Caroline Levitt (9:01)

Caroline, I don't know if you saw the top of the show. It looks like there has been an.

David Pakman (9:05)

Investigation opened up into James Comey and John Brennan possibly lying to Congress in a conspiracy over the Russia hoax. What can you tell us about that?

Pam Bondi (9:18)

Well, I just heard that news at the top of your show and I'm glad to hear it because both of these disgraceful individuals turned against our Constitution and our country. And I'm sure they did in fact lie to Congress. And it's up to the Department of Justice to investigate that and to prosecute them if they did. And what we have seen is corruption at the highest levels against President Trump. The deep state threw everything at him to prevent him from coming back to this big, beautiful White House behind me. And he prevailed. And the truth must come out. And this administration is totally committed to transparency and to justice and to accountability. And we must have a rule of law in this country. We can't be a nation without law and order. That's what the president believes in. And I'm glad to see the Department of Justice is opening up this investigation.

David Pakman (10:02)

That's right. The people who don't want to answer a single question about why are Trump's hands so bruised and swollen, Is he getting IV medication for anything? They, they, they don't want to answer even that. But they are committed to transparency by weaponizing the DOJ and the FBI against their perceived political enemies. The people who haven't released a real economic report in weeks and who ran on draining the swamp, who end up filling government with their cronies and family friends now are telling us the investigation into James Comey and John Brennan is going to give us truth and it's going to give us accountability. Give me a break. And so we One of the things I think is important to do, and we'll talk to Mark Elias about this a little bit later, is we need to clarify that this is Trump using the federal government to fight vendettas against his political enemies or to air vendettas to prosecute vendetta's. These are criminal probes into the same two people who helped investigate Russian interference in 2016. The interference that every American intelligence agency confirmed did happen. Even if Mueller couldn't charge a criminal conspiracy, which he couldn't Comey led the FBI, Trump, Russia investigation. Brennan ran the CIA when the US Concluded Russia interfered to help Trump. Trump has raged about these men for years, and now he's back in power. And so the DOJ is his tool. It's a, it's a toolbox of political payback. Caroline Levitt's not denying it. She's celebrating it. Celebrating it. Trump has claimed for years Biden's weaponizing the doj. What Trump meant was, if I were in Biden's position, I sure as hell would be weaponizing the doj. And now Trump is doing what he falsely accused Biden of doing, launching DOJ investigations into people he didn't like, people who hurt his feelings, people who he blames for exposing what happened in 2016. And so this is much closer to dictatorship than it is to law and order. And the really scary part is this is not some rogue faction in the government doing, behind, doing this behind closed doors. They've decided to, they are just this. This is the government coming from the top. Caroline Levitt, the official voice from the Trump White House, celebrating it. She's giddy. She even said, I'm sure they did commit crimes. What? That's not due process. A statement from the official White House press secretary that individuals who have not even been charged with a crime definitely committed crimes. It's not oversight, it's not justice. The only word we can really assign to this is that this is an attempt at revenge. We don't know how far this is going to go. And so we're going to do everything to continue supporting the movement for democracy, due process and law and order. They don't really support that. They pay lip service to it, but they don't. And so I invite you to join us on our YouTube channel, YouTube.com/the David Pakman Show. Join us on Our Substack Newsletter, substack.david pakman.com Workplace stress is very high right now. 61% of the global workforce reports higher than normal stress levels. And vacations can temporarily help, but usually you need a long term solution. And that's where our sponsor, BetterHelp, comes in. BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform. More than 30,000 licensed therapists. Therapy can help you develop real coping skills to manage everyday challenges. You can start sessions from wherever you are. You can switch therapists at any time, no extra cost. You really don't need to be in crisis for therapy to be useful. David Pakman show listeners get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com/pacman show that's better H E L p.com/pacman show to get 10% off your first month. The link is in the podcast notes. Are you feeling stuck in your job? Many people are. And true career growth does require some strategic thinking. And that's where Strawberry.me comes in. Our sponsor, Strawberry Me is a platform that will connect you with certified personal coaches specializing in career growth. If you're planning your next move, transitioning fields. If you want to lead more effectively, they can help. This is not therapy. This is not bogus generic advice. These are certified trained professionals who work with you to create a personalized plan that aligns with your goals and your values. You can clarify your challenges, build a strategy, and maybe most importantly, they'll hold you accountable every step of the way. So if you're ready for the next step, visit strawberry.me/pacman. There's a short quiz. It'll match you with the right coach. Sessions are virtual, flexible and also designed to work with your schedule. So stop guessing and start growing. Go to strawberry.me/pacman to get started. That's strawberry me/pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show is an audience supported independent media program that is not just a talking point. That is not some vague reference to who knows what. That's the structure of this show. We're primarily funded by individuals like you who become members at join pacman.com who become substack paid subscribers at substack.david pakman.com that's how we do the show. That's how salaries are paid for connectivity, the studio, my ever problematic haircuts. It's all paid for now. Actually I pay for the haircuts myself. If you want to support this pro democracy movement that is looking to beat back these authoritarian surges, I invite you to get a membership@join pacman.com Remember, if you would like a membership but can't afford one, you can go to David pakman.com/free membership. Enter your email address to be put in line for a free membership. And of course if you want to gift some memberships, we've got over 3,000 people waiting for memberships right now. You can go to join pacman.com and select that this is a gift but box when signing up will gift that membership to someone on the waiting list. Donald Trump has done the unthinkable. He is now suggesting the federal government taking over American cities. Washington D.C. new York City. Trump is talking about federalizing the cities of the United States. Like, these are companies he's about to acquire. No shareholder vote, though. No press release, Just a smirk and a mumbled comment at a Cabinet meeting. We're looking into running D.C. it's like a casino. He's thinking about flipping.

Donald Trump (17:40)

You know, we have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to. We could run D.C. i mean, we're. We're looking at D.C. we don't want crime in D.C. we want the city to run. Well, Susie Wiles is working very closely with the mayor, and they're doing all right. I mean, in the sense that we would. We would run it so good, it would be run so proper. We'd get the best person to run it. The crime would be down to a minimal, would be much less. And, you know, we're thinking about doing it, to be honest with you. We want to. We want a capital that's run flawlessly and it wouldn't be hard for us to do it. And we've had a good relationship with the mayor, and we're testing it to see if it works. But New York City will run properly. We're going to bring New York back.

David Pakman (18:28)

Just like it's, by the way, also New York City. We can run New York City as well. And why? Well, he's worried that Zoran Mamdani might become the mayor of New York City. And then all of a sudden, it's the tremendous power of the White House that would descend upon D.C. and New York City. You can kind of feel the ground shifting a little bit here. You know, one moment Trump's criticizing crime statistics. Okay, he's lying about him, but at least he's sticking to crime numbers. And then the next moment, he's suggesting, well, maybe the elected governments of these cities don't really matter. Like the fact that voters in those cities have chosen their leaders. Maybe I just take over. Or if I don't like who wins an election in New York City, I just take it over. These are not like backroom whisperings that he's ashamed to say publicly. He's. He's on camera, he's saying it out loud. And it's sort of like, come, stop me if you think you can. So not hypothetical. Donald Trump has already sent these heavily armed federal agents into Los Angeles. No warning, no coordination. Certainly no request from the Mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, or the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Just. We're just doing it. That's it. Boots on the ground, Immigration enforcement, they said. But it really looked like a trial run for martial law. And so we are operating here with a new playbook. Mayor Karen Bass pushed back. She was told by a Border Patrol official, you better get used to us, this is how strongmen really operate. The rule of law isn't so important. The rule of law is something that's kind of like, cool if it's convenient, but otherwise, it's, we do what we want. We retroactively find some kind of a justification later. Maybe it's, oh, there's crime in D.C. we had to take it over, or there's homelessness in New York City. Why not? We've got to take it over, and that'll do for them. That, that the part of, you know, when we sometimes report on these accidental deaths in Russia, which are clearly not accidental. And some of you write to me and you go, david, how does Putin think anyone will believe these were really accidents? And the important thing to understand is that's the whole point. Putin pays lip service to. These were accidents, but in a way where everybody knows they aren't really accidents. And that's the exact same idea here. It's, we don't even respect you, you or care what you think enough to convincingly lie to you about what we're doing. We will deliberately, unconvincingly lie. It's such a shame that this political adversary of Putin fell out of a window and landed on a knife 14 times accidentally. Right? And we go, that's not believable. That's the whole point. Part of the, part of the whole thing is we don't even care that, you know, we're lying about it. So you don't really need to squint to see the direction that this is going. It's D.C. maybe it's new York City. Then it's any mayor who resists, any governor who disagrees, any journalist who doesn't get in line. And Trump's not teasing out policy ideas, he's just mapping out the next phase. Consolidate power, centralize authority. Elections won't really matter if that's what Trump can do. And, and you read about this stuff in the history books. This is if you want examples of how democracies sort of hollow out, you can read about this stuff. 19th and 20th century history. Now, as far as sort of takeovers of cities or states, you know, after the Civil War, federal troops were stationed in some Southern states. And there were people who said, that's an overreach. But the critical difference was after a civil war that was fought over slavery, federal troops were stationed in Southern states temporarily to enforce civil rights to protect black Americans from white supremacist violence. So it was still controversial and it got pretty messy and brutal at times, but at least it had a moral core, which is, hey, we just fought a civil war. The north won. We're not doing slavery anymore. We are going to be there to protect the rights of people. Trump is proposing the opposite. Trump is like, let's use federal power not to protect civil liberties, but to trample on them. Let's use federal power not to respect democracy, but to tell the people of D.C. and New York, I don't care who you voted for, we're coming in and we're going to be the ones who have the power. So when we see countries slide into authoritarianism, it often happens from the outside in military coups, shadowy conspiracies, exiled leaders pulling strings. This is flipped. This is Trump sitting at the head of the table on national tv spitballing, how can I seize more control that certainly no one voted to give me? And that isn't actually part of the way the country is organized. So rather than like a behind closed doors couple, it's a running monologue about how can I dismantle democracy more effectively. Fox is playing in the background. Trump sitting there with his water in front of him and going, yeah, we might, we might do it. So rather than a bang, it's these small, surreal steps. It all starts to feel a little normal. Listen, we had troops in L. A already, so it's just, it's oversight of cities. Maybe we'll do a little more of it in New York. Maybe we'll do a little more in D.C. so Trump is not bluffing. We should not believe that he's joking. He's just telling us what comes next. The question is, is anybody going to listen? Donald Trump suffering a painful cognitive failure at a Cabinet meeting on live television. Clear evidence, clear evidence of presidential cognitive issues that the corporate press is going to ignore because it's either silly Trump or he didn't mean it or he was confused. Trump is asked by a reporter, did you rather Ukraine asked the international court to go after Russia for using toxic chemicals in the war? Trump doesn't know what the hell is going on. Asks Pete Hegseth very quietly, do you know about this? Hegseth goes, john might know. And Trump just goes, I don't know. Can someone tell me what my policy is on this.

Pam Bondi (25:09)

International court to go after Russia for using toxic chemicals in the fight?

Donald Trump (25:15)

Germany.

Pam Bondi (25:16)

Germany and the Netherlands have intelligence saying that what does U.S. intelligence believe. And what do you believe about the usage chemical weapons?

Donald Trump (25:24)

And would you agree that that's a case?

David Pakman (25:29)

While the questions asked, Trump knows he doesn't know a damn thing. He leans over and says, what do we know about this? What do we know about this? And Hegseth is like, oh, John might know. John might know.

Donald Trump (25:41)

What is John maybe to discuss it, if you'd like. John? Well, Mr. President.

Caroline Levitt (25:49)

Obviously, chemical weapons, if it's documented in its use, it's illegal, it's against all international laws of armed conflict and treaties. And obviously, I can't share in this room with this audience the intelligence that I can share with you privately, but obviously you're not going to stand or allow for any violations of international law by anyone.

David Pakman (26:09)

Did you understand what just happened there? This, this. If this were Biden, it would be a week on Fox News, Trump immediately identified. I don't have a clue in hell what they're talking to me about. So he goes to Pete Hegseth, who knows about this. Hegseth goes, talk to John. And John tells Trump what his policy is. That that's the sick thing of it. Trump is told, Mr. President, of course, you would never stand for the use of chemical weapons. Right, of course I wouldn't. Thanks, John, for telling me what my position is. This is also, by the way, what happens when you skip intelligence briefings. Trump then asked, did you approve of the pause of weapons shipments to Ukraine? And Trump goes, I don't know. Who ordered that pause? Why don't you tell me?

Donald Trump (26:59)

We're getting along with China very well.

Pam Bondi (27:03)

To Ukraine, as you said last night. Last week, the Pentagon paused some shipments of weapons to Ukraine. Did you approve of the that we.

Donald Trump (27:10)

Want to put defensive weapons because Putin is not. He's not treating human beings right. He's killing too many people. So we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I've approved that.

Pam Bondi (27:23)

So who ordered a pause last week?

Donald Trump (27:25)

I don't know. What did you tell me?

David Pakman (27:30)

Trump asking the reporter, you tell me who in my administration ordered the pause. If Biden had said this, it would be news for weeks with 100 stories about his mental acuity, a shadow government. Biden's a clone. He doesn't know what's going on. And it is now a daily occurrence. A daily occurrence, which under Biden would be, we got to remove this guy. Trump is checked out. He doesn't have the mental acuity to understand anything. He then rambled about the Great Depression and wrongly stated that after the Great Depression, the United States implemented Tariffs. Little problem with this. Tariffs were before the Great Depression, country.

Donald Trump (28:25)

Had a Great Depression. And then after the Depression, as after long after it started, they brought back tariffs to start, see if they could save it. But it took them really 25 years, when you say about 25 years to get out of the Great Depression. A lot of people don't understand that.

David Pakman (28:42)

Yeah, by all estimates, it took 10 to 12 years to get out of the Great Depression. But the Great Depression was after the enacting of tariffs, not before. Just facts. Right. But it's Trump legacy in corporate media won't touch it. The Cabinet meeting then went completely off the rails. Trump starting to talk about gold leafing.

Donald Trump (29:03)

The corners, painted the room a nice color, beige color. And it's been, it's been really something. The only question is, will I go live the corners? You could maybe tell me. My cabinet could take a vote. You see, you see the, you see the top line moldings. And the only question is, do you go live it? Because you can't paint it. If you paint it, it won't look good because they've never found a paint that looks like gold. You see that?

David Pakman (29:30)

One of Trump's favorite topics, paint just never really looks like gold. I want people to understand something. This is the meeting. People wonder, oh, they talk to the press for 15 minutes, but clearly they must spend hours in a meeting talking about the serious issues. Right? Wrong. Unlike in other administrations, there is no behind the scenes. The full meeting is this. It's made for tv. There is no other part of this. Trump again says China has no wind farms. China actually leads the world in wind.

Mark Elias (30:04)

Capacity to what they'll be in about.

Donald Trump (30:06)

A year from now. But we're setting records. And wind is a very expensive form of energy. It's very bad for your beautiful surroundings and plains and the valleys and the birds dying all over the place. You know, the whole thing is a disaster. They're almost exclusively made in China. Not that I have anything against China, because I don't have a great relationship with President Xi. But I asked him, how many wind farms do you have? He makes them, but they don't have a lot of wind farms. I'll tell you. Very, very few. And wind is tremendously expensive and is very ugly. And if you own a house that's inside of a windmill, your house is worth less than half. And people. And you hear noises. And interestingly, in New England, you probably read where for 50 years they had two whales washed up. 50 years. And last summer they had 14 washed up. Now, I'M not saying that's the wind farm that was built, but maybe it is, right? Probably. Probably is.

David Pakman (31:06)

I'm not saying the wind farms in Massachusetts caused whales to wash up, but it probably is. And then this just going so off the rails. So off the rails that Fox News felt they had no choice but to cut away to protect Donald Trump was nothing.

Donald Trump (31:26)

We also painted the room a nice color, beige color. And it's been, it's been really something. The only question is, will I gold lift the corners? You could maybe tell me my cabinet could take a boat. You see the, you see the top line moldings. And the only question is, do you go with it? Because you can't paint it. If you paint it, it won't look good because they've never found a paint that looks like gold. You see that in the Oval Office.

Pam Bondi (31:54)

All right, we're about half past the hour here. This is America reports we have been watching this cabinet.

David Pakman (31:59)

So Fox gets the hell out of there as Trump basically rants like a guy in Home Depot about which paint is good versus not so good. That was the cabinet meeting. There was no high level discussion behind the scenes before. After that was the cabinet meeting. Corporate media will not talk about what's going on with this guy's brain. Tragic, tragic stuff. Let's be honest, when it is hot outside, the way it's been, bad underwear makes it really much worse. Our sponsor, Sheath Underwear, has completely rethought how men's underwear should function in the heat. Sheath's boxer briefs are designed with a dual pouch system, keeping everything in place separate, ventilated. This means less sweat, less sticking, less of that awkward adjusting. And if you're not using the pouches, the fabric alone is a game changer. Soft, stretchy, moisture wicking now available in cooling materials like bamboo and mesh. I wear these at the gym during long work days, especially when I know it's going to be hot outside. It just keeps you dry and comfortable. And they've really raised my expectations about how good, good underwear can be. Wearing sheath is like having built in climate control for the lower half of your body. Everything stays cool, dry and where it should be. If you've never thought much about your underwear, this is the one brand that might make you start. Go to sheath underwear.com/pacman. Use the code PACMAN for 20% off. That's s h e a t h underwear.com/pacman. Use code PACMAN for 20% off. The info is in the podcast notes. 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. And 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. It's great to welcome to the program once again Mark Elias, a voting rights attorney and the founder of Democracy Docket, which is the leading digital news platform dedicated to information analysis and opinion, specifically about voting rights and elections in the courts. Mark, we could start in any number of places, but because I told my audience that I would start here, I want to start with this news of the DOJ and FBI investigating former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA director John Brennan. For years we heard from Donald Trump, Joe Biden is weaponizing investigative agencies. And what he really meant was if I were in Biden's shoes, that's what I would be doing. And in fact, it's what he is doing. How big of a deal is this really if you're James Comey or Brennan right now?

Mark Elias (36:19)

So I think we need to unpack this a little bit. The first is if you're James Comey or Brennan, it's certainly not welcome news. It's not like what you are hoping for. But this is likely not going to amount to very much. I mean, let's start with the fact that the facts at issue, whatever comes of them one way or the other, took place eight years ago or more. The statute of limitations is five years. So nothing that happened prior to say 20, 25 years ago would be would be prosecutable anyway. That's before you get to the fact that they Almost certainly did nothing wrong. And that is also. Remember, Donald Trump actually did this playbook in his first term. People forget this, but Donald Trump accused Barack Obama of wiretapping him, accused Hillary Clinton of election interference in 2016, and in, and importantly accused the FBI of, of election interference. And Bill Barr appointed John Durham a special counsel to look into the allegations, specifically with respect to the FBI, which then looked at the Clinton campaign, also the other intelligence agencies. There were cases that John Durham brought, those led to acquittals. And so it is hard to see, not only is it old, not only is it political, but it is also like this ground. Donald Trump has played this card once before, and I don't see this going anywhere.

David Pakman (38:01)

We then move into. And then we're going to weave. I'm doing the weave right now. We're then going to weave all of these things together. So. So we've got that maybe on a personal level, based on the statute of limitations, may not end up becoming a big thing for Brennan or Comey. Fine. We then have CBS and Paramount, which have been sued by Donald Trump. They do appear to be moderating their journalism, their sort of eagerness to reach lawsuit settlements that some describe as frivolous. Although I know that lawyers take issue sometimes with the term frivolous. So, I mean, it's frivolous. It's frivolous. Okay, fine. So I'm using it colloquially. You're not, but it's frivolous. What I'm seeing is it's working in the sense that these media institutions do seem like they would rather stay on Trump's better side. I don't know if it's the good side, but the better side, self censorship, merger interests are sometimes sort of lurking below the surface. It seems like it's working exactly as Trump would want it to work.

Mark Elias (39:11)

Yeah, look, I've been very outspoken about this. I mean, the lawsuit against CBS was frivolous. I mean, the argument was that it, that it constituted election year interference because CBS News edited a portion of video with Kamala Harris. Well, guess what? Like, news outlets regularly edit video for time they edited for clarity. If they didn't edit video, Donald Trump would look even more incoherent than he often looks because his video, you know, news outlets edit his videos to try to get. Get to the point. So that case is frivolous. The ABC News one, which it seems to have largely been modeled after, was not, I would not say frivolous. I'd say it was meritless. So maybe a degree, you know, there's A little more there, there was a traditional defamation claim. But just to clarify that for, for your audience. But absolutely, look, the legacy media is capitulating to Donald Trump like it is. You know, I don't understand why people would trust lawyers who would sell out their principles in order to cut a deal with Donald Trump. And I don't understand why people would get their news from a news outlet that is willing to sell out its principles to cut a deal with Donald Trump. And people can give me all of the ancillary business reasons why this makes sense. They needed a merger to go through. The cost of litigation was high. They didn't want to go through discovery. Like, you know, they can give me all of those reasons just as the law firm lawyers can. Right. The law firm lawyers can say, well, you know, they don't want to lose clients. And they don't. This would be a distraction. And, but like the end of the day, the, the outcome is the outcome, which is you have large institutions, large media corporations that are bowing down to Donald Trump and they are willing to make changes to the way in which they do business. In the case of CBS News, the releasing of transcripts, there's also been some reporting that they may have agreed to public service announcements, which is kind of like the law firm giving free legal services. And I just ask, you know, I'd ask everyone watching this, why would you trust, for, for, why would you trust a news outlet that cuts this kinds of deal and makes these kinds of compromises to give you the accurate and unvarnished truth and information analysis about what Donald Trump is doing to democracy? Why would you trust them if they are, if they're making these deals? I mean, this is why, David, I'm on your show. This is why I, you know, we were talking before we went on, you know, I watch your videos regularly because I'm not, I'm going to get your perspective. But I know this, your perspective is not colored by whether or not you want to be invited to all the right parties at Donald Trump's club. Nor is it going to be colored because you are trying to do some ancillary business deal that you're trying to suck up to the Trump administration for, for.

David Pakman (42:02)

Right. When it comes to some of the cases that your law firm is involved in. Well, let me, let me enter this subject a different way. I recently did a substack live with Aaron Parness, who is a lawyer, and he, we were talking about is anything working right now in terms of a robust opposition? And he said, you know, for all of the headlines about Trump ignoring court orders, Aaron's perspective is actually we are really doing quite well in the courts. And like, even if you look at Kilmar, Abrego Garcia, where initially they didn't turn the plane around, they did bring him back to the United States ultimately. And so Aaron's argument was, even though it doesn't get the headlines, that maybe it should or shouldn't, but it doesn't get headlines, the work that your law firm and others are doing, we actually are doing pretty well when we take a lot of what the Trump administration does to court. What do you make of that analysis?

Mark Elias (43:04)

Yeah, look, I think that is, that is largely correct with a caveat. So I don't think there's any question that right now the courts are the strongest bulwark against authoritarianism and that if you look at the record of challenges to the attacks that Donald Trump has lodged against democracy now, for the better part of 10 years, the courts have done pretty well for themselves. I mean, you know, the 20 post election in 2020, you know, the, the, he, he wound up pardoning a bunch of people. But that wasn't because the courts failed to, to, to hold them accountable. And as Aaron is mentioning in the Trump 2.0, the, you know, the, the win loss ratio for the Department of Justice is at an all time low. Right. The Department of Justice is losing an awful lot of these cases around the country. So I think that that is, that is all true. I think the place where I give the measure of caution is that our system is not really set up to have the courts be the bulwark of democracy. And so there's a lot of criticism of the Supreme Court. I lodge a lot of criticism at the Supreme Court. And that is all true. But what I'd say is that even if you had the best Supreme Court, even if you had all the courts operating exactly as you and I might like them, they are still not. You know, I sometimes tell folks who say, mark, you're saving democracy. I say, no, I am buying time for democracy. I am buying time for it to be saved. If it is going to be saved through the political processes that are set up to protect democracy. And that starts with, by the way, Democrats taking control of Congress in 2026 because it is ultimately Congress has more of power than the courts do, frankly, rein in the executive branch. You know, when People talk about three CO&CO& branches of government, the founders really anticipated the legislative branch would be the most powerful, not the judiciary or the executive branch. So that Is my only qualification is that. That eventually, if we do not get. If. If we do not get other institutions, whether it's the institutional media, whether it's the Congress, whether it's the legal establishment, you know, the courts are not going to be able to hold this back.

David Pakman (45:21)

The analogy or metaphor that comes to mind would sort of be if you're on a boat with a huge hole in it, the courts may be able to sort of like take buckets of water and throw them overboard, but at a certain point, unless you plug the leak, the ship's going to sink. Is that a fair sort of.

Mark Elias (45:39)

That's 100%. Right.

David Pakman (45:41)

So let's talk now about 2026. I've started to get emails from people basically saying, do you think there will be free and fair elections in the 2026 midterms? And every time this comes up, it's sort of like, I guess, maybe tell me specifically what you're concerned about. You know, it's such a broad question. Are we talking about. I mean, listen, because of gerrymandering, to get 50% of the House seats, Democrats need around 54% of the vote, based on the reports I've seen. So, like, is that free and fair, or are you talking about voting machine manipulation or the closing of polling? There's so many fronts on this, so I'll just leave it broad. What, Where. What are we staring down, so to speak, for 2026 right now?

Mark Elias (46:27)

Yeah. So first of all, to address one step back, which you didn't ask, I want to assure people we will have elections in 26. Right. They're not going to cancel the election. People who are spreading conspiracy theories that there'll be no elections. I tell people to disregard those. Yeah, so we're going to have elections. I think the right question is the one that you asked, which will they be free and fair? Which is, of course a continuum. Right. Like, there is a. There is no hard cutoff where something goes from being free and fair to not free and fair. There are gradations of elections. And so, you know, what people I think need to think about is the election process in several phases. The first is, what are the rules of the election? You know, for example, like, how are districts drawn? Because as you point out, you can have all of the voting access you want. You could have, you know, voting equipment that you love. You know, 50 days of early voting, vote by mail. Like, you could have everything else. But if you have extreme enough gerrymandering, Right. Then none of that will matter. Right. So the Rules. The first thing I always tell folks that the rules of voting matter enormously. Gerrymandering is the most obvious one that people see. But I've increasingly been writing about this at Democracy docket and warning people that, you know, we cannot excuse the other rules changes or the other manipulation rules that we see Republicans doing that are less obvious. So this is something like. This is an example that I used recently in a piece I wrote. In 2013, the Republican legislature in North Carolina was found to have targeted black voters in a voter suppression law was near surgical precision. What the legislature did is they went through all of the potential voting changes they could make, and they asked the staff to score them by how much it would negatively impact black voter turnout versus white voter turnout. And then they chose the provisions that would most negatively impact black voters without impacting white voters. Okay, that was 2013. The person who was the speaker was the state Senate president in North Carolina at the time was Thom Tillis. The person who had just been the most recent presidential nominee for the Republican Party was Mitt Romney. Okay, so that was the party of Tillis and Romney. If they were doing that with the technology as it existed in 2013, you can imagine what they are doing today as they are scoring what voting changes they make, where they open polls, where they close polls, where they make changes to voter registration alike. And so the pernicious impact of a lot of the laws that you see Republicans enact are not on their face, as obvious as redistricting maps are. But that's because we can now use software to know what the effects will be of those redistricting maps. But just looking at the visual of the maps, you wouldn't be able to tell either. And so I feel like sometimes with the voting discussion I have with people, it's like they're looking at the visuals. They're not understanding what's underneath them. So I think that is of concern. And then the final piece of it is the whole certification of elections. You know, we were very, very focused on this in the run up to 2024 in states like Georgia. Well, the only thing that changed is that Donald Trump won in 2024. It's like the threat went away. And it's not like the. The. So I. Where I would tell people to be worried are in the following things. Number one, that, you know, the Republican voter suppression war machine is cranking away. The RNC and the Department of Justice and tandem with them are suing to make it harder for you to vote. If you are watching this video Almost certainly you are among the audiences being targeted with new voting restrictions and changes that you may not even notice, but will have an impact on, on whose vote, who can, who votes, who can vote and whose vote counts. And then finally, I continue to be very worried about what a post election certification process looks like. We saw what they did in 2020, obviously, and in 2024, frankly, what they did in North Carolina with the state Supreme Court election where they litigated for six months to try to overturn the results of that election at the.

David Pakman (50:35)

Obviously, having lawyers fighting is important for my audience. What can the individual do on this front?

Mark Elias (50:45)

Yeah, so look, I gave a talk which is somewhere on the Internet a couple of years ago, and I was asked the question, essentially, why do you win so often in court? And what I said is that one of the reasons why we win so many voting cases is because the judges live in the communities that, that are, that are being targeted and they have neighbors, they go to soccer games and they don't want to live in a community in which the community is concerned that their votes are not going to count. Right. It's an abstraction to say someone else vote maybe doesn't count. But, but, but the communities judges lives in matter a lot. You know, culture, you know, we, I think it was Steve Bannon said or Breitbart who said that, you know, politics is downstream of culture. Well, that is true in the macro sense of, of politics. It's also true in things like voting. So the most important thing people can do is honestly is to share their, their views about the importance of voting and the importance in their communities to having free and fair elections that will help win court cases. That will also help election deniers not do their work. Right. Because like, fundamentally, for voter suppression to work, you need the collaboration and coordination of a lot of people at the local level. So the more visible people are at the hyperlocal level in their towns, their counties, their election offices, the better. Because, like, that is ultimately more so than anything the Supreme Court's going to do the thing that is going to make the biggest difference.

David Pakman (52:29)

We've been speaking with Mark Elias, founder of Democracy Docket. Mark will of course have you back as we get closer to the 2026 election to dig in in more detail to exactly how this is all going. Always appreciate your time and your insights.

Mark Elias (52:44)

The same here. And by the way, like I said, I'm a big fan of your show. I hope everyone watches it and your book is a great, great read. So I hope people go out and Buy that.

David Pakman (52:53)

Appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Mark Elias (52:54)

Thanks.

David Pakman (52:56)

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. Well, an absolutely furious Donald Trump exploded and cut off questions about Jeffrey Epstein when this came up. During the completely fake staged cabinet meeting at the White House, a reporter attempted to ask questions about Jeffrey Epstein. Why is it that the list everyone said existed all of a sudden supposedly doesn't exist anymore? Trump doesn't like it and he tries to end it.

Donald Trump (54:35)

Sure.

Caroline Levitt (54:36)

Your memo and release yesterday. And Jeffrey Epstein left some lingering mysteries. One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked for a American or foreign intelligence agency. The former labor secretary who was Miami U.S. attorney Alex Costa, he allegedly said that he did work for an intelligence agency. So could you resolve whether or not he did? And also could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse.

Pam Bondi (55:03)

Tape on the man said, yeah, sure.

Donald Trump (55:05)

Could I just interrupt? Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking. We have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about Trump's.

David Pakman (55:20)

Like, I've caused so many other problems for you to talk about and you're still talking about Epstein, this guy, this creep.

Donald Trump (55:27)

That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time and you feel like answering?

Pam Bondi (55:32)

I don't mind answering.

Donald Trump (55:34)

I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question question, Epstein, at a time like this where we're having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas, it just seems like a desecration. But you go ahead.

David Pakman (55:49)

I am wrecking the economy or trying to I am decimating the federal workforce. I'm doing so much damage. And you want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein now? Of course that's not what Trump meant, but Mag is going to love this exchange. Just wait till you see how Mag is reacting to this. So listen, is there a cover up here? I genuinely don't know. Forget about what I believe or my asserting it. By their standards, any president who didn't release the Epstein files was covering it up. Trump is not releasing the Epstein files. They're claiming there's no list. They're saying, oh, and eventually Trump does allow Pam Bondi sort of to give like a non answer and she defends the missing minute from the hallway video outside Epstein's jail cell when he took his own life. It's not super convincing.

Pam Bondi (56:38)

Sure, sure. First to back up on that, in February I did an interview on Fox and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list and my response was was it's six sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file along with the JFK MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that. Also to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were never going to be released, never going to see the light of day to him being an agent, I have noticed knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that. And the minute missing that is, by.

David Pakman (57:24)

The way folks, that is a shaky ass answer if I've ever heard it.

Pam Bondi (57:28)

From the video we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide. And what was on that there was was a minute that was off the counter. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night they redo that video. It's old from like 1999. So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well showing that a minute is missing every night.

David Pakman (58:06)

I am not an Epstein conspiracy theorist. This answer just strikes me as someone who is using the most careful language possible to avoid saying something. Some I don't know what it is. But the important thing is I'm not the one who was asserting the conspiracy. It's the MAGA people who were. And if that's what they were asserting, by definition Trump and Bondi are now in on the conspiracy. Now the reason that people are talking about this at all related to Trump is Trump previously described Jeffrey Epstein as a friend who likes beautiful women, including very young women. Was pictured hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and sort of like observing and evaluating women who were dancing, wrote on Epstein's plane. And Trump has gone back and forth endlessly about the declassification of the Epstein files in what is an increasingly suspicious manner. So what I do have to acknowledge is I have always said you will never see those files under Trump, period. Period. And that's what we're learning. And Mag is turning on Trump. The MAGA sphere is increasingly enraged with Donald Trump because he and Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and Dan Bongino are saying, we're not going to release the Epstein this or that. The list doesn't exist. There's no relevant video, even though that's the opposite of what they were saying for years. Let's take a look. Here is Megyn Kelly. We're going to go through everybody from MAGA who's turning on Trump. Here's Megyn Kelly, very angry with Pam Bondi.

Pam Bondi (59:53)

Kind of an attorney general would pretend.

David Pakman (59:57)

She'S giving new information to some of.

Pam Bondi (60:00)

The president's most loyal advocates in the press. You know, buying ink by the barrel. What? So either Pam Bonney knew she was about to embarrass some of his most loyal surrogates out there and did that.

David Pakman (60:15)

Willingly, or she didn't take the time.

Pam Bondi (60:19)

To make sure what was in those binders she was too lazy to actually figure out. None of this is new. And yet she called a meeting with the influencers that included Cash Patel, the head of the FBI, and the sitting vice president. So she's either lazy and incompetent or she willingly humiliated some of the President's most loyal supporters.

David Pakman (60:44)

Now, Megyn Kelly's being careful not to go after Trump yet, but Pam Bondi is Trump's pick, and she is going scorched earth on Pam Bondi. We then go to Patrick bet David. Remember, these are all serious Trump supporters. Megyn Kelly showed up, and I think she even spoke at a Trump rally. Maybe she just went on stage and hugged Trump, but I think she. I think she spoke. Patrick bet David, overt supporter of Trump. He says this is the worst thing that's gone on so far.

Patrick Bet-David (61:13)

You talking about Epstein? Yeah, I think. Good to be back on with you, buddy. But this is what I would tell you. The number one trending hashtag right now on X is Epstein. Two million people have tweeted with the topic of Epstein. Number two is Nicki Minaj. At 100,000. Comey's at 42 and a half thousand. There is a reason why people are asking about this. This is by far, and I'm a supporter, three times I voted for this man. This is by far the biggest fumble of the administration they've had thus far. And here's the reason why. If you remember pre the President winning, he had a conversation with Fox News, the great Rachel Campos Duffy and she asked Mr. President, 9 11. Yes. JOHN F. Kennedy. Yes. Epstein. He didn't say yes. He was a little bit hesitant of bringing that information out.

David Pakman (62:01)

Why? Right.

Patrick Bet-David (62:02)

So why does his leadership team go out there and like we have this information and we're going to release this and Cash and let me tell you what we have with Pam Bondi out of state of Florida. She knew everything about Bondi, about Epstein. Why are you fumbling this? Why are you not having an emergency meeting together to conversate and say, hey, we're going to be on the same page with messaging on this?

David Pakman (62:22)

All right, so Patrick bet David thinks it's no good. We then go to Tim Pool, another overt Trump supporter voted for Trump. Tim Pool says Pam Bondi is obviously lying.

Caroline Levitt (62:33)

The DOJ has released a two page memo stating that there is no Epstein client list and nothing uncovered would predicate criminal charges against any third parties. That is my friend, you are all wrong. The conspiracy theories were all wrong. Jeffrey Epstein was simply a financier with a lot of rich friends who got arrested for trafficking and then killed himself. And there was no evidence about anything else. And he did everything by hand personally. Let me just cut through the bs. I am going to break this down. It's an obvious lie. I'm going to tell you why I think they're lying and I think it's pretty obvious. But this is probably the most obvious lie of any lie ever told. And one need only logic and facts to break this down.

David Pakman (63:22)

There you go. That's Tim Pool. Benny Johnson says. Guys, hold on a second. This is. They're obviously not telling us the truth here.

Caroline Levitt (63:32)

This is absurd. Pam Bondi was talking about Epstein. Cash was talking about Epstein. Bongino's talking about Epstein. Elon Musk talking about Epstein. Trump has been talking about Epstein. He started his presidential campaign in 2016 by linking the Clintons to Epstein. What possible interest would the US Government have in keeping Epstein's clients a secret? Oh, if you're a journalist and you're not asking questions about this case, you should be ashamed of yourself. What purpose do you serve? I'm sure there's a middle class teenager somewhere that you could be harassing right now, but try and do your job once in a while. Says J.D. vance about asking questions about Epstein. J.D. vance, real tweet. Carolyn Levitt, same thing yesterday. And just kind of like, you know, effectively saying, you know, there's really, there's nothing to see here. We have been transparent, but this is just not how the American people feel on this issue and it's not how it's being communicated.

David Pakman (64:26)

Right.

Caroline Levitt (64:26)

So like one of the, you know the statement that Pam, Pam, Bonnie says I miss, I misspoke.

David Pakman (64:30)

Right.

Caroline Levitt (64:31)

I meant to say there was a file on my desk, not we have the Epstein actual client list on my desk. But, but even that is being called into question when you put the, when you put like the actual clubs back to back. Here we go.

Pam Bondi (64:44)

Tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn and there are hundreds of victims and no one victim will ever get released. It's just the volume and that's what they're going through. Also to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.

Caroline Levitt (65:10)

That's not the same thing. Saying that there's all these victims and then saying that these are just like.

David Pakman (65:16)

You know, all right, so Benny Johnson also doesn't believe it. And then finally Alex Jones in tears.

Alex Jones (65:21)

Now by coming in and being part of the COVID up, the Trump administration has become part of it. I mean, you cannot see it any other way. Oh, so I'm going to, I just got to the office, I'm going to go throw up actually. And this only happens every few years when something really, really bad happens or something. I'm not physically going to, going to, going to puke probably right now my mouth is watering right now because, because I have integrity, right?

David Pakman (65:51)

And.

Alex Jones (65:53)

You know, I just really need the Trump administration to succeed and to save this country. And they're doing so much good and then for them to do something like this tears my guts out.

David Pakman (66:05)

And.

Alex Jones (66:07)

You know, the left, they're all complicit. They're openly promoting pedophilia. We know they're pure evil and they'll think it's all funny. Oh, look, Alex is sad. Maga's tearing itself apart. Your globalist masters literally want you to eat bugs and live in a 5G 200 square foot coffin apartment. Look at the left, look at them all posing with their Pfizer shots looking like dead zombies. I mean, come on, you guys are sick and so you shouldn't look at those of us that have a soul still and have integrity in pain over this and celebrate you die.

David Pakman (66:39)

Listen, the specifics matter less than the fact that this is not like one guy. This is not, oh, all Republican senators are on board with Trump, but here's Rand Paul who's like, I don't really like this. This is the totality of the audiences of these people. MAGA people is significant. And so I don't know where this leads, but they are going to have to do better for their own. This is for the monster they created. They're going to have to come up with something. We've got a great bonus show for you today. By the way. Alex Jones hates the bonus show.

Alex Jones (67:13)

The bonus show where you want to make money.

David Pakman (67:14)

Yeah.

Alex Jones (67:15)

Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad.

David Pakman (67:17)

Not quite sobbing there, but close. We've got a phenomenal bonus show. Sign up at Join Pacman Dotcom Gift a membership@join pacman.com ask for a gifted membership@david pakman.com free membership and make sure you're getting my daily Substack newsletter @substack David pakman.com 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 Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.