Brendan Carr (5:00)

There's actions that we can take on licensed broadcasters. And frankly, I think that it's really sort of past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say, listen, we are going to preempt. We are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out. Because we, we licensed broadcaster, are running the possibility of fines or license revocations. From the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion. So I think again, Disney needs to see some change here. But the individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it's time for them to step up and say this, you know, garbage to the extent that that's what comes down the pipe in the future isn't something that we think serves the needs of our local communities. But, but this.

David Pakman (5:46)

Do you understand what's going on here? They are talking about terrifying broadcasters into self censorship and they are talking about making platforms directly liable for any political repercussions to what they air. Now I just have to be upfront. I'm showing all my cards. If this were to be applied to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, potentially even Spotify and Apple podcasts, if that were to all of a sudden be something where YouTube goes, you know, when Brian Tyler Cohen makes fun of Trump or when the Meisellus brothers go after Pam Bondi, that might cause a problem for us as a platform. We are gone, folks. We are gone overnight. So this is clearly something that they have been wanting. Trump said. Remember when Colbert lost his show? Trump said Kimmel and Fallon might be next. Like this is clearly something that they are not only cheering today, but that they planned in advance. And Trump is cheering it. Trump posted the Truth Social yesterday. Quote, great news for America. The ratings challenge. Jimmy Kimmel show is canceled. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has zero talent and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that's possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers on fake news NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it. NBC encouraging NBC to push others off of the air. So they've gotten Kimmel off the air. They've gotten Colbert's show canceled. It's running a little longer, but it'll soon be gone. Trump is extorting settlements out of media companies, Paramount, the ABC fiasco. He's got a new lawsuit against the New York Times. This is the administration most hostile to free speech that I have ever witnessed and worked under. And my expectation is one of us is going to get hit and all of a sudden it's going to be a multiple six figure or potentially even a seven figure legal bill. And this is going to get extraordinarily ugly. But forget about that, right? You might say, David, I don't care about you or Midas Touch or Brian Tyler Cohen, forget about that. Well, do you care about the foundation that this country was built on do you have the ability and the confidence to say I can give opinions, I can do what the First Amendment is supposed to grant me the right to do without being worried about frivolous lawsuits, firings, etc. Or don't I? Do I or don't I have that ability? Did the founders intend for me to have that ability? The answer is yes. And by the way, for people in the audience who go, well you know David, this is a problem for creators, but it's not problem a problem for other people. How many people, random, not random people, just everyday people without a public facing job been fired because of their opinions about Charlie Kirk? It doesn't mean that I agree with the opinions that are stated. It doesn't mean anything like that. But that is not the way this country is supposed to function. And so I hope that there are Republicans out there, reasonable people willing to say this is not a partizan issue. We either have free speech in the United States or we don't. And the self censorship a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. This is terrifying stuff. There is no more important time than today, I mean really than to support the independent media programs that you want to see stay on the air because they're going to come for us. Someone's going to get hit here. Donald Trump has been begging, begging for a federal funds rate cut while insisting that the economy is just awesome. Well, Donald Trump appears to have damaged the economy just enough that Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has now decided it's time to lower rates. And the Fed has done so by 25 basis points. That's a quarter of a point. So we're talking about point to 5%. Now listen to what he said with a major warning about the economy. And this is again, Trump has now hurt the economy enough that the rate cut is appropriate.

Jerome Powell (9:55)

Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people. While the unemployment rate remains low, it has edged up, job gains have slowed and downside risks to employment have risen. At the same time, inflation has risen recently and remains somewhat elevated. In support of our goals and in light of the shift in the balance of risks, today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to lower our policy interest rate by a quarter percentage point. We also decided to continue to reduce our securities holdings. I'll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity has moderated GDP growth. GDP rose at a pace of around 1.5% in the first half of the year, down from 2.5% last year. The moderation in growth largely reflects a slowdown in consumer spending.

Donald Trump (11:00)

Oh.

Jerome Powell (11:01)

In contrast, business investment in equipment and intangibles has picked up from last year's pace. Activity in the housing sector remains weak. In our summary of economic projections, the median participant projects GDP to rise 1.6% this year and 1.8% next year.

David Pakman (11:20)

Those are not extraordinary numbers. So understand that Trump has been saying, the economy is doing great, but please give me massive rate cuts. It's not coherent. The Fed normally lowers rates when the economy isn't doing well enough. The idea of lowering rates is to buoy the economy. So Trump, by hurting the economy with his tariffs, has worsened it enough that now the Fed chair says, yeah, now we've got to do a rate cut. And Jerome Powell, in his sort of pedantic and understated way, made it clear here there are some real problems on the horizon.

Jerome Powell (11:53)

Overall, the market slowing in both the supply of and demand for workers is unusual. In this less dynamic and somewhat softer labor market, the downside risks to employment appear to have risen. In our SEP, the median projection for the unemployment rate is 4.5% at the end of this year and edges down thereafter.

David Pakman (12:15)

Sector we are going in a direction where the economy is softening and the person in charge, Donald Trump, is convinced that nobody knows better than he knows what to do. And yet the reason that the economy is softening, according to the Fed chair, who has a dual mandate and who is a nonpolitical operator, the reason for the softening is, to a degree, the policies of Donald Trump. This is where we find ourselves today. And so we need now to start considering what sorts of changes need to be made in order to turn the ship around. But does it matter? Because the person in charge is incessantly convinced of his omniscience and isn't willing to hear any other ideas. And so he got his rate cut because he hurt the economy. And Jerome Powell is warning this is potentially going to get very, very ugly. Former President Barack Obama pounded Donald Trump in a rare public rebuke. This is not common, it is not common in general that former presidents come out so loudly against current presidents. And it is not typical for Barack Obama specifically to start doing this, but he did. And I understand why, because he sees a lot of the same threats that we believe. And he lays out in a really clear way here how there are even things that other Republicans would have said, no, this is too far. These are. There are certain values that are Not Republican or Democratic values. They are American values. And Barack Obama pointing out implicitly that that is different with Donald Trump. Take a listen to this.

Barack Obama (14:02)

There's never been an experiment like this where you have people from every corner of the globe show up in one place and say, based on these ideals, we hold these truths to be self evident. All men are created equal. That based on that and a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and a democracy, that we can somehow figure out how to get along and maintain our private beliefs and pray to God in our own ways and retain aspects of the cultures that we bring from wherever it is that we're coming from, and yet still decide that we are all Americans who can salute that flag and believe in a certain creed and defend this country and try to make it better for each successive generation. And I'm not alone in that belief. As I said, I think George W. Bush believed that. I believe that people who I ran against, I know John McCain believed it. I know Mitt Romney believed it. So this, what I'm describing is not a Democratic value or a Republican value. It is an American value. And I think at moments like this, when tensions are high, then part of the job of the president is to pull people together. Now, that does not mean mean ignoring very real differences.

David Pakman (16:23)

Now, did Donald Trump pull people together, for example, after the killing of Charlie Kirk, by saying, the problem in this country is left wing scum and we're going after them? Now, Barack Obama rarely does stuff like this. And that to me signals the urgency of the situation. And when he says, you know, even my Republican opponents believed in American values, what he's saying is Donald Trump does not. And the subtext here is brutal. Trump's obviously a bad president, but he is outside the tradition of American leadership and American values altogether. And you, you know, with Barack Obama, he speaks in full sentences, he speaks in paragraphs. He's got to be able to really focus and hone in on what he's saying. What he is saying is that Donald Trump is fundamentally un American. Now, that's my interpretation of what he's saying. He's not saying it in the patriotic, patriotic sort of like jingoistic sense. He's just saying in the value sense. This is not a guy whose instinct as president is to pull the country together. And I can't say that he's wrong. And when we see the self censorship, the cancel culture from the right, the oppression of media, the insulting people with different political beliefs, it's hard to see any of it as even remotely an American value. Barack Obama's right. Skip the hassle of planning meals or cleaning up. Our sponsor, Cook Unity brings a unique twist to meal delivery by being the first collective of award winning chefs offering locally sourced dishes straight to your doorstep every week. Each meal is fully cooked, ready to eat after only five minutes of heating. One of the most memorable meals I've had from Cook Unity is the chicken enchiladas Suisse US from chef Santiago Lopez from Mexico, the tender chicken wrapped in corn tortillas with a tangy green mole made with cream cheese and pickled onions went so well with rice. Incredible flavor, satisfying. And with Cook Unity you get restaurant quality meals without the hefty price tag. With subscriptions starting at just 11 bucks a meal, you can customize the menu to match your preferences. You can explore options by chef, cuisine, protein, dietary needs and with fresh seasonal selections added weekly, new chefs always joining Cook Unity. There is always something new and exciting to try. Cook Unity's roster of award winning chefs includes Food Network alums, James Beard Award winners, acclaimed restaurateurs balancing flavor and nutrition with these small batch meals sent fresh, not frozen. Go to cookunity.com/pacman free or enter code Pacman Free before checkout for free Premium meals for life. The link is in the description. All right, awesome. New sponsor to talk about Wild Alaskan company. They do sustainable seafood memberships. I got one of these boxes and it is just phenomenal. The whole point with Wild Alaskan seafood is that it's 100% wild caught, it's never farmed. It's from sustainably managed fisheries in Alaska, frozen at the peak of freshness and then delivered to you. They've got three curated boxes. The wild salmon box, the wild white fish box and the wild combo box. I got a box that had everything beautifully vacuum sealed. The fish comes in pre portioned fillets. We had crab, we had scallops. I know I should be saying scallops, I just, it's just not for me. I call them scallops. Okay? Delicious and sustainable. They have a sustainable supply driven approach. They get products during the harvest season and in a way that doesn't deplete the resources of Alaska's wild fisheries. I encourage you to go to wild alaskan.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN for $35 off your first box. The link is in the description. Donald Trump's trip to the United Kingdom is failing so spectacularly and so disastrously that my prediction is Trump's approval rating never recovers. Now I'm going to show you some of what went down here, I do think. And even we get into the clips for context, and we'll get back to this. Donald Trump's hands look completely rotten. Every single public appearance, they look worse and worse and worse. And we're going to get back to that in a moment. But Donald Trump, flat out incoherent, sitting alongside King Charles. You see Secretary of State Marco Rubio to King Charles's left, everyone looking around, what is going on with this guy? He can barely articulate a thought here.

Donald Trump (21:27)

It's a singular privilege to be the first American president welcomed here. And the, if you think about it, they said it's a lot of presidents and this was the second state visit, and that's the first.

David Pakman (21:43)

And this is the second state visit, and that's the first.

Donald Trump (21:48)

Maybe that's going to be the last time. I hope it is, actually. But this is truly one of the highest honors of my life.

David Pakman (21:55)

Total incoherence, total absurdity. Reporting that the environment inside the room was tense in the way of, I mean, listen, to be perfectly frank, in the Biden White House, especially after that disastrous debate, it's been widely reported that every time Biden would speak publicly, there was tension, staffers were tense. Oh, my God, is he going to lose his train of thought? What's going to happen here? Reportedly, the same thing is going on with Donald Trump where people go, oh, is he going to mispronounce? Is he going to go off on some tangent? Does he have any idea what's going on here? Donald Trump really, really struggling to read.

Donald Trump (22:36)

His remarks in the finest tradition of British sovereigns. He's given his whole heart, everything he's got, to those parts of Britain that are beyond the realm of mere legislation. It's not easy, but which define its essence and its virtue, its harmony and its soul.

David Pakman (22:58)

Listen, you can tell Trump doesn't even understand syntactically what it is that he is reading. And maybe the most humiliating moment when Trump started with some very risky pronunciation, you know, when Trump has to pronounce names, it can get, it can get pretty dicey. Here is Trump talking about a number of unbelievable authors, none of whom, none of whom Trump has read any of.

Donald Trump (23:24)

The works from, perfected in the pages of Shakespeare and Dickens and Tolkien, Lewis, Orwell and Kipling. Incredible people, unbelievable people like we have rarely seen before, probably won't see again.

David Pakman (23:43)

Yes, I always, when I want to have feedback about the literary world, think of Donald Trump. And just everyone in the room looking around like, what the hell is going on. And then a weird moment. Trump did his routine where he says, we are the hottest country in the world, but he thanks King Charles for saying, you gave us the footing when we started, which I guess is sort of like a thank you for the Revolutionary War. It's so bizarre. It's. What. What is going through this. It's the cringe heard round the world.

Donald Trump (24:19)

Of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal. It's irreplaceable and unbelievable. And we are, as a country, as you know, doing unbelievably well.

David Pakman (24:34)

We're hotter than ever.

Donald Trump (24:35)

We had a very sick country one year ago, and today I believe we're the hottest country anywhere in the world. In fact, nobody's even questioning it. But we owe so much of that to you. And the footing that you gave us when we started.

David Pakman (24:52)

The footing you gave us when we started. There is no. You know, you think back to Trump's arrival in the UK and massive projections and images of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein strategically placed at Windsor Castle and elsewhere. You see Trump's favorability and approval among global citizens, among. Among European citizens, specifically among those in the uk. It's even worse than in the United States. You know, in the US he's like, in the high 30s. I believe it was the UK or was it Europe? No, I think it was the UK number Trump with 23% favorability. What empirical case is there to make that this presidency is good for the reputation of the United States around the world? And we sort of delved into that a little bit yesterday. And the answer is there really is no such case to be made. This has been a complete and total exercise in humiliation. And Trump quite literally doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what's going on, both in terms of decorum, tone, history, context, protocol. And this is not me going, oh, it's the Brits. Everything must be protocol, and Trump should always walk behind King Charles. And by the way, Trump walked in front of him. I don't even really care about that from the standpoint of enforcing arbitrary, you know, royal family crap that I don't even give a. Give a damn about. This is just about the idea of how are we supposed to relate to our allies? And why is it that increasingly, Trump relates to anti democratic authoritarian adversaries in the way that shows deference and how pressed he is, and he's just so taken with it, and increasingly with our allies, it's sort of like, does he even recognize what we're doing here? Like what? What actually is it that is taking place here? And it is bizarre and wacky stuff. Donald Trump's hands are suddenly completely rotten. What is going on with Donald Trump's hands once again? Yesterday, during Donald Trump's UK trip and today, everybody who saw these pictures started noticing what is going on with Trump's right hand. It is no longer sort of subtle makeup on a small part of Donald Trump's hand. It is like a bright yellow, almost white, thick patch of concealer of some kind. And it is growing and growing and growing before the MAGA crowd jumps in. These are hands of someone with some kind of health issue. Now, if this were Joe Biden, Fox would have a 247 story. Is Biden dying? And yet with Donald Trump, they no longer even talk about it. They've gotten their bogus explanation from Caroline Levitt. He shakes hands so vigorously with people that he just has bruises. Well, that might explain the right hand, at least theoretically. But Trump's never shaking hands with his left hand. How does it explain the bruises on his left hand? This is not the first time that we are seeing this. It's getting worse. We're also increasingly seeing Donald Trump struggle to walk down ramps. He's slurring his way through speeches. He's wandering off at events. And now his hands look like they are rotting from the inside out. At another moment during this event, Donald Trump fell asleep. He was next to King Charles. King Charles is delivering a speech. And here is Trump just unable to stay awake. Remember, we were told Sleepy Joe was the problem.

Donald Trump (28:38)

Our countries have the closest defense, security, and intelligence relationship ever known. In two world wars we fight fought together to defeat the forces of tyranny.

David Pakman (28:54)

Donald Trump just cannot stay awake. And we were told, of course, that Joe Biden's the sleepy one. And it's Trump who's nodding off in public while his hands are turning purple, we think, except it's covered with thick, almost white makeup. So at this point, we don't even know what color Donald Trump's hands are. Put it all together. Bruised, swollen hands, confusion, swollen ankles, regularly sleeping on the world stage at events where you would think adrenaline would at least be somewhere keeping you awake. So this is not a guy in command, and this is not a guy projecting strength. Now, what's the bigger issue? The bigger issue is that the administration of total transparency that we were promised is being as opaque as you could possibly imagine. There is nothing. There is nothing that will get them to stop ignoring this unless they are pushed to give some completely nonsensical explanation. If it were anybody else, they would be screaming, medical crisis. Something is going on with Trump's health. I'm not a doctor, so I can only speak to what doctors have pointed out. But we are not being told the story. And we were told that the problem with health transparency was Biden. Every accusation that we heard during the Biden administration seems to quickly be turning into a confession. Now, are we ever going to learn the truth of Trump's health? I believe we will. It may be when Trump's gone, but I do believe at some point we are going to learn what it is that went on here. And this only got worse this morning. And I want to talk about that next. Donald Trump behaving completely incoherently this morning at an appearance in Buckinghamshire, England, alongside the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump talking in circles. Trump speaking meaninglessly. I'll just play it for you. You see what you think.

Donald Trump (30:55)

Great process going and inflation is virtually nonexistent. As you know, we, we're taking in trillions of dollars from tariffs. And they've been so incredible for our country, so incredible. We're keeping our companies happy, we're keeping them solid and sane.

David Pakman (31:17)

Now, remember that the companies are not happy about the tariffs. The money that we have taken in is not coming from China, it's not coming from India, it's not coming from whoever Donald Trump wants to seize money from. It's coming from American businesses. And the reason that Trump got his rate cut yesterday from Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is that this has all damaged the economy just enough that Powell now says, well, we got to do something. And so we got our rate cut. The tariffs are, of course, causing inflation. Donald Trump promised us we are going to see prices go down. Prices have been going up. And Donald Trump is even speaking incoherently and specifically about that, saying, inflation is gone. It's just gone.

Donald Trump (32:00)

Your country was dead one year ago, and now you have the hottest country anywhere in the world. And it's true, we'll have more than $17 trillion invested in our country this year. 17 trillion.

David Pakman (32:13)

And as you can see, Keir Starmer has a sort of what on earth is going on here? Kind of look on his face, which.

Donald Trump (32:19)

Is many, many times what we had last year. And we're only in our just about, almost ninth month getting. It's moving along quickly. It's amazing. I was saying we're in our third month, our fourth month, our fifth month, but we're at. It's going to be over $17 trillion no, no country has ever had anything like that even close.

David Pakman (32:41)

You know, my, my eggs, my beloved pasture raised organic eggs with the bright orange yolks. Beautiful eggs. They used to be 679 a dozen and today, in fact, I paid 949 for that dozen eggs. Why am I bringing this up? Well, I'm bringing it up because it is Trump who promised that grocery prices would be down and down quickly and it's not happening. And in fact, I reported to you two days ago that we're seeing the fastest and largest single month jump in grocery prices dating back years. Now, even Brian Kilmeade, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade couldn't hide his skepticism, to put it lightly, about Donald Trump's economic claims. This is, this is. So he just mentioned overall $17 trillion.

Donald Trump (33:34)

In total investment since President Trump took.

David Pakman (33:37)

Over for a second term.

Donald Trump (33:38)

The question is, are the pledges going to turn into actual price projects?

David Pakman (33:42)

Which, and, and you got to hand it to Kilmeade, broken clocks are sometimes right. Trump saying that countries have pledged money means nothing about taking money in. I hope that people actually understand the sort of mechanics of some of these pledges. What Trump is referring to when he says we've taken in trillions is like, for example, during the Middle east trip, you know, you'll get the Qataris or the Saudis to go. We would conceivably be in for 600 billion over the next 10 years if you bring us a proposal of projects that we want to do. Trump comes home and goes, I just got 600 billion from the Saudis. Well, no, what you got was a completely non binding generic statement that if there are interesting projects that are a good fit over the next 10 years, they might be willing to, to participate to some degree. Very different, very different than they just gave me 600 billion. And that's where Trump gets these numbers. You'll also remember that the numbers are completely, completely fabricated. When Trump got back from that Middle east visit, he said, oh, we got 5 trillion. Now he says we got 17 trillion. Of course, very unlikely that you're going to get 17 trillion when the entire American economy is $30 trillion. Trump then, by the way, went into the hole. We passed such a great tax bill that now I don't even have to do anything else. The rest of my term aspect of.

Donald Trump (35:06)

The bill, I call it the big beautiful bill, the great big beautiful bill. We got so much, the largest bill ever passed in the history of our country, in fact, so big that we really don't have to pass too much anymore. We can just do this for four years. Implement, you know, I like to implement because the bills.

David Pakman (35:23)

And of course by implementation, Trump means signing dystopian executive orders, subverting the will of Congress and just existing in a dystopian authoritarian state. Now, I want to say one, one, one other aspect to this. If we can take the House From Republicans in 2026, Trump's not going to be doing anything else the rest of his term. And so I do think that right now, the greatest opportunity to stop this insanity, let's make Trump right that he doesn't do anything else the rest of his term. The focus needs to be on taking the House in November of 26, which controls the purse strings, controls the spending. And you can make Trump an even lamer duck than he is right now. I would love for you to be part of our community in so trying to take that House away from Republicans. Make sure you're subscribed on the YouTube channel. We're pushing to 3.5 million YouTube subscribers. It's free. Just hit the subscribe button. And remember that when I say, I got a couple of emails recently that people said, you know, David, when you say later on the show, what show? What show are you talking about? I just see clips on YouTube. Every clip you see on YouTube or TikTok or wherever. It's part of a daily one hour show. That show is available free on every podcast platform, including probably most most notably Spotify and Apple Podcasts. So when I say later on the show, get the full podcast on Spotify. Get the full podcast on Apple Podcasts. We'll take a break. Jon Favreau joins me. Next fall is here. The nights are getting cooler. It's cozier. Hot baked goods feel like a great treat. And our sponsor Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Everything bakes in 25 minutes or less. No prep, no cleanup. Customizable boxes. They can do gluten free, they can do plant based. And right now they've got some limited time. Fall items. Apple cider donuts. I grew up with these in New England. Pumpkin cinnamon biscuits. Love them. The donuts just come out perfectly, like a nice little crisp edge. Warm spiced center. Biscuits are flaky and sweet. Made the whole kitchen smell like a bakery. Wild Grain uses slow fermentation, which means their breads are richer in nutrients than that which you get at the store. You can really taste the difference and the fermentation process can even be helpful for digestion. For a limited time, get $30 off your first box, plus free croissants in every box when you start your subscription@wild grain.com pacman the link is in the description. Welcome everybody.

David Pakman (interviewer) (38:12)

It's great to have Jon Favreau here today from Crooked Media, Pod, Save America, et cetera. I'm sure a familiar face to many in my audience. John, so good to have you on. I appreciate it.

Jon Favreau (38:25)

Thanks for having me, David.

David Pakman (interviewer) (38:27)

So listen, I want to start with something which you might say, hey, this is actually a bad thing to even be talking about. Or you might say, no, this is a critical thing to be talking about right now. Talking to different creators in the space lately and also elected Democrats. The topic of whether the left is currently divided and whether that is going to be a problem for winning elections has come up a lot. And usually the sort of lines of that division, you could put them a couple different ways. It's incrementalism versus accelerationism, right? The people that want to improve upon the system we have and make changes rather than the system is so terrible we've got to burn it down to build it back up. Sometimes it's, well, it's the difference between capitalism in some form and socialism. Maybe that's the dividing line, or maybe the dividing line is a particular issue or the degree to which we should be willing to work with people we disagree with if there's anything to be done that is better than the status quo. Having said all of that, do you believe that the left is particularly divided right now? Maybe we'll just start there.

Jon Favreau (39:37)

I don't know if we're particularly divided, but I think that as the coalition to sort of oppose Trump and the MAGA movement has sort of grown over the years, it has by necessity become very large and heterogeneous and diverse. And so, you know, he used to say back when he was in the Senate, you have a coalition that spans from, you know, AOC to Joe Manchin, and maybe it's even bigger ideologically now. And you also named a number of other divisions. I think it's normal, healthy for power, not just for a party out of power, but for a party that has now. You know, I mean, let's be honest, Joe Biden barely won in 2020, and we've had a rough 10 years, Democratic Party. And I think it is good to be doing soul searching now. It is good to be arguing with each other, debating with one another. I don't think that is, you know, I don't subscribe to us fighting and having debates is gonna somehow make us weaker, is gonna let the Republicans win more like, you know, we're in a bad place. We're almost at the bottom right now. And so some argument and debate about what we stand for and the best strategy to defeat what I think is a authoritarian consolidation right now. I think that's a good thing.

David Pakman (interviewer) (41:10)

One of the arguments about the differences between the robust internal debate on the left and the robust internal debate on the right that's sometimes asserted is that on the right, they will always ultimately unite to win an election. And then later, you will see some of these coalitions break apart, whether it's, you know, the Laura Loomer wing versus the whatever right.

David Pakman (41:33)

And so.

David Pakman (interviewer) (41:33)

But they get united to win, and then, fine, we're going to have some. Some problems later, maybe, that we'll figure out. One of the ways that one might say it could be different on the left, and I'm curious to hear your take is later, after the loss, there's the. It's really bad not to be united.

David Pakman (41:51)

But in the lead up to the.

David Pakman (interviewer) (41:52)

Election, maybe there's either purity testing or, you know, in 2016, if it's not Bernie, then Hillary and Trump are essentially the same to me. And we found out that that is very much not. Not the case. You know, do you think that there's some substance there to that distinction?

Jon Favreau (42:09)

I'm not sure if it's. If it's a Democratic versus Republican distinction, as it is a party in power versus party out of power distinction. I think, I mean, to go Back to the 2020 example, I think that was an instance where, you know, Bernie ran for the nomination and did quite well. And then when Joe Biden won the nomination, he, you know, Bernie supported him and did a lot of work for him. I think the left and the center, left, center right, far left, generally came together, and if they hadn't, I don't think Joe Biden would have won that election. So I do think that, you know, in the run up to an election, party out of power, unity is a stronger force. I think once you've been in power like Democrats were for the last four years, then it's much harder in an election to maintain unity because you've seen the party you voted for in power, you've seen what they've done in the last four years, and, and you are either disappointed, frustrated, the change hasn't happened faster, upset that, you know, we've lost some battles, and so you start thinking, okay, well, could someone Else do it better with a different ideology, a different style, a different strategy, et cetera.

David Pakman (interviewer) (43:27)

When it comes to the communication of some of these ideas, I've always been of the belief that the independent media ecosystem that you're a part of, that, I'm a part of that. So, so many of our friends are, are a part of. Has been not by a small margin, a net positive. Yes, there's disinformation on the Internet. Yes, conspiracy theories spread and algorithms can be weaponized and all of this stuff. But like, the balance for me on the balance sheet was, yes, there are some liabilities here, but like, the assets are so big in terms of the diversity of voices, the ways in which owning, you know, the broadcast equipment of legacy media no longer is a filter to preventing people, people from getting ideas out. So it's been like, I'm so bullish on it. We now are at a point where some people who shared my view are starting to say, you know, I don't know if on balance, we're better off because X platform exists. I don't mean X like Twitter, but like, because a particular platform exists. I think that maybe the balance is starting to shift a little bit in terms of that. Has your feeling about, like, the net value of the space we occupy changed at all in the last couple of years?

Jon Favreau (44:39)

I guess this is the way I see it, which is we're not going back to the old way that things were right. Like, legacy media is still declining before our eyes and the corporate media has all kinds of problems that we're seeing come to fruition, particularly in the second Trump term. So this is going to be the media landscape for the foreseeable future, independent media. And so then I think the challenge is those of us who work in independent media and those of us who consume independent media should want to demand and expect, you know, guidelines for factual information, making sure that you can trust the people that you're getting news from and information from, and that we, you know, sort of hold ourselves accountable to, you know, high standards of rigor and truth and responsibility as we, you know, because I, I also think that, you know, there's. There's independent media, right? Obviously there's a spectrum here, right? There's like more established independent media. There's also just like, you know, random people on social media with big followings and not much else. And some of them are great and some of them I don't think are all that helpful. And so I do think, I think with so much information and so much choice right now, I do think there's, like, a missing curation function for people. For an average news consumer who's just like, okay, I want to know the news. I want to know what's going on. I want factual information. And there's too many choices. I don't know who to get it from. Right. So I do think, like, as this industry, as independent media matures, you know, it could probably use some better curation and some guidelines. Not going back to sort of the gatekeeper version of the legacy media, but, you know, better than just be in the Wild West.

David Pakman (interviewer) (46:32)

Is there some degree to which, like the 8020 principle ends up applying regardless, in the sense of, okay, now, as the independent media space grows and grows and grows, the top 20%, which is probably responsible for 80% of the views, or it's probably even more concentrated, to be honest, it's probably the top, you know, 5% might be responsible for 90% of the views. It starts to reflect the establishment, regardless of any particular editorial opinion that might be taken. Like, do you think that that's a concern?

Jon Favreau (47:04)

It's definitely a concern. It's definitely something that I think about a lot, particularly because I came from the establishment. Right. I was an Obama staffer for a long time, so I'm not going to pretend that I'm not. And I think the way to handle the way that I try to handle that, and we try to handle that here at Cricket, is to make sure we are talking to people on our shows and elsewhere who represent a broad spectrum of views and ideologies. And I think that sort of keeps us, at least with our finger, on the pulse of what's going on. Cause you're right. You don't. I think. I mean, look, we're also in Los Angeles, which helps, and not being in D.C. and I think that, yeah, I think that you can, if all you do every day is just sort of, you know, read Playbook and the New York Times and that's it. I think that's insufficient if you're a content creator and you're in this business. And so I think just try to consume a wide variety of sources is probably the way to avoid becoming just, you know, part of the conventional wisdom.

David Pakman (interviewer) (48:09)

Let's look forward a little to 26 and 28. Let me lay out what I see as like, the really exciting, good stuff that's going on and then the things that kind of concern me. So on the. On the positive side of the ledger for 26, I'm seeing so many young, progressive candidates who are getting involved. In some cases it's primaries. In some cases it's. They want to flip seats. Really exciting for 28. The bench, to me, seems really interesting, both insofar as there's a lot of interesting people, but also there's, like, some diversity in sorts of. In terms of the folks that are being thought of as potential front runners if they choose to run in 2028. It's a deep bench. So I think that that's phenomenal on the sort of, like, concerning side. I've talked about all of this stuff on my show before, after the kind of, like, reckoning that took place after the November election with how media was sort of mishandled by Democrats and they're not helping to build the alternative ecosystem. And there was this period where I.

David Pakman (49:08)

Was like, I think they're getting in.

David Pakman (interviewer) (49:09)

And it's going to be good. I've had some interviews where, like, I have a Democrat on. I press them a couple of times about an issue that I just think they're not giving me a good answer about. It gets tense, it gets hostile.

David Pakman (49:21)

It wasn't the interview they wanted. But, like, this is kind of what we need.

David Pakman (interviewer) (49:24)

You know, if you can't even face me, then where. Where are we going with this? So that's a concern. I've said my opinion is I don't think Kamala should run in 2028 just based on everything that's happened, not because I don't think she's competent. I found her incredibly competent when. When I met her. I. I just think strategically it doesn't make sense. I started getting emails that I'm being misogynistic. Started getting emails that I'm being sexist. In that opinion, that concerns me in terms of the sort of, like, are we.

David Pakman (49:50)

Is this how we're going to end.

David Pakman (interviewer) (49:52)

Up kind of picking a candidate and that. So those are the two sides of the ledger for me. Let me kind of, like, turn it over to you and see where you're seeing things.

Jon Favreau (50:02)

Yeah. Again, this is something that we struggled with in 2020 because we wanted to be a place and we were a place where all the different candidates who ran in 2020 felt comfortable coming on the pod and just having a good conversation with us. And so even though we might have had leanings towards one candidate or the other, we didn't think it was fair to just be, like, spending all our time on the pod talking about a candidate we like and then saying, oh, but we also want you, some other candidate to come in for an interview. And we're going to be fair right now. That said, I don't know if it's just like, the media environment we're in, the political environment we're in, or just. I. What I consider the importance of being just honest about who you are and where you stand. I kind of. I try to be as honest with the audience as possible about where I am while also making sure that I can provide people with information to make good decisions, even if those decisions are not the ones that I would make. So, like, I want to tell you what everyone stands for in a way that is objective enough so that I don't, you know, seem to, like, push one way or the other. But I also want to let you know, like, if a certain candidate makes a great speech, and I think that they're really inspiring, I don't want to hide that from people. So I want to. I want to say that, you know, and, you know, same thing with your point about. About Kamala. Like, if you. I guess what I would say is, if I had. If I had that opinion right, all I would try to do is say, look, from where I sit right now, it seems like she's gonna have a tough time. That doesn't mean she can't win. I'm not making predictions. This is why we try to stay out of the prediction business, right? Because who knows? Everything. Everything surprises us these days, or nothing surprises us, I guess. And so I try not to be certain, but I try to give people a sense of, like, what my gut instinct is based not just on how I'm feeling, but, like, you know, years of doing this and see and watching this unfold. So that's sort of, to answer your question on that, that's. That's the balance, I do think, in, you know, the purity test stuff or people getting mad at you, I guess I have developed. I have developed a thicker skin. Oh, some people could be laughing if they see me on Twitter. But over the last. Over the last several years, on, like, personal criticisms of, you know, you're doing this and you're this and people calling me names, whatever else, that doesn't bother me as much as when people come after us or they have criticism that is sort of about a broader way in which I think politics needs to be in order for us to win, which may sound confusing, but, like, you know, I have had some. I don't know anyone, thankfully, who has, like, celebrated Charlie Kirk's assassination. And, you know, and to an extent, there's people out there doing that and whatever they're you know, you're gonna lift up those Twitter accounts and that's that there has been like a, you know, I don't, I'm not celebrating it, but I don't want to. You know, he was hateful or there's like a sort of little bit of a justification or there's a denial that the person could. That the per. That the killer could possibly have, you know, left wing views. And it is this, like, it's sort of this vision of politics where we are so. Because the other side is so bad and so threatening that we cannot give an inch and admit any thing where that, like there's something going on on our side or we can't even admit reality. Sometimes this, in a, in a much lesser way, this happened, I think, with Joe Biden and his age and especially, particularly after the debate. And people just like refusing to come to terms with what the vast majority of the country had already come to terms with. And I get where that feeling comes from because we are scared and we are exhausted and we are facing this authoritarian movement that is very scary to a very, To a lot of people. And when that happens, you have a loss of control and you have a loss of agency and you feel helpless. And so you're like, I don't want to give any ground. The one thing I can do is make sure that I don't give any ground on anything. And I'm not introspective and I don't buy into the right wing framing and I don't let them control the narrative. And it's always. And I just think that, I think that that ultimately is counterproductive to the movement because politics is a. At its core, it is a battle for hearts and minds. And not only is political violence bad, but the entire point of politics is to avoid violence. That we can live and disagree and even hate each other without resorting to violence. And that's not just like a core principle to have cause it makes us feel good. Like, that's how this whole thing works. That's how we're all safe. That's how we all, you know, and so that kind of stuff I get a little worried about.

David Pakman (interviewer) (55:08)

Did you read either or both Jake Tapper's book and Jonathan Allen's book?

Jon Favreau (55:14)

I didn't read Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes's book. I did read Jake's book.

David Pakman (interviewer) (55:18)

Okay. As a general concept, do you think he more or less accurately described the chaos and the COVID up that took place in the Biden White House in 2024?

Jon Favreau (55:34)

It's funny you said cover up just then, because I think that the book itself does not make the best case for a cover up. It makes a case for people who were in denial about what they were seeing and also wanted to give a president of the United States and his closest staff the benefit of the doubt.

David Pakman (interviewer) (55:55)

And sorry to interrupt. I should agree, that's my perception also. And maybe I was wrong to even use what some are calling a cover up maybe is better said.

Donald Trump (56:05)

Right? Yeah.

Jon Favreau (56:05)

Like, I don't, you know, I talked to some people pretty high up in the administration about this, and what you'll hear is there was no, there's no, like, mental deficiency. The guy was with it. We saw him in this, in the Situation Room. But like, yeah, his communication got really bad and when he got tired, he got bad. And we saw it. And people were hoping that, you know, he had good days and bad days. So people were hoping that there was more good days. And also, again, like I said before, everyone's afraid. Everyone's afraid of Trump winning. And when you're afraid, you sort of, you know, you're, you're willing to deny reality because you're so afraid. And so I think a lot of it came from a good place. I think it was a deeply misguided place, but I think it came from a good place for at least for a lot of the people. And so, yeah, and I actually think that for all the shit they got, I think Jake and Alex, like, did a pretty good job of reporting the nuance and complexity of the situation, even if I don't think the title quite reflected that.

David Pakman (interviewer) (57:08)

There was this interview that Hunter Biden gave where he names you guys.

David Pakman (57:13)

Right?

David Pakman (interviewer) (57:13)

I mean, he goes, I don't remember the exact quote, but it's sort of like f the Pod, Save America guys saying this, that, and the other thing. How did you hear that? He had invoked you guys initially and sort of like, what was your reaction to the substance of what he said?

Jon Favreau (57:28)

Someone sent it to us. I can't remember who. It's probably on our company Slack Channel somewhere. But I had heard from many people inside the campaign and the administration close to it that he was extremely unhappy with us. So I kind of had figured it was only a matter of time. It's very interesting what the Biden folks have done or the true defenders have done, which is they like to say that everyone who was pushing him to step aside as like, establishment and this and that. It's like, you can yell at us if you want and be mad at us, but we were merely reflecting what most of the country had come around to and most of the Democratic Party had come around to. I mean, there was a, there was, like, polls in February, well before the debate, well before things really got bad, that showed a majority of Democrats, Democratic voters, did not want him to run again because they thought he was too old. And so I only think our role was trying to get people in the establishment, in the party to understand what the rest of the country and the rest of the party, people outside, people who are not very online like I am, were seeing and feeling about the race.

David Pakman (interviewer) (58:39)

Last thing I want to ask you about, as we kind of get to the latter part of our conversation, thinking about what Democrats can and should do between now and the midterms. You know, one of the things I think is interesting about what Gavin Newsom is doing with Proposition 50 is, you know, I've seen the analyses of if every state does it, it's actually not really a net gain for Democrats and it may be a mistake. He is at least creating an outlet for a desire from many Democratic and potential Democratic voters to do something other than, you know, the proverbial strongly worded letter or, or the tweeting or whatever the case may be. And when people have asked me, I don't know if on a personal level this has the legs to get him to a 2028 candidacy, if the calculation is the plan is, this is how he's going to kind of enter. I don't know if it succeeds, what it will actually do overall to the 2026 map, because there would still be time for other states to maybe make some changes. But what's your view overall on what he's doing?

Jon Favreau (59:41)

I like it. I'm very grateful that Gavin's out there fighting. And like you, I don't, I don't know if he'd be the best 2028 candidate. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know right now. I have come to, to know him over the last several years, and I, I, I really like him a lot personally. And I also think that, like I said, as a, as a, as a Democrat, as an American, I'm just very happy he's out there fighting. My general view on the, like, fight harder stuff is do fight harder if there is a realistic or even good possibility that you'll win. And don't fight if you don't think you can win, but you think that people want to hear that you're fighting and you promise something that you can't deliver. Because I think that deepens people's cynicism. So sometimes I know that everyone wants Democrats to fight, and then when they don't fight, or when they do or when they don't fight, then they get criticized for not fighting. Well, if someone's not fighting because there is no chance of winning because we just don't have power, which is just the reality of the situation, then I don't necessarily think they should be criticized, because I don't think I'd want someone telling me that they're going to fight knowing that they we actually can't win. But with Gavin, this is a perfect fight because it's not like Proposition 50 is definitely going to pass, but really good chance of it, and really good chance. Then we get five seats. And so he picked a fight that is absolutely winnable. And I'm really happy he did that. You know, and like, I'll be very honest on the government shutdown stuff, I do want the Democrats, I don't think the Democrats should fund this government. I don't like, I think Trump is breaking the law. I think that he is consolidating power in a very dangerous way. That said, I don't know how we win a shutdown fight, and I don't know how the government gets back, opens up again. Now, that's a risk that I'm weighing. And I still think that making a statement calling attention to it is probably the better path. But I don't want anyone to think that Democrats are going to shut the government down and then Donald Trump and the Republicans are just going to, like, throw up their hands and be like, you win, we're giving you ACA subsidies and we're going to reverse the Medicaid cuts and all that kind of stuff. Like, I just, I don't know that we have that power. But that's, that doesn't mean that I don't support it, but I do think you got to. When we're, when we're pressing Democratic politicians to fight, we should have in our mind the parameters of the fight and the chances of actually being victorious.

David Pakman (interviewer) (62:03)

Do you think that this new hostility to speech that we've heard from Trump, Ham Bondi, and many others over the last 48 hours, do you think it'll come to fruition and may even play a role in suppressing the speech of independent media? Or do you think that even the backlash from their own side, like Tucker Carlson came out against it in the last 12 hours or so? Do you think even the opposition to it from their side will kind of stop it? In its tracks.

Jon Favreau (62:27)

I am hopeful that that happens, that the opposition from their own side at least slows it. I am also, you know, the other hopeful takeaway on this is that they often over promise themselves or they often, like they want their supporters and Democrats and the opposition to at least think that they are cracking down hard. They're going to go for it. You know, they keep calling like, are you going to designate this group a domestic terror group? And blah, blah, blah. Like there is no legal designation of a domestic terror group. That's not, that's not in the law. Will they try to make life miserable for nonprofits? Will they continue to sue media companies and maybe independent media companies as well? I would not be surprised if they did that. And they're going to try to make life miserable and they'll, as they've been doing, they try to go after the most unsympathetic characters so that everyone else, when they go after that person are just like, well, that sucks that they're doing that. But I don't know if I like that person. Anyway, this was like, this was like the reaction to the John Bolton raid from people. It's like, oh, John Bolton was a warmonger. It's like, okay, great, yeah, I know he's a warmonger. I don't like him either. But like, still shouldn't have the FBI raiding his house because he went on TV and said something that made the President mad. So I do think that it is going to be on us. Whoever they single out for this, whoever they go after, people who have not been targeted need to stand in solidarity with those people.

David Pakman (interviewer) (63:54)

We've been speaking with Jon Favreau. We're all listening to the podcast. So good to talk to you today and I'd love to do it again.

Jon Favreau (64:01)

This was great. Thanks for having me, David.

David Pakman (interviewer) (64:03)

All right, take care. Good to see you.

Jon Favreau (64:04)

Bye bye.

David Pakman (64:06)

There was a time when public education meant learning math, science, history. But now we are seeing better Bible verses in biology class. We're seeing ten Commandments on the wall, religious chaplains taking the place of trained counselors. And it's all funded by taxpayer money through voucher programs that are sending public dollars to private religious schools. This is part of a broader effort to inject religion into public education. I'm against that and it often is coming at the expense of real academic standards and the well being of the students. Now our sponsor, the Freedom from Religion foundation, is fighting back. FFRF defends constitutional principles, takes legal action when schools cross the line, and protects students from Religious coercion in public classrooms. If you believe in facts in protecting education and keeping religion out of public schools, I can tell you this is an organization very much worth supporting. To get involved, go to ffrf.org school or text David to 511-511- Message and Data Rates may apply. The link is in the description. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt has resurfaced. Still not really doing press conferences. We're going to talk about maybe why at another time, but she has resurfaced with a completely mental tweet. Now, before I show it to you, I am not someone who just says religious belief is mental illness. There are those people out there. I think for many people, they're religious in some nominal way. The community aspect is beneficial and positive. They might or might not even believe their sacred texts, or they don't necessarily take them literally. They say, yeah, it's sort of like the idea of a higher power of some kind. And I don't know if it's true or not, but it's useful or whatever. Okay. I think to reflexively say any religious belief is mental illness is probably wrong. It's definitely unproductive. It doesn't bring people in. But Caroline Levitt gives us an example of something where I do think religious belief carries over into mental illness. Caroline Levitt took a tweet from a user who goes by Auntie Kitty and put it on her. I believe this was an Instagram story where she just said, wow. Now here is the. Here is the tweet. On the night Charlie was shot, referring to Charlie Kirk. On the night Charlie was shot, a 4.1 earthquake struck Utah. In scripture, 40 represents trials, 41 signifies a shift. It hit at 5:57 local time. That's 7:57 Eastern. Acts 7:57 describes Stephen, the first martyr, stoned as the crowd silenced. His truth. The Bible says the earth trembles when God is angry. That night, as a voice was silenced, the ground groaned. This is a textbook case of two overlapping phenomena. One is called apophenia. The other is delusions of reference. Let me explain them.

Donald Trump (67:21)

Them.

David Pakman (67:22)

Apophenia is this human tendency to see patterns and connections in random data. And sometimes we do it. You look at a cloud and you see a bunny. Of course, the cloud has nothing to do with the bunny. It's just you have the idea of what a bunny looks like and then you might see it in the cloud. Not a big deal. Right. But then sometimes it'll be, oh, I have. There's a hidden message in a Song lyric. When the song lyric aligns with your mood, you see a message in the song lyric, and it's not really there. Right? It's a cognitive bias. It's a quirk of our brains. Our brains are kind of wired to find order, even when there is no order. More seriously, there's what psychologists call delusions of reference. That is, when a completely neutral event, an earthquake, took place, it's 5:57pm, which is 7:57 somewhere else or whatever, right? You start to believe that there's a direct personal significance or a hidden message. In a clinical context, it's often considered a symptom of psychosis. And when you see a public figure with a platform framing random numbers and natural events as this coded divine commentary about their political adversaries or allies or whatever, this starts to edge into mental illness territory. You know, there was an example I've given before. There was an audience member who was not well, and at one point, she wrote in saying she understood what I was really saying to her. And what she meant was that even though I was talking and saying something like, I am right now about Caroline Levitt, she believed that I was blinking my eyes in Morse code to her to give her a specific message. Now, I don't even know Morse code, but that is an example of a delusion of reference. And the bigger issue is that this is. You know, we're kind of pointing to Caroline Levitt here. This is representative of a bigger issue with the political ecosystem around Donald Trump, which is that in many ways, instead of just engaging with the reality of situations, they're reaching for, sometimes it's cosmic signs, sometimes it's a biblical code. Maybe it's numerology. Sometimes it's just debunked economic ideas. Like what pervades this administration is a sort of faith mixed with conspiracy, and it is a very dangerous blend. And if every tremor, every timestamp, every biblical verse is a message about your movement, nothing is random, nothing is too unhinged or too absurd to be folded into your movement. And that's how you weaponize apophenia and these delusions of reference go mainstream. This does start to border on some form of delusion. I leave it to you to sort of determine how serious it is. Cash Patel got pounded yesterday during a brutal, brutal congressional hearing. Our friend Eric Swalwell, Democratic congressman from California, he employed a classic, classic law school technique. And this is what skilled attorneys do when they've got a witness that wants to go with I don't know how many times have you been to this person's house? I don't know. Really? You can't estimate? No, I can't. Oh. Could you have gone a million times? Well, no, I haven't gone a million times. Okay. And have you ever been there? Yes. All right, well, now we're between one and a million. Do you think maybe you visited this person 100,000 times? No. Okay. That's the. That's the idea of the technique Cash Patel tried to use. The I have no idea for how many times does Trump's name appear in the Epstein files? And Eric Swalwell uses this exact technique on him.

Jon Favreau (71:13)

You said you don't know the number of times Trump's name appears in the files. So it could at least be a thousand times, is that right?

Cash Patel (71:21)

The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone's name we have not released anyone's name in the ABC files that has not been credible.

Jon Favreau (71:30)

Director.

Cash Patel (71:31)

Every piece of legally permissible information, okay. You can characterize the numbers however you want it.

Jon Favreau (71:37)

Claiming my time, Director. It sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which must be.

Cash Patel (71:43)

It's not.

Jon Favreau (71:44)

Is it at least 500 times?

Cash Patel (71:45)

No.

Jon Favreau (71:45)

Is it at least 100 times?

Cash Patel (71:46)

No.

Jon Favreau (71:47)

Then what's the number?

Cash Patel (71:48)

I don't know the number, but it's not that.

Jon Favreau (71:49)

Do you think it might be your job to know the number?

Cash Patel (71:52)

My job is to provide for the safety and security of this country. My job is not to engage in political window so you can go out to the sticks and get your 22nd hit. And your fundraising. Keep going, reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved.

David Pakman (72:07)

He knows it's not in there. A thousand times. He knows it's not in there 500 times. It's in there just enough times that he doesn't remember, I guess, is what we're supposed to believe. So this is an interesting legal technique. You kind of. You force a witness into a corner by pinning them down with ranges. If a witness says, I don't know, you go, is it more than X? Is it fewer than Y? And you start chipping away at the ambiguity. And then you narrow the range until the witness either looks evasive because they're just not giving you the answer, or they kind of end up boxed in and admit a number, you know? How fast were you going? I have no idea. Could it have been 200 miles an hour? Well, no, my car doesn't go that fast. Okay. Could it have been 100 miles? An hour? Definitely not. Could it have been 90? No, definitely not. OK. Could you have been driving five miles an hour? Well, no, I mean it's a highway. Could you have been driving 10 miles an hour? Same answer. It's a highway. Okay, so we've gone from no idea to between 10 and 90 miles per hour. This is a very well executed technique. Now Congressman Ted Lieu also had a chance and he said, is Trump on Epstein's client list? Here's how that went. Epstein's client list, you confirmed that exists. Attorney General Pam Body confirmed earlier this year that exists. I just want to ask you a simple question. Is Prince Andrew on Epstein's client list?

Cash Patel (73:29)

The material related to Prince Andrew has been made public.

David Pakman (73:32)

Is Prince Andrew on the client list?

Cash Patel (73:34)

We have released the index of names that were in Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump.

David Pakman (73:39)

On Epstein's client list.

Cash Patel (73:40)

The index has been released and the index will speak for itself.

David Pakman (73:43)

I'm going to say America is a huge red flag. The FBI director could not answer, gentlemen, whether Donald Trump was on Epstein's time is expired. It's more than a red flag. And this was not only Democrats, even Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman sat there and said, wait, you're telling us, you're telling us there's no one on the client list? And, and so have you reviewed those.

David Pakman (interviewer) (74:04)

302 documents that where the victims name.

David Pakman (74:07)

The people who victimized them?

Cash Patel (74:10)

If I personally know, but the FBI.

David Pakman (74:12)

Has, so how can you sit here and in front of the Senate and say there are no names?

Cash Patel (74:19)

I said all.

Donald Trump (74:20)

I named one today.

Cash Patel (74:22)

I, I said we are not in the, we are not in the practice at the Department of Justice FBI of releasing victims names.

David Pakman (74:29)

And of course he's not being asked about victims, he's being asked about perpetrators.

Cash Patel (74:34)

That is not what we do. We are also not in the habit of releasing incredible information. That's not what we do. But multiple authorities have looked at the entirety of what we have.

David Pakman (74:45)

It's hard to think of less honest, less transparent people. And my hope is that at some point they pay a political price for this. I don't know that they will. But certainly one step in that, just one step is taking back the House of Representatives. It is, it's not, it's a necessary step, but not a sufficient step. And that is an area where we need significant focus over the next year and a half. On the bonus show today, Donald Trump is designating antifa as a terrorist organization. There's one little problem. It's not really an organization at all. So it's going to be difficult to do. We are also going to give you an update about Luigi Mangione's case in which state terrorism charges have been dismissed by a judge. And then finally, tensions boil over among House Democrats over a vote to honor Charlie Kirk. All of that and more when I'm joined by producer Pat on the bonus show. You can sign up instantly for the bonus show@join pacman.com and I want to remind you, the 30th of this month, the last day of the month, we are doing a massive one day membership drive. It's going to be the biggest discount of the year. I think it's the biggest discount ever. I would love for you to be a part of it. An email will go out on the 30th in the morning telling you how to take advantage of this discounted membership offer. If you would like to be notified, all you need to do is get on my newsletter@substack. David pakman.com.