this. We're kind of trying to get Trump to leave, but he just won't. It's like the guy who shows up to someone else's wedding and cuts the cake and you just can't get him out. So this, this is not an accident. FIFA's president, Gianni Infantino, has visited Trump in D.C. 10 times since January. They've moved FIFA's New York office into Trump Tower. And this is the favor economy. I mean, FIFA is a globally known corrupt organization, and it's the favor economy at work. Politics, soccer gold trophy. And it all blurs together in this quid pro quo sort of world in which Trump operates. And Trump reportedly walked off with one of the medals also. And this is the thing about men like Trump, they want power, yes, but they really want the symbols of power. The Declaration of Independence on the wall, even though it's obviously a replica that Trump put up. The trophy on the desk, the medal on the shelf, even if you're stealing it from somebody else. Trump wanted purple hearts from people. It's so petty and stupid, but it's quite revealing. And it's about much more than a soccer trophy. It's Trump's claiming something for himself that isn't his, and that is sort of like the core. Trump always wants to be at the center. Everything else is a prop. The players from Chelsea FC are a prop. And Trump's like the guy who shows up late to the party but still wants to sit at the head of the table and believes he deserves it. And if you don't give it to him, he will take it anyway. Hakeem Jeffries joins me next. You know, for weeks now, discussions have focused on Trump's big, beautiful bill and its potential Medicaid cuts. However, a far more dangerous overlooked provision in the bill exists. At Ground News slash Pacman, you'll discover what MAGA lawmakers quietly included a provision that could block federal judges from enforcing court orders unless a bond is pushed Posted. And if this passes, it could render Trump above the law. This is a critical detail. It's largely unknown. And it really exemplifies this flood the zone strategy of the Trump administration. Now, this is why Ground News is essential. It really is the best way to uncover buried information by showing you not just the story, but its origins across the political spectrum. You can see bias ratings, credibility scores, coverage timelines, and their browser extension also will flag potential bias. When you're on a news site, sort of guiding you to more reliable sources for fact checking, Ground News gives you a smarter and more reliable way to stay informed. I'm partnering with them to give you 40% off their unlimited Vantage plan, which makes it just $5 a month. Visit ground.news/pacman, scan the QR code or use the code Pacman in the app to start. The link is in the description. It's great to welcome back to the program the leader of the Democrats in the House, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. So great to have you on. I really appreciate your time.
- [35:28]
Hakeem Jeffries
Good afternoon. Great to be back on.
- [35:30]
David Pakman
So there's many places we could start and my audience is eager to hear from you as to essentially the plan these next 16 months before the midterms, for the midterms themselves, maybe just sort of. To start with, can you give us an overview of the numbers are, what they are in terms of who controls the Senate, who controls the House? You have tools, although they are maybe more limited than we would want them to be. Do you feel as though right now the Democratic Party in the House is using every tool that there is to combat what this administration is doing?
- [36:12]
Hakeem Jeffries
Yes. We're going to have to continue to unleash every single legislative tool, every single communications tool and every single organizing tool both to push back against Donald Trump and House Republicans who have served as nothing more than a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda to maintain our operational close unity, which has been the case over the last six months. And then, of course, to be able to forcefully make the case to the American people over the next 16 months, win the hearts and minds of the American people as part of our effort to take back control of the House. We only need three seats to do that, and it's an urgent necessity.
- [37:00]
David Pakman
Okay, good. So given that, one of the questions I get over and over again from my audience when we speak to folks in the House or in the Senate is if the idea is let's use every tool we have, let's be the firewall against authoritarianism, which I think I've heard you say before. And yet many Democrats still vote for nominees and bills that come from this Republican Party. Give us an explanation as to why is that strategic? Why are we helping them do anything at this point in time?
- [37:37]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, I certainly can't speak to what has taken place over in the United States Senate and am unfamiliar with some of the more controversial votes, perhaps, that have taken place relative to nominations, although my sense is that many of that activity took place very early on in Trump's tenure. But that's a question that I think my colleagues in the Senate need to need to address. But what I will say is that House and Senate Democrats have been entirely united in pushing back aggressively on this one big, ugly bill, which is a disaster for everyday Americans and is a big reward for Donald Trump and his billionaire donors. It will hurt millions of people who will lose their health care, hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down, community based health clinics will be unable to function. And as a result, people are going to die in every state across the union. That's why Democrats in the House forcefully pushed back and Democrats in the Senate forcefully pushed back. And not a single Democrat voted for Donald Trump's one big, ugly bill. Uniform opposition. And I think that we'll see that continue in terms of how we communicate the principled opposition that we articulated to the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history, the largest transfer of wealth from everyday Americans to billionaires in American history. The whole thing is outrageous. It's deeply unpopular. And so we've had some messaging success in terms of reaching the American people, but much more needs to be done.
- [39:22]
David Pakman
Okay, let's, let's keep stick with the bill because this is a great opportunity maybe to better understand the strategy. One of the things I said to my audience early on when the bill went from the House to the Senate initially was I was super honest with my audience. I said, listen, this, I believe this bill is going to pass. I know we're hearing from Rand Paul and Susan Collins is very concerned about elements of it and Lisa Murkowski is, you know, worried. But what I expect to happen, because from on high down, right from the White House on down, I believe they've decided we must pass this bill. There will be a sort of war of attrition wherein everybody will get a little something until they become vote 48 and 49 and when we get to 50 incomes. JD Vance, now, if indeed that was inevitable to a degree, one of the things I wonder about and I want to hear about the strategy from you is might Democrats be better off acknowledging we may not be able to stop the passage, calling the offices of Republicans, like ultimately they're going to go for it? What about trying to get some things in the bill that we can put our name to that might actually help somebody? I'm not a strategist. Is that, is there a reason why that's not the approach?
- [40:44]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, the entire approach by Donald Trump and extreme MAGA Republicans in connection with this one big ugly bill was to try to jam it down the throats of the American people and make it as extreme as possible. And I really don't think that there was reasonable opportunity to actually work in a bipartisan way. We said from the beginning of this Congress that when it comes to doing things like lowering the high cost of living, making life better for the American people, rewarding hard work and people who play by the rules and making sure that they can actually live the good life, good paying job, good housing, good health care, good education for your children and a good retirement, that that is what Democrats are all about and will be willing to work with anyone in good faith who's trying to achieve those objectives. But Donald Trump promised that he would lower costs, in fact, lower costs on day one. Costs haven't gone down, they've gone up. And the entire reason, David, as you know, that Donald Trump chose to pursue the budget reconciliation approach is so they don't have to work with Democrats in the House or in the Senate could avoid the filibuster requirements in order to make this bill as partisan as necessary. The other problem is that we fundamentally disagree with Republicans about their approach to health care. We believe that in this country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, that health care should not just be a privilege available to the wealthy, the well off and the well connected. It's a right that should be available to everyone. And that's been what we as Democrats have been all about. From initially Social Security, building upon that with Medicare and Medicaid, then the Children's Health Insurance program in the 90s, then the affordable Care act, then enhancements to the Affordable Care act that were done during the early days of the Biden administration. We are actually trying to get to a point where every single American can afford access to high quality health care. Republicans consistently have been trying to rip health care away. So that was a non starter out of the gate in terms of our support for this legislative, this toxic legislative effort.
- [43:03]
David Pakman
Last question on the bill, and this will kind of get us into 2026. One of the things that I've seen floating around is if Democrats take the House in November 26and are sworn in January 27, there is still time to stop the parts of the bill that don't go into effect until 2027. My amateur understanding is that that would need to be done through legislation. Legislation that even if it passed the Senate, Donald Trump would veto as president. Is this even realistic at all? Or is it sort of pie in the sky stuff that we shouldn't be thinking of? We've got to work on this a different way.
- [43:42]
Hakeem Jeffries
I do think it's important to draw a clear contrast between what we would do as Democrats if the American people put their trust in us, give us the gavels back, and what Republicans have done in terms of damaging everyday Americans. And one of those areas certainly has to relate to repealing the parts of the one big ugly bill that will rip away health care from the American people and rip away food and nutritional assistance from children, veterans and seniors. And that is our commitment as Democrats to work on that. Now, it requires some partnership on the other side of the Capitol and the other side of the aisle. Just a handful in the Senate in terms of what would be required. And of course, we'd actually have to convince the administration that they've made a big mistake, that Donald Trump actually said he was going to love and cherish Medicaid, but has done the exact opposite, and he's hurting his own people. Hospitals in rural America are going to close.
- [44:45]
David Pakman
Yeah. So it sounds like unless Donald Trump can be convinced that this was such a bad idea that he wants to undo parts of it, it's not something that can be done without his signature.
- [44:58]
Hakeem Jeffries
Yeah. And in the system that we have, of course, in terms of actually reversing any legislative initiative, you will ultimately need the House, the Senate and the president to get on the same page. But of course, we can begin to take a substantial step in that direction by taking back the House and potentially flipping the Senate, which would increase the pressure.
- [45:26]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [45:27]
Hakeem Jeffries
On Donald Trump to perhaps reverse course in part.
- [45:33]
David Pakman
All right, so then let's talk about 2026. You know, I think that whenever we speak to folks in the Democratic Party on the House side or the Senate side, the reaction from my audience is often well intentioned. I like the ideas. I don't know that there is a cohesive and coherent enough big picture other than what Trump's doing is really bad to turn things around. In November of 26, one person jokingly said, this can't all come down to whether the top tax rate is 37 or 39%. Like, there's a bigger crisis here. There's a bigger issue that we need to contend with. And Democrats need to put together a vision that is specific but not pedantic and sort of technocratic. So give us a sense of what are the two or three really, you know, areas of focus other than Trump's a disaster, which he is, that you think the party needs to focus on. As we get into 2026, it's going.
- [46:33]
Hakeem Jeffries
To be important for us to really drive home a message that is authentic to who we are around the economy. And building an economy that actually works for hardworking American taxpayers addresses the high cost of living because housing costs are too high, grocery costs are too high, utility costs are too high, childcare costs are too high, and insurance costs are way too high. America's too expensive and the American people have understandably had enough. And we've got to seriously commit to changing that situation to ensure that people, when they are working hard and playing by the rules and actually aren't simply surviving, but they can thrive in the United States of America. To me, that's an economy that delivers a situation where everyone can afford to live the good life. Five elements to it, in my view. Five elements to it, pretty simple. Good paying job, good housing, good health care, good education for your children, and a good retirement, which means, by the way, keep your hands off Social Security and Medicare. That should not be too much to ask. Those five elements as part of the American dream, that when you work hard and when you play by the rules, you can achieve some measure of comfort in terms of the life that you live in the United States of America. And far too many people are struggling to achieve that life, notwithstanding the fact that that they're working hard and playing by the rules. Second, we have to deal with health care. It's also far too expensive and it's life changing, life saving and life sustaining because you can have all these other things going on that we fix in society. But if you don't have your health, you don't have anything. And clearly there's a different vision between who we are as Democrats and and Republicans. Literally ripping health care away from millions of Americans. Largest assault on health care in American history. We have a different vision of how to get to a place where we can actually achieve universal health care coverage for every single American. And then the third piece I think that's going to be important for us as Democrats to address is cleaning up corruption. We are seeing record corruption in this town right now. It's out of control. And we've got to deal with it decisively as it relates to the White House. They are the swamp, right? They are the swamp. But we also have to deal with it in the Supreme Court, particularly as it relates to Thomas and Alito, and we have to deal with it in Congress, which is one of the reasons why I've come out in strong support of ending Congressional stock trading. Not a single member of Congress should actually be able to trade stock when you are on the public payroll. It makes no sense. We're strongly supportive of it, and it will be part of our cleanup corruption agenda, I believe, as we approach the midterm elections.
- [49:50]
David Pakman
Last thing I wanted to ask you about. When it comes to this Epstein fiasco that MAGA has now embroiled itself in, I've never been a big fan of the entire thing. You know, I didn't follow it breathlessly like the current FBI director did and others. But I do see a potential opportunity to exploit the division that's building within the Republican Party over. We were told that Trump was going to be the guy to be transparent and finally tell us the truth. And now it seems as though he's either involved in or benefiting from lack of transparency. To what degree do you want Democrats getting involved in this, or do you think strategically it's better to step aside and let them do their own thing?
- [50:35]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, it's a mess over on the other side of the aisle. Of their own making.
- [50:38]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [50:39]
Hakeem Jeffries
But I think fundamentally, the American people do deserve transparency, do deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And the reality right now is either one of two things happen. Either Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and the MAGA extremists lie to their own people as it relates to peddling this conspiracy theory around Jeffrey Epstein. By the way, he killed himself during the Trump administration in Donald Trump's first term.
- [51:08]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [51:10]
Hakeem Jeffries
So either they lied about the conspiracy that they've been fanning the flames of for years in order to try to boost turnout or convince people that they were righteous and the other side was somehow evil. Or they actually are lying right now and covering something up, which is why they have failed to release whatever files in totality that might exist. It's one or the other.
- [51:41]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [51:42]
Hakeem Jeffries
They either lied or they're covering something up. And our commitment as Democrats is to make sure that we deliver the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those efforts are being led by Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on oversight, working with many of our colleagues who were former prosecutors, some of whom were federal prosecutors, to try to get to the bottom of it all for the American people.
- [52:11]
David Pakman
Yeah, they may have been right about the conspiracy, but they may have been the ones carrying it out, which is an incredible situation to find themselves in. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democratic minority in the House of Representatives, thanks so much for your time today.
- [52:26]
Hakeem Jeffries
Thank you. Great to be with you.
- [52:28]
David Pakman
I don't have a cat myself, but many friends and family do. And lately they have all been talking about Smalls. So when Smalls came on as a sponsor, I wanted to learn more. Smalls is a fresh take on cat food because their recipes are protein packed, made with ingredients you would actually recognize from your own fridge. No preservatives, nothing artificial. Real food made for cats. That's why cats.com and Forbes both named it best overall cat food. Friend of mine recently mentioned their cat seems excited when the Smalls boxes show up. They tried putting it side by side with the old food. The cat went straight for Smalls, which is a pretty good sign. If you've got a cat, give Smalls a try. Smalls is offering my audience 35% off, plus an extra 50% off your first order with free shipping. Just go to smalls.com use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description. Former Congressman George Santos is panicking. He has, of course, been indicted, expelled from the House of Representatives. He's been convicted and he's going to prison soon. And he sat down with Tucker Carlson and he said something that it sort of even stopped Tucker in his tracks. Santos said that going to prison could be a death sentence for him. He said, listen, I'm not a streetwise guy. I'm an effeminate gay guy right at the end of the day, and that effeminate gay guys don't do well in American prisons. And so here is George Santos panicking to Tucker that he might end up certainly getting sexually Assaulted, potentially even killed in prison. Take a listen to this about it.
- [54:07]
Tucker Carlson
I mean, looking at this long stretch.
- [54:11]
George Santos
Tucker, can I be honest with you?
- [54:12]
David Pakman
You will.
- [54:14]
George Santos
I don't know that I survive it. They're putting me in a violent prison. It's a medium facility. I'm not a streetwise guy. I don't know how to fight. I'm a gay man. We statistics tell you what happens to gay men in prison. I. I don't know that I survive this. I'm. I'm being honest. I mean, I can't change that. It's sad. I. You know, I have a family. I. I have.
- [54:36]
Tucker Carlson
Are you serious?
- [54:37]
David Pakman
You.
- [54:37]
George Santos
I'm genuinely serious. You people think I'm exaggerating when I say this. I've never had to fight a day in my life. I grew up in a very sheltered life. Apartment kid in New York City. I. I don't have wilderness. I mean, my experience in wilderness, let's call it. I like skiing, you know, but. But it's just not me. I'm not that guy. I don't know that I survived this. I mean, I am. This could be very much my last interview. And I'm not trying to be overdramatic here. I'm just being honest with you. I look at this as practically a death sentence to what could occur to me. And we've seen this. It's not like I'm saying something out of the ordinary. I'm not. I'm not built for this.
- [55:15]
David Pakman
So listen, before we go any further, it's easy to mock this, right? There are people laughing online. Santos is a serial liar. He's a con man. He's a grifter. He made a total mockery of public service. He lied about his background, he lied about his religion. He. I think if I recall correctly, he lied even about his mother's death on 9 11. So the instinct to laugh when suddenly he's afraid because it's getting real. He effed around and now he's going to find out. It's understandable. But here's the thing. He's not wrong to be afraid. And that's really disturbing because when Santos says that he's scared for his life, he's. He's not exaggerating. He is a feminine gay man. And we know, even if many don't say it out loud, men perceived as vulnerable or effeminate are at risk in US Prisons. The prisons are. Aren't able to protect prisoners. So assaults, rapes, extortion. These aren't rare, isolated cases. They are Horrifyingly common. And it's not going to be an exception for Jorge Santos. What he's describing is a brutally normalized failure of the American prison system. The punishment is supposed to be only the sentence, not the sexual violence. And by the way, Trump has joked about this, too.
- [56:42]
Donald Trump
Remember this, the leaking from the Supreme Court, first time it's ever happened, is just unbelievable. But you get the information very easily. You tell the reporter, who is it, and the reporter will either tell you or not. And if the reporter doesn't want to tell you, it's bye, bye, the reporter goes to jail. And when the reporter learns that he's going to be married in two days to a certain, certain prisoner that's extremely strong, tough and mean, he will say, you know, he or she, you know, I think I'm going to give you the information. Here's the leaker. Get me the hell out of here.
- [57:16]
David Pakman
So Trump's joking about it and the crowd is laughing about it. If the American prison system functioned, I mean, listen, a lot would have to change for it to function. But if, if it functioned even slightly better, the punishment would just be the time you were sentenced to. It wouldn't be the threat of murder, stabbing, having your food taken from you, or sexual assault. It wouldn't be that you have to live in fear every single day because you don't fit in with prison culture, as I'm sure George Santos is not going to. And the fact that anyone or even somebody like George Santos has to say out loud, I'm worried I will die in prison, it's an indictment of our justice system and of the country and of the prison system. The prison industrial complex in this country is not built for rehabilitation. It's not built for justice. It's really built for punishment and pain and dehumanization. And we've allowed it to become a place where you get an extra unofficial sentence which might determine whether you survive. And people with certain profiles or people convicted of certain crimes are at extra risk in prison because the prisons can't protect them. So even some on the left sometimes get some satisfaction from, from, from seeing Jorge Santos squirm and say, I'm afraid. And he deserves to be held accountable for the scams. He deserves to be held accountable for the abuse of power. But he doesn't deserve to be assaulted, tortured, or killed. Okay? Nobody does. And when we laugh or mock people's fear of prison rape or prison violence, especially because his identity makes him more vulnerable, we are really signaling we're okay with a justice system that crosses the line from lawful punishment into barbarism. At the end of the day, it's a broken system. So George Santos is panicking. The panic says way more about our broken prison system than it does about him. If I'm missing something, let me know. Kevin Hassett is the director of the National Economic Council of the United States. And he bombed when he was asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl explain how 50% tariffs on Brazil make sense, especially since Trump said he's tariffing countries where we have a trade deficit but we have a trade surplus with Brazil. This doesn't make any sense. And Kevin Hassett, this is really bad. I almost feel bad because this is so bad. Take a look.
- [59:51]
Kevin Hassett
Data.
- [59:52]
Jonathan Karl
Well, as you know, a lot of economists say that the inflation will be coming and that there was, there were certainly a lot of exports that were, I mean, imports that were brought in in the anticipation the tariffs would be placed. But let me, let me ask you about one new set of tariffs that he announced on Brazil. 50% new tariff on Brazil. Brazil had a $6.8 billion surplus last year. In fact, the US hasn't had a trade deficit with Brazil since 2007. I mean, almost two decades. So why, why, why are we putting a punishing 50% tariff on Brazil?
- [60:30]
Kevin Hassett
Well, bottom line is the President has been very frustrated with negotiations with Brazil and also with the actions of Brazil. In the end, end, though, you know, we're trying to put America first. I think that a lot of people, when I'm talking to negotiators from other countries, at some point they'll say, what did we do wrong? And what I'm trying to get, the message we're all trying to get across is this is about America getting itself ready for the golden age by.
- [60:55]
David Pakman
Understand that so far, none of this is responsive to the question. It's just, it's just random bullet points. You could say this about any country. Jonathan Karl is going to press him. It's called journalism.
- [61:03]
Kevin Hassett
Getting our house in order by getting our tariff and trade policy and tax policy exactly where it needs to be be for a golden age. And normally it's not necessarily about a specific country, but with Brazil, it is. Their actions have shocked the President at times, and he's made them clear about that.
- [61:19]
Jonathan Karl
But I don't, I don't understand how you're saying it's about America, because the President has made it quite clear that what he's upset about is how the Brazilian Supreme Court has handled the criminal case involving former President Bolsonaro.
- [61:33]
Kevin Hassett
I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is that what I've been saying with most countries was that it's really about us getting the tariffs in order.
- [61:40]
David Pakman
But what about Brazil? He's not being asked about most countries. He's being asked about Brazil.
- [61:44]
Kevin Hassett
This tariff for Brazil is a lot higher because of the president's frustration with Bolsonaro and the fact that Bolsonaro himself, you know, anyway.
- [61:52]
Jonathan Karl
But can you explain to me, because I find it confusing here, what, on what authority does the president have to impose tariffs on a country because he doesn't like what that country's judicial system is handling a specific case?
- [62:08]
Kevin Hassett
Well, I mean, how. How is that it's a national defense emergency or if he thinks a national security threat, that he has the authority under aipa.
- [62:15]
Jonathan Karl
So, so how is it a national security threat that, you know, how Brazil is handling a criminal case against this former president?
- [62:22]
David Pakman
Well, that's. Notice that he's digging deeper and deeper.
- [62:25]
Kevin Hassett
Not the only thing. That's not the only thing.
- [62:27]
David Pakman
I mean, but of course it's the only thing he said.
- [62:29]
Jonathan Karl
So what is it? I mean, I've asked what it is. I mean, it seems that that's what President Trump's talking about. He's talking about his anger and his frustration. He's been quite candid about it with the Bolsonaro case.
- [62:38]
Kevin Hassett
Right. Well, the bottom line is that what we're doing absolutely, collectively across every country is we're on shoring production in the US to reduce the national emergency. That is that we have a massive trade deficit. That's putting it at risk.
- [62:52]
David Pakman
And remember, we do not have a trade deficit with Brazil.
- [62:55]
Kevin Hassett
We need production in the US because of a national security crisis. And this is part of an overall strategy to do that.
- [63:01]
Jonathan Karl
But again, as we've just established, we have a trade surplus with Brazil, not deficit. But we've had a surplus with Brazil for 18 years.
- [63:10]
David Pakman
You're not going to get any more answers now, of course, the MAGA people were immediately assailing the character of Jonathan Karl because of the questions he was asking. Folks, this is called basic journalism. This isn't. This isn't even very. This isn't difficult stuff. It's just Trump said the tariff formula is based on taking the trade deficit and either dividing it or multiplying it by two or something. But we don't even have a trade deficit. We have a trade surplus. Only in this country by MAGA are you expected to treat these people with kid gloves. And it's a problem if you don't but they don't have answers because none of this makes any sense. Ultimately, this is going to be much more common once journalists start realizing none of these people can actually justify the tariff scheme because it's just random. It's you take the trade deficit and you multiply or divide it, but if there's no trade deficit, you say, I don't like this particular prosecution that's going on. It's whatever Trump wants at the end of the day, not a great way to make economic policy. Now on the bonus show today, speaking of economic policy, inflation was up in June, highest level in four months, reportedly to a degree because of the tariffs. We're also going to talk about a new Republican attempt to remove noncitizens from the census, which has significant potential implications. And finally, Andrew Cuomo insists he is staying in the New York City mayoral race, but since he lost the Democratic primary, he's going to go independent. What does the polling say? What does common sense say about this approach? All of these stories and more on the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com to get instant access. You can also become a member on substack@substack.davidpakman.com I'll see you on the bonus show. I'll see you back here tomorrow.
- [65:01]
Advertisement Voice
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.