Senator Alex Padilla (3:37)

Again, Soul processing. But I think some of the facts include when they lie and say, oh, I barged into the room and didn't identify, oh, that's all bs, right? You can't make this up. I was literally down the hall for a scheduled briefing with leadership of the Department of Defense, representatives of Northern Command, because of the militarization of the city, my hometown, without proper justification, in my opinion. So let me learn more about the mission justification, training for the folks that are engaging with the public. When I hear about the press conference, right, it's in a federal building. I'm being escorted by a National Guardsman, an FBI agent. So I went through security screening when I got there, and they're escorting me every step of the way. I didn't sort of peel off and go rogue. I asked, can we go listen in? They escorted me there, and I was sitting on the side quietly for quite a long time, just hoping for information, but all I was hearing was rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. So then I speak up, try to ask my question, and within a couple of seconds, I mean, it did not take long, there was hands on me. I didn't. Never in a million of yours would I have guessed that was their response. They knew who I was. I had escorts. They knew who I was. There's a Los Angeles press corps and some national press corps who knew exactly where I was. It was not an unsafe environment. If her protective detail thought there was a danger or an actual threat. There's a whole lot of things that would have gone wrong in their protocols for that to even be a possibility. And if they thought that was a real threat, you'd think they would have escorted her out of the room until they determined the room was safe. That press conference kept going.

Unnamed Interviewer (5:21)

Also notable, no white representatives, no white senators, no white mayors are being charged with crimes, indictments, arrest, detainment, tackled to the floor and shoved on their face. White supremacy plays a role here. Too aggressive.

Senator Alex Padilla (5:37)

You're pointing it out. The fact that that's even a question on the table tells you a lot about the administration. They're not shy about it. They're blatant. They're transparent. And you know, I. What they want is for people to be too fearful. What they want is for people to cower. What they want is for people to not speak up and stand up and push back. And so I'm not going away. I'm going to continue to do my job as a senator, to ask questions, try to get information, hold this administration accountable. And that's why I've been consistent in repeating to the general public, we need to continue to peacefully protest no Kings Day overwhelming response around the country. It can't be one and done. Right. We have to continue to speak up while elected leaders have to continue to continue to use our voices and do our jobs. And hopefully sooner rather than later, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will figure out this administration has gone too far. Continues to go too far. And they have a job to do as a separate and co equal branch of government to hold this administration accountable. Be more loyal to your constituents in the constitution than to the this wannabe king President.

Jesse Dallimore (6:54)

Your vignette, this incident, it really is. Now checking a lot of boxes of what I call the 20th century authoritarian playbook. I'm from Argentina. I'm too young to have been there during the dictatorship, but my parents were there during it.

Senator Alex Padilla (7:08)

And the stories are still raw.

Jesse Dallimore (7:09)

Yeah. And so many of the, you know, the mistreatment of elected officials adversarial or inconvenient to those in power, the attempt to suppress or control media, ignoring what courts say, legal court orders, deportation, or in some cases, it's putting in, you know, various types of camps, groups of people based either on identity or belief. We're seeing every single one of these things and students of 20th century authoritarianism sort of know it. Do you get a sense that any of your colleagues on the Republican side look at this broader historical narrative of what's going on or are they too wrapped up in. Well, I agree with what happened to you and the deportations don't bother me. And they sort of just say, I'm not really concerned. Big picture.

Senator Alex Padilla (7:59)

Yeah. No, look, I think there is a little bit of a mix on the Republican side of the aisle, just like there's a spectrum of political beliefs on the Democratic side of the aisle. My concern is for the more than a handful of Republican colleagues who have reached out privately about what happened and disagree with the treatment I got. And I asked them, would you be willing to say this publicly? And there's been far fewer who are willing to say something publicly. So is it because they agree or disagree Is it because of the political thumb or pressure they feel by not just Donald Trump. Right. Donald Trump happens to be the candidate and now the president, but the forces behind MAGA and the extremist thinking, including but not limited to white nationalism. So until they're willing to see it for what it is for all the people, not just Republican members of Congress, but people around the country who think, oh, that could never happen here. We're the United States of America. It is happening here. Open your eyes. And if that's sort of one of the takeaways, if there's some good that comes out of what happened to me, that there's people who were not paying attention, were oblivious by choice or not by choice, but now have no choice but to pay attention. If there's people who were paying attention before, but not enough to care, but now care, then that's a little bit of progress. Right. But we got to continue, we got to push until we make progress. And for those people who have engaged, stay engaged, engage more.

Unnamed Interviewer (9:32)

Are you, I mean, leaving the judiciary hearing with Beauvais today is how are you feeling about moving forward with a slate of both judicial nominees, but also other Cabinet appointees with, you know, advising consent of the Senate. Are you more reticent to vote for Donald Trump nominees or have you drawn a line in the sand after you. The incident and said no more? I'm not gonna, I'm not going to forward the agenda at all. I'm not going to give a hand. They're not equal partners in governance, and I'm just not going to take part. What. Where are you with it?

Senator Alex Padilla (10:10)

Yeah, well, the, you know, the White Houses make it really easy to be able to vote no on the nominees, not just as a political statement.

Unnamed Interviewer (10:19)

Right.

Senator Alex Padilla (10:19)

But you look at the qualifications or lack thereof, the experience or lack thereof, the temperament or lack thereof for so many critical nominees. When you have not just the attorney nominee to be the Attorney General of the United States or the assistant attorney general or the FBI director, and now circuit court judges and district court judges who refuse to answer what used to be a really easy question, Right. Do you uphold the rule of law or the Constitution, or what would you say about a president or anybody else who disagrees with a court ruling? Right. There's a way to do this in the judicial system. You can either comply because that's what the court demands, or you can appeal. But outright disregarding court orders and nominees sort of twisting themselves into not trying to justify, well, maybe there can be an exception and they got to do that to placate Donald Trump and the people around him for the sake of getting the nominee. And I can't let my Republican colleagues off the hook. Right. If Biden nominees did any of this stuff, they would be apoplectic. But because it's Donald Trump, they either just fall in line or bite their lip or the whole confirmation hearing process has become a sad experience because it's not genuine on the other side. It's not real on the other side. The rubber stamping instead of standing up to our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent, of genuine background and vetting before we confirm nominees, that's just not happening. And it's a sad day for the country.

Jesse Dallimore (12:04)

What's your assessment in general of legacy and corporate media's coverage of what's happened since the second term started? I mean, because, you know, you look in different places and you hear, oh, it's the liberal media just wants to attack Trump. Or, you know, these phrases that don't, don't really dig deeply as someone who's in the Senate, you're voting, you're in hearings, etc. And you see what's happening. How do you assess the average sort of corporate media perspective on what's happening in the country right now?

Senator Alex Padilla (12:31)

Well, it's hard to get the whole story out right, because whether it's only speaking in sound bites or, you know, there's broadcast media versus the cable media and there's a blurry line sometimes between reporting the news and the facts with journalistic integrity versus, well, they got their spin on it. It's more of a talk show than actual news reporting. That's why these alternative outlets are so critical and why the followings are growing. Because people are seeing the authenticity and the truth and transparency for what it is, it's harder to find elsewhere and as part of the dismantling of our institutions, as you pointed out earlier, when you have a President of the United States who ignores Congress or a Congress that isn't willing to stand up to the executive branch, who dismisses the judicial branch, who attacks the media, who attacks our universities, who threatens some of the largest law firms in the country into submission, like you just go institution, institution by institution, that is falling because of the, of the demands of this authoritarian person of the White House, it's a tough day, but that just means our job is that much more important.

Unnamed Interviewer (13:49)

I don't know how we could have seen it coming, though. It's not like he said he wanted to be a dictator on day one.

Jesse Dallimore (13:53)

So, you know, came as a surprise to everybody. I think we. That we've covered everything.

Senator Alex Padilla (13:59)

Yeah, I think so.

Jesse Dallimore (14:00)

Thank you so much.

David Pakman (14:01)

Really appreciate your time.

Jesse Dallimore (14:02)

Thank you.

Senator Alex Padilla (14:02)

Until the next one.

David Pakman (14:03)

Yeah.

Jesse Dallimore (14:03)

Yes, absolutely.

David Pakman (14:06)

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 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 slash Pacman, scan the QR code or use the code Pacman in the app to start the link is in the description. Another senator we spoke with in Washington, D.C. is Senator Tina Smith, now Senator Tina Smith from Minnesota, directly connected to and affected by the political assassinations that took place. So we spoke to her about that legislative priorities and what is even possible when you are trying to negotiate with a Republican Party that's increasingly extreme and disconnected from reality. Let's check it out.

Unnamed Interviewer (16:05)

So in the wake of the tragedy in your state with your friend, the person you knew, I just want to kind of ask a question about how it's been for you and your colleagues working in this environment with Republicans who are as callous as some. You know, the world saw the photos of you in the hallway with Mike Lee. The world saw his tweets and the callousness of it. How are you? How are you approaching day to day working with these people?

Senator Tina Smith (16:38)

Well, I mean, honestly, it's a bit of a mixed bag. I mean, I have had many colleagues, including some of my Republican colleagues, come up to me privately and say express condolences in a very real and human way. And that's what it should be like. Right? We can have our disagreements and we have big disagreements, but we ought to be able to stay in touch with our humanity. When something really horrible like this happens. And I've even had some people who've come up to me and kind of privately done a little fist bump, like, I'm glad you did what you did on the Republican side. Of course, it would be better if they did that publicly, because I think that part of what happened with Senator Lee and me is that I needed him to hear from me directly how his words affected me and the people that I love and care about in Minnesota, that it wasn't going to be like another Twitter battle. It was going to be like, I'm a real person, and I need you to understand the impact of your words. And I think that's honestly what we need more of as we try to maintain our humanity in this incredibly difficult time when people are literally getting threats on their lives. Is.

Jesse Dallimore (17:54)

Yeah, it seems that at one point, the spectrum was sort of, we disagree about what the top tax rate should be to things like, I don't think two men should be legally allowed to get married. And they felt palpably different.

Kristi Noem (18:10)

Right.

Jesse Dallimore (18:11)

We now have. The spectrum is out the window where it's. I think my political opponents should be killed. Which feels so far from any kind of substantive or productive political disagreement that I just wonder your view as to whether. Has it gotten to a point where there are some that are so far outside the mainstream that you can't meaningfully have discourse anymore?

Senator Tina Smith (18:35)

I mean, I struggle with that because, I mean, how do you have a. If you're going to try to get something done with somebody, you might disagree on 98%, but you've got to have a level of trust on the 2%. And it's a struggle to figure out how do you have any level of trust with somebody who is, you know, pushing blatantly false conspiracy theories, who is, you know, like, literally making a joke out of the death of somebody that you care about? I mean, I really struggled with this after January 6th, and. And I saw some of the Republicans in the Senate vote not to certify the election. And I'm like, how can I actually do business with somebody who can't even acknowledge that Joe Biden is the lawfully elected President of the United States? And, you know, and I continue to struggle with it, but I also, you know, I look for places. I always look for places where I can find some level of. Like, for example, if I can work with one of my colleagues on something that's going to benefit a tribal nation in Minnesota because they have tribes in their state, and we can find a way of actually accomplishing something, then I'm going to take that opportunity because I sort of feel like that's my job.

Unnamed Interviewer (19:53)

Do you feel like you showing up and the confrontation that happened, we need more confrontations. I'm, I don't know if you get the vibe more of a confrontational kind of fella. Do you think that it has motivated your colleagues to like, this is the way forward? We need more of this because I believe we need more of this.

Senator Tina Smith (20:16)

I totally agree with you. I hope so. And I think, you know, in the Senate we have a tendency in politics, we talk about one another through other people. We engage in these sort of proxy wars with one another rather than like going to it. And that's what I wanted to do with Senator Lee. I wanted him to hear from me directly. I didn't want it to sort of in a back ass words way through, you know, through somebody else. And I think that's one of the reasons why people responded to it so much because it felt like in some way I was, in some ways I was saying to him what a lot of other people wanted to say to him and they could see it. And I totally agree with you. And you know, conflict, I mean, if conflict is handled in a respectful way, you know, where you're treating somebody with dignity, you, even if you're like truly confronting them on what you think is screwed up about what they're doing, I mean, that's like something that you need to know how to do in a democracy. And sometimes don't you feel like sometimes we've kind of forgotten how to do that? We.

Unnamed Interviewer (21:19)

Some of us have forgotten how to do that. I wouldn't name any names. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz. I could go on. But yeah, I mean, your partners in governance have abdicated their role as a constitutionally co. Equal branch of government to cede that power to Donald Trump. And it's. You don't have a partner in governance right now.

Senator Tina Smith (21:40)

That's true.

Unnamed Interviewer (21:40)

Who's a part of the other party.

Senator Tina Smith (21:42)

And I mean at least, at the very least standing up for the prerogatives of the United States Senate and the responsibilities that we have that we have been, you know, authorized to hold in our constitution. And when you have that, plus you have their just willingness to spout all sorts of things, things that I've got to believe they know are just not true. And you have, then you've really undermined like the ability that we should have as a democracy to actually do our jobs. And it's, yeah, it's bad what's your.

Jesse Dallimore (22:12)

Sense of when it comes to, I mean, we could talk about the tax bill because it's sort of like front and center. But I think bigger picture, one of the things my audience always asks about is the behind the scenes of getting these bills to the point where the vote happens and the sort of posturing and negotiating that happens and between the parties, is it collegial? Sort of the way that, you know, sometimes the two clients of lawyers are very much at odds, but for the lawyers, it's sort of like this is our job. It's not contentious in the way that it might be between the clients and the dispute. If we analogize that to the behind the scenes of what happens in the Senate, how do you bridge the gap on some of these fundamental disagreements with something as big as, like a tax bill?

Senator Tina Smith (22:54)

Yeah, well, so, I mean, it can be that way. You can have that, like, we agree, but we are, we're just trying to get the best for our clients, get the best for our constituents. And those negotiations can happen. And, you know, anytime you have a negotiation, you're looking for that, you know, on a Venn diagram, you're looking for the place where the interests overlap, and you're trying to maximize that overlap. And I think you can, you can see that happening on legislation, not happening now. I mean, let's be really clear because the Republicans are negotiating with themselves and the Democrats have been pushed out. We have, we have no say in what they're going to do. What we do have, as my friend Elizabeth Warren says, we might not be in power, but we are not powerless. And so we are using the power that we have to shine a light on what it is that they are doing, on helping to mobilize the opposition, on drawing attention to the terrible things that this bill will do. So we are using all the power that we have, but in this moment, we're not being negotiated with because they don't want our votes. They're going to do it on their own. And that's why it's going to end up being so terrible for so many Americans.

Unnamed Interviewer (23:56)

What can we as Americans do? I mean, obviously you have a privileged position being in power. What can regular people and, you know, random dumb dumbs on, on YouTube. I'll speak for myself, please. What can we do from a messaging standpoint to move the needle to, to, to. I mean, I don't think they are capable of shame. You lack dignity and you, you act like a ghoul. It just some rules don't apply. But what, what message would you have to our audiences about what can we do?

Senator Tina Smith (24:26)

Well, so. So I think first it's important to understand that Donald Trump's whole strategy, the strategy of these Republicans is to try to convince us that we don't have any power, that our voices don't matter, that we might as well just give up and go home and not pay any attention because they're going to be the deciders. And so the first thing is to really resist that and to just not let them take our power away. Whether you're a United States senator or whether you're, you know, a grandma holding up a sign over a freeway on Thursdays saying that, you know, you don't want, you don't believe in kings. And I think that is everybody, everybody can do something. It might be big or it might be small. Even the smallest thing makes a difference. I really believe that. I'm an organizer. I believe in the power of the grassroots to change things. And I believe that change is going to come to Washington. It's not going to come from Washington. And if you believe that, then you just do the things that you can do.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (25:23)

You show up for it.

Senator Tina Smith (25:25)

You know, I also just think that the thing that gives me faith in this moment is, you know, they may well succeed in passing this big, beautiful, horrible bill. But, like, the thing that gives me faith is that when people know about it, they think it's terrible. This is not what they voted for if they voted for Donald Trump. And it sure as hell not what they want to see happen to their communities under any set of circumstances. People didn't vote to, you know, take away people's support for their disabled children. They didn't vote to take away nutrition programs from kids and moms. That's not what they want. And so the thing, our challenge is to just get the word out and help people to understand what's happening and then, you know, get them. Get, you know, get them mobilized and activated. And that's actually what I think truly is what's so important about what you all are doing. Because most folks aren't, like, tuning into the NBC Nightly News, no offense to NBC. I'm not judging here. I'm just saying that's not where most people are going to find out what's happening. They're going to people whose opinions they trust to tell them. And that's why I think I'm not trying to suck up to you, but I think that's actually why what you're doing is important.

Jesse Dallimore (26:37)

Well, on that note, and I know you've got to run soon. One of the things that worries me about that we've got to tell people what's going on is if you go back to the Obamacare days, Obamacare included the state Medicaid expansion, which states could.

David Pakman (26:50)

Opt to do or not to do.

Jesse Dallimore (26:52)

And some red states, red state governors didn't do it. And then when it came to November of 2012 and that election, you had people in some of these red states who never got their health care. And they blamed Barack Obama. They didn't blame their governor who said, we're not participating in that expansion. How do we deal with that?

Senator Tina Smith (27:10)

Yeah, it's, I mean, it's in just this past election, we had some people who knew that abortion rights had been taken away from them in their states, and they knew that that happened when Joe Biden was president. So they figured it was Joe Biden's fault, even though it was the fault of the Trump Supreme Court. And so, I mean, there's no easy answer to that, as you well know. We have to. And I always hate it when people call folks that are like low information voters because, I mean, most people are just really busy trying to figure out how to make their lives work and don't have time to pay a lot of attention to what we're doing here in Washington or what's happening in their state house. But then there are moments where you see, like, really strong, exciting leaders who show up and are able to communicate and are talking about, like, delivering real change for people, and those folks are breaking through. I mean, I think, you know, I've been following the New York mayor's race super closely, but I think in a way we saw that a little bit yesterday. Somebody who was like a, you know, strong, compelling, was talking about the issues that matter in people's lives and he really broke through.

Unnamed Interviewer (28:18)

So you showed up today and when you confronted Mike Lee. So we, we appreciate it very much.

Jesse Dallimore (28:26)

Thank you so much for talking to us.

Senator Tina Smith (28:27)

Thanks for talking to me. I appreciate it. Do it again.

David Pakman (28:30)

So. So I learned a while ago that I was clenching and grinding my teeth at night. Not on purpose, not because I was necessarily stressed out by something obvious, but grinding and clenching without even knowing it. And when I talked to my dentist about it, about getting a night guard, it was a whole thing, appointment, mold, waiting, a bill that seemed very high. And ultimately I found Remy, and Remy is our sponsor. Today. Remy sends a kit right to your door to take an impression of your teeth with super clear, step by step instructions. You send it back to them. And they will custom make your night guard right here in the United States, in Las Vegas specifically. No waiting rooms, no overpriced bills. Just a better way to protect your teeth while you sleep. Try Remy Risk free at shop Remy.com/Pacman and use the code PACMAN to get 50% off your night guard at checkout. That's shop R E M I.com/Pacman. Use code PACMAN for 50% off. The link is in the podcast notes. Congressman Jamie Raskin sat down with Jesse Dallimore and with ME in Washington, D.C. constitutional law expert he knows. What is it that it will take to stop this authoritarian nightmare? Can Democrats do it? How should they do it? Let's get to that conversation.

Unnamed Interviewer (30:01)

Congressman, thanks for joining us. We appreciate you.

Kristi Noem (30:03)

I'm psyched to be here with all.

Unnamed Interviewer (30:06)

Of the damage and the deleterious effects of Donald Trump's, the policies and his appointments, you know, RFK and Linda McMahon and Doug Collins. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. What should the coordinated strategy from elected officials be to combat? I know it's kind of an overarching question, but to combat what's happening, both from messaging but also action to combat Donald Trump right now?

Kristi Noem (30:31)

Well, we've got to use every lever at our disposal in the constitutional system to fight back. And that's what we're doing. So we just had a hearing. I did this with Dick Durbin. We had a bicameral hearing with the Democrats in the House and the Senate with state attorneys general. And so we had a bunch of attorney generals come to talk about what they're doing to fight back. And we're working with them, filing amicus briefs in all of these cases, whether it's against Donald Trump's unconstitutional birthright citizenship order, purporting the nullified birthright citizenship, or his impounding of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds through an unconstitutional spending freeze, whatever it might be. We're intervening to stop them in court. We're fighting in the House, we're fighting in the Senate, and above all, we're fighting in the streets. I mean, I thought that the no Kings rallies were not only a magnificent achievement, but a really important intervention in terms of the dynamics of American politics, because the people are sovereign. And so we're fighting along with our allies at the state level and the local level. You know, this mayoral victory in New York that happened yesterday is huge for progressive politics in the country. Just huge. And a demonstration that we can build massive turnout, we can up turnout. Same thing Happened with Mikey Sherrill In New Jersey, 350,000 new people came out to vote. She told me, increasing the numbers and, you know, that's ultimately what progressive politics is about. It's progress for the country by getting more people engaged and involved in the fight for freedom and democracy.

Jesse Dallimore (32:13)

What are the levers that exist specifically? When last time you were on my show, we talked about, you know, we use phrases like the law dictates that the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that. And then that all is in a framework where people actually listen to court orders or they provide the due process that's due to people. If you have an administration that's just ignoring all of that and you have a party that doesn't really do much to say, hey, we want to hold you accountable as the law and order candidate and party that you said you.

David Pakman (32:41)

Were part of, what can you do.

Jesse Dallimore (32:43)

At the end of the day?

Kristi Noem (32:44)

So. Well, I mean, that is the right question, because if you believe in the Constitution in 2025, you got to fight for the Constitution in 2025. So take war powers. It's just totally, abundantly, overwhelmingly clear that only Congress has the power to. To declare war and to take us to war. I was reading some stuff this morning from James Madison, who said, like, this provision in the Constitution demonstrates the wisdom of the Constitution because the framers did not trust one guy. For them, the image they had was a king. But a president could become a king and plunge us into wars of fortune and profit and avarice and caprice. Right. Somebody could just decide, oh, I don't like that person, I'm going to go to war, or we're going to make some money. And, you know, just Madison said, just like the Constitution says, only Congress can get us into war. Only Congress, through the treaty power, can get us into an alliance. And there you need a two thirds vote of the Senate in order to get us into, you know, a treaty. So, yeah, the framers were just deathly afraid of what a president would do if he alone had the war power. So what are we doing? Well, we got the War Powers act, which a prior Congress passed, but we're trying to implement the War Powers Act. We're trying to get a majority of our colleagues, and it's bipartisan at this point to sign onto a War Powers act resolution demanding that the president come here. We are raising our constitutional prerogatives on a daily basis. We just had a press conference this morning about that. And, you know, the wisdom of the founders is vindicated by the fact that what Looks like it might be a cakewalk. And so why shouldn't a president be able to just bomb Iran? The more you look at it suddenly begins to disassemble in different ways. And there's a lot of fraudulence and a lot of PR that's built into these presidential hits. That's something the framers were really aware of. They thought that presidents would get into a war of glory, a war of ego, just to try to pump themselves up.

Unnamed Interviewer (35:00)

I'm a little surprised to hear the word fraud brought up in the same sentence as Donald Trump, but we'll ignore that. Apart from violating Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, with which war powers, and trying to amend the Constitution through executive action, what do you think? Governors using their 10th Amendment rights under the Constitution, what more can they be doing? What would you like to see them be doing to combat Donald Trump?

Senator Alex Padilla (35:27)

Well.

Kristi Noem (35:31)

I suppose it's an irony that, you know, the people who paid such lip service to the powers of the states and federalism, state governments are just trampling the powers of the states on a daily basis. Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass had the situation under control in California. It was like mass, nonviolent, peaceful protests. And then There was an eight or 10 block area where there were riots happening. And they dealt with it. They've got the police power there, they've got the chief of police. They didn't need Donald Trump coming in. But of course, he didn't see riots happening six blocks away from where he was on January 6, 2021. He didn't see a threat. When 140 of our police officers were being injured, wounded, permanently disabled and disfigured by his mob. He couldn't lift a finger there. He couldn't call the National Guard that was under his direct control because the D.C. national Guard's under his control. But he wants to send, he wants to federalize the National Guard and send federal troops to California. When the state and local law enforcement leaders are saying, we don't need your help, you're just going to make it worse. And he did. So California went to court. We're totally with them on that. To say, no, you don't have the power to federalize the National Guard or send troops into our state unless there's a real insurrection or rebellion. They won a great opinion from the district court judge. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit has put a stay on that. And so, you know, that's what these judicial battles are like. It's a seesaw fight. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But we're winning every single day. I mean, I think we now are over 195 preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against this reign of lawlessness. But as you move up in the courts, it gets more difficult. And of course, the most difficult is the Supreme Court because you're already starting with the 2 justice deficit with Scalia and Thomas, who are just acting like MAGA political operatives out in a state primary election or something.

Senator Alex Padilla (37:26)

Yeah.

Jesse Dallimore (37:27)

You mentioned Gavin Newsom to sort of switch gears only partially. I spoke to him last week and he described, you know, this incredible situation where the President said I spoke to Gavin Newsom in the last day about the National Guard. It turned out they had spoken four days earlier and that it was not about the National Guard. And Governor Newsom brought up that generally he thinks something is going on here. He's not a doctor, he didn't make any medical diagnosis. But the idea that this is a guy who's a little bit unstable sometimes there's 30 hour periods during which there's not a longer than three hour break at any point from posting on Truth Social.

David Pakman (38:03)

Right.

Jesse Dallimore (38:03)

I'm talking even overnight, no more than a three hour break. It's sort of like a. What's happening here? Have any of your colleagues on the Republican side intimated to you that they also suspect something may be going on with the president that is more than just he's a little excited. In other words, all of these questions that the corporate media doesn't seem to want to ask about.

Kristi Noem (38:25)

Not a word from any of them. And some of them do have questions about war powers.

Jesse Dallimore (38:29)

Okay.

Kristi Noem (38:30)

So, you know, some of them are willing at least behind the scenes to have a rational discussion about what's taking place. But on that, no. In fact, they keep talking about Joe Biden. And I think that the obsession with Joe Biden's geriatric health is a complete projection of what is going on with Donald Trump. Now, of course, you know the. But nobody's Talked about the 25th Amendment and presidential incapacity or inability to, to meet the demands of his office. But what we see on TV is truly cause for some alarm.

Unnamed Interviewer (39:10)

Not to ask you to diagnose the Republican Party or individual Republicans or even get into their brains. That's impossible.

Jesse Dallimore (39:17)

Unless you want to.

Unnamed Interviewer (39:17)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what do you, you're here, you work with these people on a daily basis. You hear conversations at an arm's length. What do you think the underlying motivation is or cause of their. I mean, is it just pure sycophancy? Is it fear of Donald Trump. Is it fear of electoral consequences based on the ire of maga? What is. What is it?

Kristi Noem (39:41)

Well, you know, it reminds me of the conversation we're having about judicial independence, because the framers of the Constitution and Jefferson in the declaration said King George was adamant about subduing the political will of the judges and controlling their salaries and controlling their tenure in office.

Unnamed Interviewer (39:59)

He swapped judges out.

Kristi Noem (40:01)

Yeah, yeah. Before the revolution. And, you know, we're in a fight right now to protect judicial independence against Republicans who want to try to control their access to security funding, for example. Well, judges have to know that they have adequate security funding, otherwise they're in real trouble in terms of being able to render the decisions they need to make if they're worried about whether they or their families are going to come under violent attack. And the threats are through the roof, not just for members of Congress now, but for judges, too. Ever since Trump began to say that Judge Boasberg should be impeached for what he had done. A radical left rogue judge who was appointed by President George W. Bush and was Brett Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale Law School. So. But it's the same sort of thing, which is there's a political economy to the invertebrate, discipline and cultishness of the Republican Party. Most of these people feel like Donald Trump could oust them just by endorsing a primary opponent. He used to have Elon Musk's money that he can unleash on them, but they got plenty of other sources to get money to unleash on them. But it's not just that they could diselect you or get you thrown out of office. It's also that, well, there's violent threats out there that are very easy to be activated. But also, even if you decide, okay, you're going to get out of Congress, you're going to do something different, you will never work in this town again kind of thing. You know, you will never be a lobbyist. We will not allow you to work in our hemisphere. So to get out is really to get out. That's like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinziger, Mitt Romney. And it's not a surprise that some of them have independent sources of power and income where they're not so worried about it. But a lot of the Republicans feel like, I don't know what I would do if these people asked me. And it's like being shunned by a religious cult at that point. So there is a real regime of fear that's taking place on the other hand, that's not attractive to everybody else in society. They see how the Republican Party is operating, and most people don't want to end up sleeping on the basement, listening to tapes of Donald Trump all night and selling flowers and incense at Dulles Airport for the rest of their lives. They would rather think for themselves like Americans do.

Jesse Dallimore (42:20)

Last thing I want to ask, and.

David Pakman (42:21)

We'Ll let you go.

Jesse Dallimore (42:23)

A question I get from my audience often is January 2029. Does the MAGA movement end with the end of Donald Trump's second term, or is this a movement that might persevere? And if it's a maybe, what does it depend on?

Kristi Noem (42:37)

Yeah, I think that the evils that people do in their lives probably live on beyond them. Right. And, you know, MAGA will keep going on in some form. The real question for us is we've got to put the program in place right now to show people what we're fighting to create in Project 2029. That's going to be our project. That's going to be our answer to Project 2025. And that's going to be not just democracy and freedom and justice for Americans across the country, but continuing achievements of democracy in terms of things like universal pre k and making sure we've got health care for everybody in the country and a right to vote, a constitutional right to vote for everybody, and statehood. And I'm not talking about Greenland and Canada and Panama. I'm talking about Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico and millions of disenfranchised Americans across the country. So I'm not content to be talking about restoration of the status quo ante before Donald Trump ever appeared. I'm talking about moving strong constitutional democracy into the future for this century. And we've got the leaders, we got the activists to do it, and we got the kids in democracy summer all over America ready to fight.

Jesse Dallimore (43:54)

Congressman, thank you.

Unnamed Interviewer (43:55)

Yeah. I was going to ask you for one last inspirational message, but you nailed it right there, so I didn't need.

David Pakman (44:01)

To ask so much.

Kristi Noem (44:02)

Great to see you guys. Keep up the great work.

Jesse Dallimore (44:04)

Thank you.

Kristi Noem (44:05)

Because the media is not the enemy of the people. You're the people's best friend.

Jesse Dallimore (44:09)

That's what we're saying.

Unnamed Interviewer (44:10)

I've been saying that for a long.

David Pakman (44:11)

Time in Washington, D.C. jesse Dallimore and I spoke with Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari, speaker, super interesting work that she's doing, both as a newer member of the House of Representatives and also as one of the youngest members of the House of Representatives. We spoke to her about how do you oppose the authoritarianism? How do you oppose a Republican majority? What do Democrats need to do? Let's check it out.

Jesse Dallimore (44:37)

So I want to talk about Iran first. At this point, there were total obliterations, Partial obliterations, partial. A setback of nine to 12 months. Now it seems like a setback of three to four months. I'm curious your take on are we just going to be in the same position again three months from now? And is there anything that can be done between now and then so that if the president wants to do another version of the same thing, maybe it does have to go through Congress and there's a vote. What can be done?

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (45:05)

Great questions. And I've thought a lot about this because obviously we know that Donald Trump has acted in a way that is so unpredictable. I think that everything that's happened over the last 12 days when it comes to foreign policy in Iran, I don't, I couldn't have made it up in my wildest imaginations. And I'm prefacing this just because, like, truly, he went over the course of 72 hours from saying, you know, he wants regime change to asking a city to evacuate, to wanting total peace. Now, as you're mentioning, the intelligence is all over the place. Yesterday we were supposed to have a briefing by senior administration officials, which never happened, which just shows me that they don't know what to say and they are preparing to lie to people because they don't, you know, the intelligence isn't backing it up. So first and foremost, I just want to say I don't trust this administration at all. And Donald Trump when it comes to handling this issue, I think that the fact that he decided to take this action, you know, bomb these nuclear sites without congressional authority, without demonstrating that the intelligence was there and demonstrate the urgency of doing so, and then now we don't even know what the effectiveness of the strikes are. I think that puts us in a very precarious position with negotiations because now you have a regime in Iran that is further oppressing. Its people obviously worried about its own survival and so will likely be even harsher. We already know that they're imprisoning a bunch of other people and, you know, saying that they are committing espionage, I am worried because, you know, if it's true that they are only just a few months away, we have now made it so that Iran would not like, why would they want to negotiate with the United States? Right. We also have lost our partners in this. You know, we have really alienated Europe, who was heavily involved in negotiations the first round when the JCPOA existed, China and Russia were very much involved. I mean, that's why that agreement was so historic. It not only included our allies, but it included many of our adversaries. And so I think, I mean, I think the best case scenario is that we can really make the case to the public right now that this was wrong. And polling does show that Democrats and independents largely believe that the strikes were illegal and should never have happened. And I think that pressure is going to continue to mount on the President. And we know that he, you know, he's somebody who aspires to get the Nobel Peace Prize and, you know, wants to be this master negotiator and is clearly very frustrated with some of his senior level officials for not being on the exact same line that he is. So I think that I'm going to continue to push for diplomacy. I think that hopefully we're going to have a vote on this War Powers Resolution that's bipartisan. We need to keep making that case. There was a press conference this morning on it outside of the Capitol. But we just can't let this go because I think we have completely alienated ourselves globally. We've potentially created an even more hostile regime in Iran, and they may end up with rushing towards a nuclear weapon as a result of what was done, because why would they not?

Unnamed Interviewer (48:28)

What do you think can be done from a messaging standpoint, both, you know, in a position like yours, a position like ours, our audiences just, you know, regular, everyday citizens, from a messaging standpoint, to communicate to others who may be on the fence. Because we're seeing Donald Trump's polls in a, in a steady plunge right now, right? Especially related to what just happened right, in Iran. His unpredictability, I think, needs to be communicated. I mean, even the fact that the Pentagon sent out two separate, almost diversionary, sorry missions, because he might talk about it, and to safeguard the safety of the troops. What can we be doing? What can you in power be doing more to communicate to the American people exactly how unpredictable and dangerous he is?

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (49:16)

Great question. I mean, I think we need to lean into the economics of it as well. I mean, as you have Trump, you know, making these reckless decisions and conducting foreign policy via truth social Republicans in Congress are trying to rip away health care from 15 million Americans. My generation and everyone, you know, older than me has grown up with these forever wars in the United States. And I think we really need to, like, hone in on that message that nobody wants another Iraq, another Afghanistan, trillions of dollars were spent, millions of lives were lost. Meanwhile, Americans cannot afford housing, they can't afford health care, they can't afford their energy bills. And so getting us locked into another long term conflict, which is always a threat when you are getting militarily involved, is going to be devastating for Americans here at home. I think we need to focus in on the impact on Americans here, our troops, and then of course the destabilization of the region and the lives lost. I think with, you know, the rise of social media and TikTok, I think especially young people are so tuned into conflict around the world and really don't like seeing, you know, conflict and innocent civilians killed. And there already have been hundreds of civilians killed, both Iranians and Israelis. And so I think more people need to be talking about this as elected leaders. I think there can be some fear sometimes on issues related to foreign policy. It's definitely challenging. It's not everyone's area of expertise. But this is pretty straightforward in that not only was it illegal, we don't even know that it was effective and now they're lying about the intelligence and we know where that got us with Iraq.

Jesse Dallimore (51:01)

I'm curious if you're willing to share, if you've had conversations with your colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. There seems to be this kind of split over within MAGA about Iran where on the one hand there are those who never really believed in the whole I'm the anti war candidate thing and they're saying, well of course that was never true. So of course this is now what's happening. On the other hand, you do have the people who did believe it and now are upset at what's going on and they're either equivocating and saying, well, he didn't really declare a war, so then this doesn't really violate the principle that he campaigned on. You know, these sort of like technicalities around it. Have you heard anything without naming anybody?

David Pakman (51:39)

Of course about or, or feel free to name people too. I would love it if you did.

Jesse Dallimore (51:44)

Name some people, but I don't expect you to. As far as like what are they really thinking as like did they really fall for the this is the anti war candidate or is it we did actually expect this.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (51:55)

I think I've had very few direct conversations, but based on. I've been following this issue super closely over the last two weeks and I think it's interesting to watch the reactions within the MAGA portion of the party. But also generally, I mean, I think that Ted Cruz interview was very enlightening. And I don't think I'm just gonna be honest. I think that if you interviewed many members of Congress in the Senate, you would have a similar response in terms of not knowing much about a country that you want to get militarily involved with, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. And I think that's been a major issue in U.S. foreign policy for decades, throughout our history. I think that we need more people who, like, understand the domestic politics of the countries that they seek to engage with, whether diplomatically or militarily, and know just the basic dynamics of that country. You know, Ted Cruz didn't know that the population of the country is 92 million. That's a third of the United States. I mean, this is a massive country with different ethnic minorities. The vast majority of people in the country oppose the regime, but that's 80%. So the 20% that don't, that's still a big portion of the country and a lot of people. And so I think what has been disheartening to see, going back to your question with Republicans, is I think there's also a faction of the party that is using this now as a justification of how to treat immigrants domestically. We people like, you know, there's people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, of course, have been, you know, openly opposed to war and are, you know, America first. But there's also others like Nancy Mace and others within maga, the pundits, Laura Loomer and such, who will do anything Trump says and are very actively like Laura Loomer has been using her platform to talk about deportations of Muslims or anyone that they think, basically anyone who's from the Middle east, who they think, no matter what their religion is, et cetera, et cetera. So I have been also thinking a lot about how Republicans are now going to use this as a way to continue ramping up their mass deportation agenda and ICE funding and all of that cross cruelty and racism that's taking place.

Unnamed Interviewer (54:20)

It seems like we're in a golden opportunity as Democrats and as people who message to the public to get ahead of that kind of a narrative that Laura Loomer and her Islamophobia and her hatred and her bigotry is, in order to get ahead of that and allow people to think, oh, yeah, Iran, bad Muslim, and they make these weird connections is that the vast majority of America do not want to be involved and embroiled in another conflict overseas.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (54:46)

Right.

Unnamed Interviewer (54:47)

And I think it's incumbent upon you as a member of Congress, US with, you know, our, our platforms and the American people in general to talk to their acquaintances and their friends and their family to get everybody on the same page that this is not what we want.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (55:02)

Yeah.

Unnamed Interviewer (55:05)

Where are you on, on the fact that so many people are ardently opposed to it and whether it be Democrat or Republican, I mean, we can all be doing a better job.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (55:17)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, the public is opposed to it. That's, that's a fact. I think we can keep educating them. But there is a disconnect between the public and how much leaders from both parties have been talking about being anti war. Like, it is just crazy to me. Even I think the War Powers resolution is like 60 some co sponsors now. It should be in the hundreds. I mean, we know the mistakes that were made. I don't know why more Democrats aren't on it. I of course, don't know why more Republicans aren't on it. But like even our party, we should be the anti war party and we should be more, you know, in tune with the mistakes that were made under George W. Bush and Republican presidencies and be, you know, leading with that because the public doesn't want to see it. So I totally agree with you, but I think I put more, you know, more blame on elected officials and not, not making this a bigger issue than, than it already has been.

Jesse Dallimore (56:13)

Last thing I want to ask you about, a lot of people in my audience, you can weigh in too, Jesse, as yours, but I think it's the same. There's not a high level of trust with the Democratic Party right now. And there's sort of this analogy to, you know, if you turn on the super bowl and the color commentary is a football coach who lost everything and now is brought in to say, I'm going to analyze this game and tell you what needs to happen. The equivalent to that would be Democrats having.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (56:36)

I'm trying to wrap my mind around sports analogies.

Jesse Dallimore (56:39)

The coach that lost is brought in as the expert.

David Pakman (56:41)

Right.

Jesse Dallimore (56:42)

And the analogy being Democrats that did not win in November. Now a lot of our audiences are saying, listen, we know all the bad things that Donald Trump is doing, the authoritarianism, all of it. And also we are unsure what is the path in 2026 and later in 2028 for Democrats to turn things around and take back control, which would be necessary in order to achieve political change. What approach do you think the Democratic Party needs to take that's beyond just these guys are no good.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (57:09)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think we have to be as bold as we possibly can be. I think that on Trump's end, you have somebody who is literally just like, saying a million things every single day, obviously during the campaign, making every promise imaginable, bold promises that, like, any reasonable person knows is probably not happening. But, like, I'm going to bring down grocery prices on day one. I'm going to end the war in Ukraine on day one. Da, da, da, da, da. And we, largely Democrats, are always just like, like softening every proposal and idea to the point because we're like, we, we think so in the weeds on it. Like, oh, what's, like, how are we actually going to get this done? And where's the money going to come from to get this done? And we need, like a 30 point plan. But people are so frustrated with the status quo and they want change. And I think, you know, the mayor's race in New York City, you know, primary, was a great testament to that last night. That, like, people want bold ideas and they also want authenticity. We've been scripted for far too long. Try to be just like the perfect, you know, elected official politician. And people just want real people, like, even if they don't 100% agree with what you're saying, they want to know that they trust that you are a human being. That's at least what I feel.

Unnamed Interviewer (58:30)

No question here. But it is heartening to hear someone who isn't seeming to adhere to a political order that no longer exists in America having some younger people, some younger voices with some new ideas who don't abide by this. My good friend across the aisle, while you're staring at Marjorie Taylor Greene, I mean, we don't have partners in governance anymore with the opposite party. And it's nice to hear. So thank you. To hear that from someone who's elected and works in the halls here and knows the dysfunction and the weird way of operating that is dead. Yeah, it's. No, it no longer exists. So, you know.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (59:11)

No, I mean, I'm new, you know, and I came from the Phoenix City Council where I did work with Republicans. You had to. You're technically nonpartisan. It's much more collaborative. But the truth here, to your point, is just like, how can you work with someone or a party that is literally completely okay with a president who is basically an authoritarian and wants to be a dictator? It's hard to be buddy, buddy with that kind of, you know, a person.

Unnamed Interviewer (59:43)

For all the talk of, of. Of bringing down the temperature.

Congresswoman Yasmin Ansari (59:46)

Exactly.

Unnamed Interviewer (59:47)

I, And I don't know how you feel, David, but yeah, I feel like it's not our responsibility to bring down the, to put out the fire necessarily that was started and continues to be stoked by Donald Trump and his acolytes. So yeah, it's a tough spot. And you, you have an impossible job.

Jesse Dallimore (60:03)

So thanks so much for talking to us today.

Senator Tina Smith (60:06)

Thank you.

David Pakman (60:08)

Your personal data is everywhere and you might not even know people. Search sites and data brokers are quietly publishing your name, address, phone number, even things like property records, political views. It is not just creepy, it's dangerous because scammers and fraudsters and shady marketers can use this information every day. Our sponsor, Incogni solves the problem for you. Incogni contacts the data broker sites on your behalf and forces them to delete your data. The data brokers are legally obligated to comply and Incogni handles the entire process for you. Incogni is now taking this even further with their custom removals feature included in the unlimited plan. They've got their 250 plus sites where removal is automated. But if you find your information anywhere else, you can custom submit that and they will have it removed manually. This is serious protection. Using Incogni can cut way down on the spam calls and the messages that you get. Fewer risks, more control over your identity. Try it risk free for 30 days and get 60% off an annual plan when you go to incogni.com pacman that's incogni.com/pacman for 60% off. The link is in the podcast notes. All right, let's get into Friday feedback for the week. Holiday Friday feedback. You can always email info@david pakman.com but we will sometimes feature comments or replies on any of the platforms where we publish our content, including Spotify, Facebook, Tik Tok, the whole thing. Ok, let's start with J M, F L Cocktail era who says it's not Trump posting on exit midnight. He writes his messages in advance and then hands them out to someone to post them at a predefined hour of the night. Is that surprising in any way, shape or form? Step it up, David. So a few different things. First of all, Trump doesn't do that. Ok, There, there are documentaries showing when Trump is posting these things and he's very, especially over the last 10 days, Trump has been posting minutes after things happen at midnight. You know, with, with the big beautiful bill on the Senate floor, stuff's been happening all night and Trump's immediately posting. So the idea that he's pre writing these things and saying Post this at 2am when it's about something that happened at 1:50am it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. But also, this is just like not really the way that it's done. The idea that Trump would sit there on Friday morning and go, all right, here's what I'm thinking about for Saturday, 3am to post, none of it makes any sense at all. Now, by the way, even if it were true that Trump's unhinged truth social posts were not really Trump do it, pushing the button because Trump was sound asleep or whatever, it kind of doesn't matter whether it's Trump pounding them out while pacing around in his bathrobe or whatever, the entire nature of it is this chaotic, unhinged reflection of Trump's brain. And so whether it was typed at 3am or typed at 3pm and launched at 3am via some staffer, the substance of it, not the mechanics, are probably the most important thing. And if we're analyzing the political impact, it doesn't really matter. Now, as I've said before, I prefer pilots who are well rested, I prefer doctors who are well rested, and I prefer presidents who are well rested too. So I think even on just the mechanics of it, the Trump overnight posting is wacky. But everything this person is saying is is not true. All right, Secret claps says I voted for Trump. And what's heartbreaking for me is the wars he's getting us into. Considering he said we would not join any new wars. This is the type of comment that actually means something. I voted for Trump because he promised a and now he's doing the opposite of a A lot of Trump voters would never even allow this sort of self reflection. But it does point to something that we've been talking about. There are some Trump some Trump voters who I accept voted for Trump because they believed he's going to be the peace president, not the war president. He's going to really do America first and whatever. I think that it made no sense to believe that Trump was going to offer those things. I think that they deluded themselves or were. But there are some people who voted because they thought that they were getting what Trump was saying. And instead they're watching the cycle of escalation and intervention and saber rattling and doing the opposite of what's good for the average American. And they're acknowledging I am duped. So in a sense, I know that we're digging pretty deep here in a situation that's a disaster to find something good. The silver lining is that there are any people who are willing to self reflect and say, these are broken promises. Trust has been broken. Trump ran on this stuff and he didn't do it. He's doing the opposite. And nobody should be ashamed. Nobody should be shamed for acknowledging that. We should encourage it. And you know what, Secret Claps, I don't know how you ever fell for it, but I'm glad that you're reflecting and saying, I did fall for it and I'm now changing my mind. That's a very good thing. King Turd Ensemble wrote in and said on YouTube, you're pathetic, Pacman. I used to like you, but you've become hysterical. You have clickbait titles the world is always on fire with you. Listen to Kyle Kalinsky or the New Turks. I haven't heard of the New Turks. Don't listen to Pacman. Fudge. Okay, this is the classic, I used to like you, but now that you're doing X, no more, no more. Here's the reality when democracy is being eroded and the press is being attacked and people are being rounded up and a tax bill is floating around that would just damage so many average Americans. Should I say I'm mildly concerned by this? Should I do the Susan Collins thing? Well, I'm definitely worried about if the house is burning down. Am I going to sit here sipping, you know, whatever and going, hmm, I love the. I like the flavor of my tea? No. And what I always try to do is not be overly hyperbolic or not urgent enough and to tell my audience honestly where I think things are. Now, as far as, you know, YouTube titles, as I've said before, if every title was President outlines economic policy, we would get no views. No one would learn about what's going on. Okay? So you do have to, to a degree, play the game. And if you look at the titles of our podcast episodes, which is a non algorithmically based thing, the titles are completely different. They're much lower temperature. And okay, to a degree, if you want to have your content seen, you've got to play the game. I know a lot of people don't like that. Now, by the way, if you like Kyle Kalinske better, or you like the Young Turks better or the New Turks better, watch them, right? I mean, I'm not here saying this is the show for everyone. Don't watch anything else. Just watch this. The whole point here is watch whoever you like, that's fine. But don't confuse urgency with hysteria, okay? There are serious things going on and I'm trying to get people's attention. Shradd wrote Are you libtard are not welcome here. MAGA has spoken. Your hair looks so stupid. You know, every once in a while a comment shows up that is so unintentionally funny that when you read it out loud, you really learn, like, this is what we're dealing with, okay? There is no policy critique. There is no argument. This is drive by playground bullying from someone who never evolved beyond AOL chat rooms in 2003. If my hair is your biggest problem with what I'm saying, that is a win for me. And if we're real, these comments are not made to persuade anybody. These are meant to just insult. But they say so much more about the person writing them than they do about me. As I've said before, when you think for a moment and you go, what must be going on in someone's life that they see a video on YouTube and something happens in their brain where they go, I'm going to write a comment. Are you libtard are not welcome here. MAGA has spoken. Your hair looks stupid. We should be sad because these people's lives are terrible and that's why they're subjected to doing this stuff. All right, James Larson, 394, wrote. David Pakman, Seriously, you've become a drama queen with your daily personal attacks on Trump and company. You want a bit more decorum, but Trump is the only leader who aggressively tells the truth and is making you safer from people like yourself. This one's interesting because it's revealing. You know, I'm the drama queen for criticizing Trump, but then James insists Trump's the only one telling the truth and protecting people like me from people like me. The sentence crumbles under its own grammatical weight, but it's a perfect example of how Trump cult logic spirals inward. It just, it spirals in on you and you end up thinking that the real threat isn't corruption, it's not authoritarianism, it's the people pointing it out that are the problem. Now, the reality is we don't attack Trump Daily because it's fun. We attack Trump Daily because he's at the top of a movement that's actively undermining institutions, targeting protesters, threatening journalists, and staging this slow motion authoritarian disaster under the guise of imposing law and order. That's not the side note, that's the story. And so if when I tell the truth, it makes me a drama queen. Pass the crown, James. Pass the crown. Ok, earlier wrote on Spotify. Now this is. I love this because it's a completely different critique that conflicts with the earlier ones. Allyer says this show has lost all its credibility. Pandering to the far left for money. The current left is the actual problem. Sabotaging elections for self righteous reasons. The left calls Booker, AOC and Sanders sellouts and you keep pandering to them. I am glad I canceled my aibo. I don't know what ABO is. Maybe it's a membership or maybe they meant to put sub f CK America and your toy sick culture war toxic. So here's, here's the thing with this stuff, all right? I believe that 98% of my audience, 94% of my audience is not in this tiny sliver of the left that goes, nope, AOC sold out. She's not left enough anymore. Nope, Bernie sold out. He's not left enough yet anymore. I think that that represents a tiny sliver of my audience. What I love about this post is that on the one hand I'm criticized by the so called far left because I don't pander to the far left. Right? There's a huge slice of the people I hear from that's angry with me that I'm not pandering to the far left. Why am I not a socialist? How dare I? This guy is upset. Don't know if it's a guy. I'm going to assume it's a guy because most of the people who write this crap are and the audience skews slightly male. This guy says I am pandering to the far left for money, as if there were even money to be made. Pandering to the far left, which hates me because I don't pander to them. As I've always said, I'm progressive, but I'm not delusional. I want outcomes. I don't care so much about slogans. If you're voting the wrong way or you're sabotaging the goal of maintaining democracy and beating back authoritarianism. We're just not on the same page. And the people that are now saying AOC sold out, Sanders sold out, I don't think that that's going to get the movement where I would like to see it go. JC wrote, when the political pendulum swings hard in one direction, it typically swings just as hard back in the other. This is what I've warned family that are Trumpers about for years. The precedents that Trump has been obliterating will be disastrous in their worldview when the left regains power. This is an interesting idea that what Trump is doing will actually be disastrous for his political movement later. You Know, the people that are cheering on the authoritarianism because it's their guy doing it are forgetting a basic rule of history. Tools built for your enemy eventually get turned against you. And if Trump ignores habeas corpus and deploys troops against civilians and rewrites norms and all of that, at least theoretically, those powers will exist when Democrats take office. Now, I think what insulates them to some degree is that I don't really know of too many Democrats that are interested in. In subjecting democracy to its dethroning in the way that Trump and the people around him are. So the one thing that might prevent their own tactics to be turned against them is that when Democrats get elected, they don't seem to have an interest in doing that stuff. Biden won, and he didn't do any of the authoritarian stuff that Donald Trump did. So that that may be their saving grace. Gluganomics with a fight. Finally, a positive comment on TikTok. You were one of the few people who were giving a realistic outlook on the presidential election, and I was mad at you for it. You know, a lot of people were. If you go back to 2020 as a Bernie supporter, at a certain point, I said, biden's going to be the nominee. And some people appreciated it. And others said, david, no, you're bad, because you're telling us what you actually believe. You need to keep irrationally saying, Bernie's got it. And similarly, in 2024, there were people in my audience who were furious when I said, listen, all along, I said, I don't think Biden should have even run for reelection. But up to a certain point, I believe Biden had the best chance to win. After the June 27th debate, that changed. And I said, guys, I don't think Biden's going to be able to stay in. And I had people saying, no, you need to support and say, he's got to stay in. And of course, in retrospect, I think 99% of my audience has come around to that. The fact that gluganomics is willing to admit they were mad at me, but I said the truth, it's a reminder. It's not. It's not a I told you so, ok? It's a reminder of how emotionally charged these things can get. I would rather be here saying, this is reality and what we're up against. It might cost me some viewers short term, but over the long term, I will do best, and we will do best if I just always tell you what I believe and never concoct or contrive positions based on how I think the audience will respond. I hope you have a phenomenal Fourth of July weekend. Make sure you're on my substack. Get a membership@join pacman.com let's do it all and I will see you on Monday.

Ben (from the Expedia ad) (77:10)

Ben hadn't had a decent night's sleep in a month, so during one of his restless nights, he booked a package trip abroad on Expedia. When he arrived at his beachside hotel, he discovered a miraculous bed slung between two trees and fell into the best sleep of his life. You were made to be rechargeable. We were made to package flights and hotels and hammocks for less. Expedia made to travel.