Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
On today's show, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suddenly dies and it triggers an explosion of conspiracy theories online. We're going to walk through them. We will talk about how these theories take shape, why millions of people are posting about it, and we'll also explore whether there's anything to those theories. Donald Trump then quietly dismantling a bipartisan election commission which helps keep American elections running. Almost nobody noticed. It is a very important story. Trump makes the death of Lindsey Graham all about himself and goes off completely off the rails in a bizarre Fox News interview. Plus, going totally nuclear on truth Social. And we will look at the White House, his latest move against journalists. Which reminds me of when the Trump administration tried to get my first book delisted from Amazon. We will talk about why this is such an attack on the First Amendment at the end of the day. Plus, my friend Brian Tyler Cohen will join me to talk about his new book. A lot of books, reading, writing, not so much rithmetic. Not today anyway. But we'll get back to the arithmetic tomorrow, I'm sure. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham sue suddenly died within hours of returning from Ukraine at age 71. And this has unleashed a wave of conspiracy theories across social media. There was some mourning of the longtime Republican senator, but very quickly questions as to whether he had been poisoned have started. Others quickly took the theory even further, arguing that Lindsey Graham's death wasn't even an isolated event, that it's part of a broader pattern involving other high profile deaths and unexplained illnesses, including the continuing mystery of Mitch McConnell's now nearly month long hospitalization. We're going to update you on that, but let's start with Lindsey Graham. What do we actually know? Lindsey Graham's office announced yesterday that at age 71 he died after what was described as a brief and sudden illness. Now, that word illness is the subject of much this was after returning from Ukraine, which is also not an insignificant detail in the theories that are sprouting now. Initially we had no medical information as to what happened. According to President Trump, Lindsey Graham came back from a trip to Ukraine. Trump spoke to him by phone the previous night. Trump said Graham sounded a little bit tired, but perfect. And that was basically the extent of what was initially publicly available. That lack of detail has fueled so much speculation. Now at that point in time, there was no public evidence that Lindsey Graham had been poisoned. But what's sort of fascinating is more than just the rumor. It's let's watch the conspiracy theories take shape. And you could see the process unfold and the way it typically works is public figure dies unexpectedly. Official explanation is brief. Some information is missing, maybe for nefarious reasons, but maybe just because it's too soon to have additional information. And then people start collecting events into a pattern. Someone connects two dots and someone else connects those two to five more. And before long, you've got thousands or even millions of people convinced that they've uncovered something that the media doesn't want them to know. That is how it happened here. And some people online pointed to the death of Israeli television producer Dana Eden when she was in Greece overseeing production of the fourth season of Tehran. Greek authorities said, we're treating her death as a suicide. She worked on a Mossad themed TV show. There was a lot of speculation right away. Now then others said, okay, you've got Dana Eden and Lindsey Graham, who is in Ukraine. And others then said, we've also got the death of Israeli venture capitalist Zaki Jamal during a business trip to New York. He was only 38 years old, widely known in Israel's technology sector, and suddenly died. And some commentators, I guess you could say, said, look at, look at this cluster. Now, even though we don't have evidence of foul play nor a connection, but then, and I know some of you are thinking about this, we've got the Mitch McConnell situation. Former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is still in the hospital. Up until yesterday, he had been hospitalized for weeks with no information as to why he was hospitalized and no proof of life. And even the Associated Press sort of noted, hey, listen, Lindsey Graham's death is coming during a period where there is concern about transparency around the health of members of Congress. And there's the McConnell thing. Now, before we get back, because I'm going to, I'm going to sort of do a follow up on each of these. I'm planting some seeds, and then we're going to see whether anything grows. There's another piece, which is that Cash Patel tweeted out about, you know, Senator Lindsey Graham, a devoted public servant, etc. And mentions the FBI is assisting local authorities and has made every necessary resource available. And this is when the speculation really grew. Because initially when it was sudden illness, why do you need the FBI for a sudden illness? Later, it was cardiac arrest. Additional information, why do you need the FBI for cardiac arrest? That's sort of weird. And this fomented the pattern. Now, I think that this is when media literacy becomes really important because human beings are really good at recognizing patterns and sometimes we're too good at it and we have Sort of evolved to connect dots, because if you missed a pattern on the savannah could be dangerous. Next thing you know, you're getting mauled by lions. But that's an instinct that sometimes leads us to connect dots that don't really have anything to do with each other. And when you have an unanswered question, that's not really evidence of a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists love to say, when you can't find evidence, that's part of the conspiracy because the evidence has clearly been covered up. Now, what is true is that there's been a serious lack of transparency around Mitch McConnell, which is growing the feeling that we are not being given all of the relevant information. Now, who could have done this? If we accept for a moment the notion that maybe Lindsey Graham was poor poison, who could have done it? One initial reaction was Iran, but then another idea developed, which is it's Russia making it look like it would be Iran. Why would Russia do it? Well, Lindsey Graham had announced that Trump agreed to this big sanctions bill against Russia. So all very mysterious, all very interesting, but now that I've built it up, let me kind of take it back down. We did ultimately get a medical report about what happened to Lindsey Graham, and it said he had an aortic dissection. Usually that's from many years of high blood pressure or an aneurysm, or it can be an inherited condition, and it also can be just from smoking and cardiovascular disease. Can you induce an aortic dissection with poison? Not really. There's the idea that if someone's already predisposed to such a medical event, you could use stimulants to sort of trigger it. Like, if someone took a bunch of cocaine or meth, they were predisposed to aortic dissection, maybe it could trigger it, but it's not very solid. So now that we have a report saying aortic dissection, the report would need to be part of the conspiracy. It's a fake report put out by people involved. That starts to get a little more difficult. People saying, you know, he looked so healthy yesterday. That's kind of how aortic dissection works. You could look very healthy, and then suddenly you're dead. Now, Meanwhile, the Mitch McConnell story is also developing. Mitch McConnell has put out a proof of life picture with him sitting next to his wife, holding yesterday's newspaper sports section. Some people speculating. The newspaper he's holding looks like AI. The letters are garbled. I think the resolution is just low. And it's kind of hard to read it. But unless that is also fake, if it's not really Mitch McConnell yesterday, if they've used AI or Photoshop or whatever, Mitch McConnell is also alive. So these theories very quickly deflate as we add more information. Now, I think there is an important distinction between asking questions and asserting answers. I think it's perfectly reasonable at any point to go, hey, we, why haven't we gotten that much information? And maybe there's a good answer, maybe there isn't. It's a Sunday and Lindsey Graham isn't married, has no kids. So it was sort of like the staff of the senator that was putting out information and it took him a few hours. Maybe that's the explanation. It's reasonable to ask, might additional facts emerge? Totally fine. What I think is less reasonable is to immediately take speculation to mean that there is foul play. And a lot of times the Internet skips that middle step. And what are really just questions become assumptions. And the fact that there are assumptions are believed to be certainty, we don't have that. But as I write in my new book, Pay Attention, certainty becomes viral. If you go, listen, we have a death here. It's not a young man, but he's not that old. He is not known to have a congenital heart condition, but also he doesn't seem to have the healthiest lifestyle. That's not that interesting. If you go, he was poisoned and it's McConnell and him and it's all suspicious. That spreads very, very quickly. And that's how these narratives get constructed. So maybe we'll get additional facts about Lindsey Graham's death that will raise the level of suspicion. Maybe we won't. But right now, aortic dissection. Donald Trump did not wait a moment before, before trying to make the death of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham all about himself. And Trump thinks he's going to get away with it and just turn this into all about what Trump wants and the Trump policies that he wants to push. He appeared on a bunch of different shows within hours of the death of Lindsey Graham, starting with Meet the Press. And he explains, oh, I spoke to him minutes before his death. And really the problem, the real tragedy of the death of Lindsey Graham is, is it deals a big blow to the Save America act, which is this ridiculous voter suppression bill Donald Trump is obsessed with passing. Take a little bit of a listen to this.
- [11:12]
Interviewer
And I know that we are all just absorbing this news. We are all in shock. Can you tell us, Mr. President, how you receive this news and your immediate gut reaction when you Heard it.
- [11:26]
Donald Trump
So what makes it even stranger is that I got a call last night sometime, you know, the early evening maybe in the Sevens, and he called and he said, we're all set for the Save America Act. He was pushing the Save America act like crazy. He got back, said he just landed from Ukraine. I said, that's a long trip to make. He said he sounded a little tired, but perfect, but a little bit tired. Had a right to be, man. He was a worker. He was really a worker, but, but he sounded great actually. But he was, he was, he actually said he was tired, but he, he wanted to pass the Save America Act. And I said, well, we're going to get it done, Lindsey. We're going to get it done. I'll see you, like, soon. We thought maybe we might even meet today. And then that was it. And that was, you know, very around the time. It couldn't have been much longer. It could have been his last call. I don't know exactly, but I got a message about one o' clock in the morning from one of the people at his office that he had passed away. I said, you got. I just can't believe it. He was like a member of the family to me. It's very tough, actually. It's amazing.
- [12:34]
Interviewer
Mr. President, it is just extraordinary. You just spoke with him last night. His office says he passed away from a brief and sudden illness. Are you learning any more details about how and why he may have passed? Did he tell you anything in that phone call, Mr. President, about not feeling well?
- [12:53]
Donald Trump
No, he said he's a little tired. It was a long trip, you know, many hours. And he had just gotten back and the, I mean, it must have been right after that, because I understand the police or whoever it is came there at about 7:30, 8:00 clock in the evening, something like that. So somebody notified him. But no, he felt okay. I mean, I actually, on the, on the call, he told me, Kristen, he said, you know, I feel good, but I'm tired. He was fine. I knew him, I know him well. He would, he would let you know if he wasn't feeling well. He had days where he didn't feel so well and he'd let you know about it. But he was a fantastic person. He was a man who you're going to watch. It's going to be a very big thing with him. He's going to be appreciated more now than he was when he was living, I think.
- [13:48]
Interviewer
And just to make that point, I mean, you know, you know, he has
- [13:51]
Donald Trump
to find moments his moment on Brett Kavanaugh was one of the classics, I think, in the history of the Senate.
- [13:58]
David Pakman
We all remember when Lindsey Graham started uncontrollably screaming about the fact that people did want accountability for the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Really one of his best moments. Okay, so Trump, a lot about Save America act is really what this is about. Then Trump calls in to CNN and he speaks to Jake Tapper, and he takes the period of mourning of Lindsey Graham as an opportunity to say, hey, listen, we. Who is the we? We are trying to get CNN to go in a normal direction. What on earth.
- [14:31]
Jake Tapper
Well, I know you don't want to talk about any other issues out of respect for Lindsey Graham, but we would love to have you back sometime because I do have a lot of other questions for you, sir.
- [14:39]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
Sure, we'll do that. We'll do that. Thank you for calling to have CNN go in a normal path, and we'll do that.
- [14:47]
Jake Tapper
Well, I'm on a normal path right here, sir, and I appreciate your time and thank you for calling in.
- [14:51]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
Okay, thanks so much.
- [14:53]
David Pakman
We'll be. I don't think presidents should be talking as though their role is to shape the direction of independent news organizations, but Trump wants to, and it's a very revealing exchange because it really reinforces this idea that in Trump's mind, news outlets exist on a spectrum. They go from acceptable to unacceptable depending on how they talk about Donald Trump. And he's talking to cnn. He goes, we got to get you on the right path back to Meet the Press. Trump says, oh, I thought Lindsey would live forever. He was going to live forever.
- [15:27]
Donald Trump
And. But I have somebody that I like, but I'm not going to tell you who now because it's too soon.
- [15:33]
Interviewer
All right, fair enough. We will.
- [15:34]
Donald Trump
I never thought I'd be in this position.
- [15:36]
Interviewer
Yeah.
- [15:37]
Donald Trump
I said, I thought Lindsey was going to be living forever. I never thought. I never. I said, lindsey, you're going to live forever. And he was going to have a big victory. You know, he was. He was scheduled to win by a lot. He had my support, and he was scheduled. He was going to win by a lot. He was going to have one of his best elections ever. And now he's got. He's got this terrible.
- [15:59]
Interviewer
Well, I had the great honor of being able to talk to him a couple of times this week, Mr. President, and as you can imagine, we talked about a lot of foreign policy, we talked about a lot of Iran. And in honor of him, I want to still have some of those conversations. Those are the conversations he wanted to have here.
- [16:16]
David Pakman
Yeah. And then finally back to Jake Tapper, more about Lindsey. And he actually says, you know, I think Lindsey wanted to keep the Ukraine war going. Just really paying tribute to the memory of Lindsey by going, I wanted to end the war. Lindsey wanted to keep the war going.
- [16:37]
Jake Tapper
As you just mentioned, he died right after returning to Washington, D.C. from a trip to Ukraine. It was his 10th trip there. He was a strong belief in interventionism, a staunch defender of Israel, staunch advocate for Zelensky. How influential was he with you when it came to foreign policy?
- [16:58]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
Well, we disagreed a little bit, but overall, you know, I'm a big Israel person. He was certainly that. I was. I wanted to see the war with Ukraine end very quickly. I think he was more into, you know, keeping it going, frankly. He was, he was very, very militant having to do with that. But I was, I was, from the standpoint of 25,000 people dying every month, I didn't like that.
- [17:27]
David Pakman
And Lindsey, may his memory be a blessing, liked the idea of seeing 25,000 people a month keep dying. We had a little bit of a difference on that. But we really remember his memory. Trump really struggles to communicate in a way that seems normal, quite frankly, in these situations of mourning. But if you think this is bad, just wait until you see the tirade Trump unleashed on Truth Social. We'll get to that later. But first, and maybe most importantly, we are going to talk about this demolishing of an election commission that is so important to the country. That's coming up after the break. I never really thought sheets were something I would ever care about that much, but after switching to Cozy Earth sheets, I miss them when I'm in a hotel for the night. There's something about getting into a bed that is cool and comfortable that makes a bigger difference than you might expect. Sheets from our sponsor, Cozy Earth, are cool to the touch, soft, but not slippery, and high quality but not too heavy. I've been using their bamboo sheet set, made from bamboo viscose and designed to wick away heat and moisture from the body. And those keep me cooler at night. Unlike a lot of products that feel great for a week and then wear down, these really hold up. They're soft, they're comfortable. They've become one of those home upgrades that I notice every single day. Head over to cozy earth.com and use my code PACMAN for up to 20% off. The link is in the description. I don't have a cat myself, but I have spent enough time around friends cats to know that there are picky cats when it comes to food. They don't like it, they won't eat it. But one of my friends has had a ton of success switching to Smalls cat food. Before Smalls, mealtime was very hit or miss. The cat gets excited. Now our sponsor Smalls is fresh human grade cat food made with real ingredients, no fillers or artificial stuff. High protein, gently cooked, promotes digestion, delivered right to your door. My friend did a side by side with the old food and Smalls. The cat went for Smalls. Your cat deserves more than a bowl of processed shortcuts. Try Smalls. If your cat doesn't love Smalls, you get a full refund for a limited good time. My audience gets 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you go to smalls.com/pacman the link is in the description before leaving a nasty and disgusting comment, listen to everything I have to say here before you attack me. Okay? For years, Democrats have been stuck in a fight between two visions of the left. And you've got one vision that says, just be reasonable, govern competently, don't rock the boat too much. And then the other side or the other vision of the left says, burn it all down. If you're not with us on every issue, you're part of the problem. Let's do purity tests, let's exclude people, let's do bomb throwing. Now, I don't believe either of these movements is the future of the left, and in fact, I'm going to argue that that both of these movements have already failed. Let's start with the center left movement. The problem with centrism isn't that it's evil, it's just uninspiring and it's not going to get enough done. And the theory was always that if Democrats managed the economy sort of responsibly and worked around the edges to expand opportunity a little bit and didn't sound too ideological, voters would reward them and it would all be fine. And sometimes that did happen. But eventually millions of Americans looked around and said, hold on a second, why does it feel like I'm still falling behind? Housing is less and less affordable, health care is absurdly expensive, college costs are exploding, corporate consolidation keeps accelerating no matter who's in the Oval Office. And so young people rightly stopped believing, hey, I'm going to end up with the same or better standard of living as my parents. So let's grant that the center had reasonable intentions. Sometimes the center governed competently, but it stopped Offering people a compelling vision of a significantly better future. That was why the center left didn't work. Then we've got the other side. We've got, call it the activist left, the revolutionary left, the tanky left, the, the DSA left, whatever you want to call it. And some of their underlying critiques are actually correct. For example, corporate power really is too concentrated. That's an accurate criticism. Workers do deserve and need more bargaining power. True, climate change is an existential problem. That stuff is all true. But somewhere along the way, that left allowed persuasion to give way to purity. And instead of coalition building, they decided we are going to gatekeep ideologically. And politics became this competition to see who can sound the most morally uncompromising instead of what can we realistically do to build a governing majority and get power, which is what I think is most important. And so this tanky left, revolutionary left, whatever you want to call it, became obsessed with symbolic victories and it was a gift to Republicans. Are you with the defund the police movement or are you against it and that sort of thing, and the assumption that everyone who disagreed wasn't simply wrong, they're actually immoral was a huge damaging influence on that movement. Even on Israel and Gaza. Reasonable people can and do disagree about policy, who should control East Jerusalem and like really nitty gritty stuff. Parts of the activist left cross the line from just let's criticize the Israeli government, which people like me and others do, into what can be straight up anti Semitic or at least dismissive of anti Semitism. And that's not only a moral problem. I think it's politically self defeating. If your goal is, is to build a broad coalition so that you can govern. Rhetoric that divides doesn't really work. And then, you know, there were candidates that embodied this politics to a degree. You look at Graham Platner. Graham Platner's campaign, of course, imploded last week in disaster after multiple women came forward with various types of allegations up to and including rape. There were controversies about extremist imagery connected with his past, the Nazi tattoo, racist and sexist comments on Reddit. And his defense basically was, it's all fake, but I'm dropping out. And whether you supported his platform or not kind of became irrelevant. The point is that movements that spend more time on rewarding ideological performance rather than doing serious candidate vetting often end up embarrassing themselves. And that's what happened. My point is, again, I want to get political power. I don't think it's a sustainable way to build political power. People Want dignity. People want to know, if I work hard, I'll be able to afford a home, I'll be able to afford to raise children, and I can retire someday, go to a doctor when I need to without worrying about the expense. They are not asking, did my side win the latest argument on social media? The question is, will you make my life better? And so this is why I think the future is not centrism and it is not this performative, activist, revolutionary politics either. I believe the future is social democracy. It's not socialism and it is not total laissez faire capitalism. It is social democracy, which includes markets, entrepreneurship, competition and innovation. But it also includes a health care system that is universal and everybody has health care. It includes strong labor protection and unions, housing that is affordable. We aggressively enforce antitrust to prevent and take apart monopolies. There is paid family leave, there is wage growth that exceeds inflation. There is a tax system that expects billionaires are going to contribute proportionally to their ability to do so. So this is not like a fringe ideology. It is neither unbridled capitalism nor is it socialism. And I believe that the proof is in looking around the world. Because when you look around the world and go, hey, which countries have highest standard of living, strongest social mobility, healthiest populations, happiest societies, it is the places that adhere to exactly what I'm talking about. They don't have unbridled free market capitalism and they are not socialist countries and they are not DSA style leftism. And I believe that that's the politics that would actually defeat Trumpism. Also, because Trumpism thrives when politics is about grievance and it's about outrage and culture wars. These movements like Trumpism are way weaker when the politics is, hey, housing, prescription drug prices, childcare, retirement, corporate monopolies that we have to fight. The left I don't think needs to become more cautious nor more radical. I think the most important thing is the left needs to become more effective. And instead of going, hey, how do we satisfy the loudest activists so that they'll shut up that I think that's the wrong question. I think it's the wrong question to say how do we avoid offending swing voters? The question has to be how do we make life materially better for the average person? And election after election, that question has to be answered. And if Democrats do that, I think not only do Democrats win and get back power, I think movements like Trumpism, MAGA and these sort of Republican movements, I think they lose their reason to exist and are deflated of all viability when something like what I'm describing is actually what is offered. Tell me what you think. There's a little. There's enough here to anger everybody, but hopefully the underlying premise is coming through. Clearly, Donald Trump has been caught in a shocking election power grab. This is one of the most blockbuster stories of the weekend. It barely got any attention. This is a perfect example of a massive piece of news. Trump has now fired the bipartisan commissioners whose job it is to help America's elections run smoothly and securely. If you've ever wondered how millions of people come to believe things that aren't true, this is a story that really helps explain it. And it is barely getting any attention. Most Americans have never heard of the Election Assistance Commission. I argue that that's a sign that it has generally done its job. It's a small agency. It was created after the 2000 election to help states improve election administration. It is very boring sounding stuff. We will develop standards for voting systems. We will distribute funding. We will will provide resources for local election officials. And Congress deliberately structured it to kind of be boring. It's structured with an even split between Republicans and Democrats because the idea is public confidence in elections depends on both parties having a seat at the table. And according to reporting from Pope ProPublica, Donald Trump has fired the commission's two Democratic members, while the remaining Republican commissioner was allowed to resign, leaving the agency empty just before the midterm elections. Now, if you ignore all the context, a president replacing officials might not attract a lot of attention. Presidents appoint people, administrations change personnel. No big deal, who cares? But there's another question that I think is worth asking before we reinstate the context. If election fraud was truly the biggest concern for Trump, why would he weaken one of the bipartisan agencies that's dedicated to helping states run secure elections? Why would you reduce oversight instead of expanding it? If you believe that we need oversight over our election systems, why would you take a commission and hollow it out if what you want to do is improve how we do elections Now, I don't even think those questions deserve answers. We've, we've heard for years that election integrity is one of the most urgent priorities in this country. And we've seen Trump's years long campaign against confidence, which makes this a big deal. Trump has said, you can't trust these elections. They're rigged, the voting machines are suspect, there's widespread fraud, and if a Democrat wins, we should be suspicious and it needs to be audited or investigated. Those claims, of course, collapsed in court. When they were investigated, they fell apart. There was no credible evidence. None of that stopped the message from spreading, though. And repeating stuff is a really powerful force. If you hear the same thing over and over, the fact that you're familiar with it starts to supplant the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever. And a story starts to feel like it's true because we hear it time and time again. So when we look at the pattern here, this goes way beyond politics. This is one of the reasons that misinformation is so effective. Rarely do people wake up and say, I think today I will reject reality. The way it works is over months or years, they absorb these narratives because they're repeated over and over again. They hear from supposedly trusted voices and experts and their social reinforcement. And you see everybody on your Facebook publishing that the elections are rigged and rigged and rigged. And this is a topic I deal with significantly in my new book, Pay Attention. There's this theme about how thoughtful people, these are not dumb people. These are not people who don't care. Thoughtful, smart people end up sincerely believing claims that do not withstand scrutiny. And I explore why that happens in the book. How our brains process information. How can we better separate something that I'm hearing many times from something that I actually have evidence for? Now, if that sounds interesting, and I think it's one of the most important issues in our politics today, please do preorder a copy of the book. The preorders really make a difference. Barnes and Noble will decide. How many copies do we buy? You can get a limited number of signed copies@david pakman.com attention and remember that no matter what type of copy you preorder, you can get this specific copy that's on my shelf if you submit your receipt to info@david pakman.com now back to the commissioners who were fired. The commissioners who were fired can eventually be replaced. But that's not really what this is about at this point in time. The circumstances Americans have been pounded with over the last six years are that the 2020 election results were bogus. Any election that Democrats win, you should be suspicious of. It was rigged. It's all rigged, and it's all rigged against maga and we need more oversight. Cool. Well, we had a commission that was set up to do that. And what did Donald Trump do? He went in and he got. He fired the two remaining Democrats and allowed the Republican to resign. Forget about every other aspect of this. If you believe we need more oversight into elections, you don't gut the agency that is providing resources to do oversight over elections. That's the bottom line. This is a huge story and it is just not getting the attention that it deserves. Let's talk about authoritarian movements. Every authoritarian movement eventually reaches the same conclusion, which is that facts are dangerous. Journalists who operate without restrictions are dangerous. Books are very dangerous. And if Trump had his way, like many authoritarians, there are stories he wishes you would never hear about, books he wishes were never published, and reporters he would love to just stop doing their job. And this is now becoming visible in how this administration is using the power of government. According to reporting from the New York Times, several reporters from the Times who write about security concerns involving Donald Trump's new Arab Force 1, the Qatari Air Force One plane that Trump was gifted, have now been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. In some cases, federal agents showed up at the homes of journalists to deliver the subpoenas. Of course, to intimidate and maybe even more extraordinary follow up reporting from the New York Times says that White House officials directed FBI Director Cash Patel to oversee the entire investigation after Trump became enraged over reporting about this new plane. And this is, of course, not the way it normally operates. Normally you have separation between the White House and the FBI. Here we have the White House telling Cash Patel, come to the White House and direct this entire thing from here. Now, every administration that I remember has investigated leaks involving sensitive information. That's part of governing. That's not the issue. The question is, how do you carry out those investigations? And for decades, subpoenaing reporters has been treated as an extraordinary step because journalism depends on sources believing, hey, I can speak to reporters without becoming the target. Because when these reporters are pressured, what is often the goal is to get reporters to give up their sources. And according to the New York Times, normally these leak investigations focus on identifying who in the government disclosed information. And the subpoenas directed at reporters are only used in really rare circumstances when all other investigative avenues have been exhausted. Watching this unfold brought me back to what happened a couple of years ago. Maybe new viewers don't know this, but when I had a smaller audience when my first book came out, the Trump administration pressured Amazon to delist my book along with some other books by by left wing authors. Now they failed, and my first book, the Echo Machine, became a bestseller anyway. But this was a very instructive lesson, which is that power doesn't always announce itself by banning stuff outright. What they often will do is pressure those who distribute the ideas. In the case of My book, it was. We're not banning the book. Let's pressure Amazon not to say sell it. In the case of journalists and sources, it's let's pressure the journalists to either give up sources or to be scared of even working with sources. We've seen it with law firms and universities. Are you sure you want to represent this client? Are you sure that you want to hire this professor? They do it with television networks. Are you sure you want to be paying to produce this particular show? And you can always explain away the individual episodes, but when you take it all together, there's a very clear pattern which is make the cost of challenging those in power feel too high to be worth it. And this is one of the reasons I wanted to write this new book. By the way, this book is not about one politician or administration. It's about how do people believe, believe things that aren't true? How is repetition often more persuasive than evidence and all of those important issues. So as we see these stories unfold now with the subpoenaing of times reporters and all of this stuff, these really aren't separate stories taken together. Pressure on journalists, attacks on independent institutions, attempts to shape the information that even reaches the public, these are all the conditions that hurt. Facts getting out and foment misinformation succeeding. And when fewer journalists feel free to investigate, when fewer sources believe that there they will really be kept safe if they communicate with reporters and all of this stuff, the self censorship leaves a vacuum where false narratives easily can fill it. So we are now in a situation where I think more than ever, if we're going to have a healthy democracy, we have to have citizens with access to competing ideas. We have to have independent reporting. There must be rigorous investigations. The interview last week that I did with the authors of Regime Change, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, that's not always the type of interview that performs well and the audience is interested in, but it did really well. And I got so many emails from people saying, you know, David, I had sort of forgotten about good old fashioned investigative journalism. They did investigative journalism for years. They did the work, they have sources, they corroborated, they published it. And not those two New York Times reporters. But now others are being subpoenaed for their reporting about what quite frankly is at least potentially a security risk. Trump taking a supposedly free plane from Qatar. If we lose investigative reporting and competing ideas and all of this stuff, the people left deciding what's true are almost always the people with the most power. And right now That's Donald Trump and that is absolutely terrifying. Most scams do not feel random. Scammers may know your name, your city, a relative, where you work, and suddenly the message you get sounds a lot more believ. And a lot of that information is found online and it's just sitting there waiting for bad actors to use it against you. This is why our sponsor Incogni works to remove all of that information from hundreds of websites and databases that have it so that scammers have nothing to work with. Incogni automatically sends removal requests to hundreds of sites that have your personal info. They will follow up again and again until it's gone. My favorite feature is custom removals. With the unlimited plan. You find your info anywhere, strange directory, obscure website, not on their master list of databases. You submit it a link in a screenshot and they will work to get it removed for you. Scammers and spammers can't bother you if they can't find you. And I am getting no spam calls anymore and I've always been using Incogni. I would recommend it to anybody. Go to incogni.com/pacman use the code PACMAN for 60% off the annual plan. The link is in the description. A lot of people put on music while they work, assuming it helps them concentrate. But in practice, familiar songs, lyrics or constantly changing tracks often will take attention away from what you're working on rather than supporting attention. And that's where Brain FM comes in. Our sponsor, Brain FM is a music app designed to support focus, relaxation or sleep with music created by human musicians working alongside neuroscientists. Instead of generic playlists, Brain FM offers task specific modes like deep work, creative and motivation depending on what you're trying to do. What makes Brain FM different is the science behind it, because it's the only music apple Funded by the National Science foundation based on their unique audio technology designed to influence brain activity associated with focus, Brain FM also has published peer reviewed research showing their technology supports attentional performance. They even have an optional ADHD mode for people who benefit from additional stimulation. But the app really is built for anybody looking to reduce distractions and stay engaged with their work. You can try Brain FM totally free for 30 days by going to brain.fm/pacman. 30 days is a long free trial. Go check it out. The link is in the description. Well Brian, Tyler Cohen is here today and he has a new book out tomorrow, the day after how to Wield Power in the Post Trump World. Brian, always good to talk to You, David.
- [43:04]
Brian Tyler Cohen
Great talking, man.
- [43:05]
David Pakman
What I love about this book is I've been focused more on more, more and more on the left needs a direct path to getting power and then wielding it effectively. And in fact, I did a commentary earlier in today's show arguing that a lot of the conversations and the way that the left has operated might be emotionally salient and it might perform well on social media, etc. But actually it's not particularly useful in the interest of getting power back and then using that power to do things, get policies in place and make things better for people. The structure of the book is very interesting because you go through. Well, I'll let, I'll let you explain it, but talk to us about how you came to say, hey, the, the getting and wielding of power is really an area that the left needs to focus on here.
- [43:58]
Brian Tyler Cohen
So I think the thing that's frustrated me, and I'm sure you, and I'm sure everybody who's watching and listening right now, is that we have watched for so long as Republicans have abused the power that they had while Democrats effectively fail to wield it. And so there is this massive asymmetry there. And we have seen that present itself in, in a myriad of different ways. I think the most salient being the fact that that Republicans redrew the rules for how to sit a Supreme Court justice. Obviously, Merrick Garland wasn't allowed to have his hearing for almost a year. Meanwhile, Amy Coney Barrett was allowed to be sat five minutes after voting already began. So we have seen this massive asymmetry. And so what I try to do with the book is lay out a blueprint for Democrats to actually wield power once they have it. Because frankly, it's not good enough to just get caught trying or to notch symbolic victories or messaging wins. We actually have to push for meaningful, lasting change. And Trump has shown us through how he's barreled through everything. I mean, he doesn't listen to the Constitution or laws or attorneys or judges or any other branch of government. He does whatever he wants, but he does it for self enrichment. And so my contention here is that given the fact that our institutions are not as sacrosanct as we were once led to believe, we can also barrel through these things. But we have to do it in a virtuous way. We have to do it so that we can actually deliver on climate change, on health care, on voting rights, on a just economy, and so much more.
- [45:31]
David Pakman
One of the things I find really interesting in the book, and hopefully I'm not reading My politics into it is that you. One of the debates that's happening on the left is, is, hey, there's this kind of like center left and then there's the use whatever phrase you want, activist left, revolutionary left, DSA left. And basically it's a battle to try to figure out which of those two my view is. I think actually the path forward is the path of Northern Europe and its social democracy. It's not that timid centrist stuff and it's not the DSA revolutionary left either. What I think is interesting about the book is, while I don't think you say it explicitly, the policies and the ideas that you kind of point to do seem to kind of be pointing in the direction I'm talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- [46:21]
Brian Tyler Cohen
Yeah, look, I think that, that it's not necessarily about ideology, although I do advocate for some positions, like Medicare for All, for example. I think it's crazy that we are living in the richest country in the world and that we're the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal health care. A lot of it is more about making sure that we can actually accomplish some of the tasks that we set out to accomplish. Like we, we for so long see us getting to the five yard line and then something happens where we don't get there. Kyrsten Sinema gives a thumbs down, you know, for the minimum wage vote, for example. So a lot of it is just actually recognizing that when our elected officials are in office, they are not in office to defend the institutions, they're in office to deliver on outcomes. And somewhere along the line, I don't know, I don't know whether it's like DC brain rot has set in where these people feel like they're there to make sure that they can prop up these norms and traditions and they forget about the people who sent them there and why they sent them there. Now, you can also make the argument that the same thing is happening on the right, that there is obviously no instance of, of or evidence that the right is delivering for their constituents. But the reason being is not norms and traditions. The reason being is that they had no intention of actually delivering. I mean, Trump had offered up kind of a smorgasbord of promises to his supporters from lowering costs and releasing the Epstein files and preventing foreign wars. And now we're in a situation where costs are higher, The Epstein files are still suppressed and we're engaged in, in a brand new war in the Middle East. For four months, they never had any intention of delivering on those things. That's the difference. Democrats, while they may be well intentioned, will let any speed bump block them. And that's what I'm trying to argue against.
- [48:08]
David Pakman
One of the things that I think is interesting to think about is that a lot of the discussion today is about what to do on the assumption that MAGA controls the Republican Party. But we may have a situation in 2029 where it is not MAGA that is in control of the Republican Party. Now this is regardless of who wins in 2028. The candidate in 28 may or may not be a MAGA type. JD Vance. His chances aren't looking particularly good, although maybe he is still sort of the default until someone comes in and takes that place. Maybe Marco Rubio or who knows. How important do you think it is for the left to have a plan that would be effective regardless of whether the opposition is maga, because it might end up being something different.
- [48:51]
Brian Tyler Cohen
Totally. I think. I mean, look, that, that is the North Star of this book. That's why I'm trying to have this debate now. If we're lucky enough to get power, if we're lucky enough to have the House, the Senate and the White House, that's already a Herculean feat unto itself. We see how infrequent we have those opportunities. More often it's, you know, even if we're lucky enough to win the White House, then we have one or no chambers of Congress, and then you really can't get anything done. And so if we're able to actually secure majorities across the government, I would rather use that time to hit the ground running and start getting stuff done. Which is why I want to have this debate now. Because so often we see Democrats take power and they say, okay, we've got power, time to empanel a commission, and that commission will come back in 18 months and deliver their recommendation. And then we're going to sit and think, have a good think on that recommendation for the next six months. And there you have it. I mean, that's two years down. And we can see the House changed control from Democrat to Republican. And so I'd rather have this debate now and introduce into the zeitgeist the idea that Democrats need to fight, need to make sure that we are not, that we're not more deferential to institutions than outcomes, so that when we get into power, we can start delivering on this stuff, we can figure out what it is we need to do and use what precious little time we have to actually get stuff done. So that also we can sent a message to voters that when they give us their votes, when people vote for Democrats, it's actually worth it. Because I think for so long, there has been this sense of disillusionment among the electorate. And we're seeing it. You know, we obviously saw it for Democrats in 2024. That's why so many people realigned to the right. And now we're seeing that same disillusionment on the right where people are saying, like, look, I voted for a Republican. For a lot of people, it was their first time thinking that Trump was going to deliver. And here we are in a situation where everything he promised, he's doing the opposite of. So if we can't show people that there is a reason for them to have offered up their votes to a certain political party, then we can't be surprised when those people just give up on politics altogether.
- [50:59]
David Pakman
There's all of these ideas that require having power, that include, what about eliminating the filibuster, what about adding Supreme Court justices to the Supreme Court, voting rights protections, anti gerrymandering measures, a lot of really important stuff. If Democrats take the House in November and nothing else, those big ideas are going to have to wait a little bit.
- [51:22]
Brian Tyler Cohen
Yeah.
- [51:22]
David Pakman
What can and should Democrats do if what happens is they take the House back in November and now it's two years of Trump in the Oval Office. Republicans still control the Senate, but Democrats take the House back. What do they do?
- [51:36]
Brian Tyler Cohen
You have to use what little power you have, at least to begin investigating a lot of the corruption that we're seeing right now. There is there. You know, I spend time in the book talking about accountability, and I think this was a part that it was a little bit difficult for me because I was like, okay, do we focus on a proactive agenda? Because there are a lot of people who don't care about, you know, the minutia of politics or holding somebody to account. What they care about is that the government is delivering for them. What they care about is that they can afford their rent and to put food on the table and to get medicine or health care for their family. Like that's what they care about. They don't give a shit when they turn on, you know, CNN and watch the back and forth of the usual partisan food fight. At the same time, there are a lot of people who recognize, I think rightfully, that if we don't have accountability for the corruption that we're seeing right now, then you can't have a functional government. And so you can't trust that, for example, this won't happen again if you fail to hold people accountable for their criminality. You can make the argument, and I do, that the reason that we're seeing so much corruption in Trump 2.0 is because the Biden administration, Merrick Garland, refused to actually wield the levers of power in a virtuous way against Donald Trump when he was engaged in all of his criminality. And so Trump got this idea, and I don't blame him, that he can act with impunity. So you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. If we're in a situation where we only have the House, for example, and obviously you can't pass legislation if you've only got the House. So that's fine. Use what power you have to at least begin investigating all of the rampant corruption that we're seeing right now, whether it's these Trump kids and Trump family members getting massive military contracts, whether it's these short sales that we're seeing on an almost daily basis where a bunch of stocks are sold and then five minutes later, Trump makes an announcement that sends the stuff, stock market plunging or surging. So this stuff is happening in broad daylight. And I think there is this sense from Trump aligned figures and Republicans that, you know what, like, our guys are in office right now, we don't have to worry about any of this. But they should have to worry about that, because when you just kind of flout the rule of law in the way that they're doing right now with this sense that nothing will ever happen, that's what gives rise to the lawlessness that we're seeing in government right now. And that's frankly why people give up on government when they see that there are two tiers of justice, which, by the way, is something that Republicans themselves ran against in 2024.
- [54:03]
David Pakman
Do you, are there potential 2028 democratic contenders that you think would adopt this structural approach that you outline in the book?
- [54:13]
Brian Tyler Cohen
I do. And the interesting thing about that is, first of all, I think that they have to. I don't think that there's going to be an appetite for what Joe Biden did in 2020, where he said, okay, what we're looking for is a return to normal. There is no more normal like that. Not only is there no more normal, but frankly, a return to status quo. Politics is expressly what people have been voting against across the country. It is expressly what voters repudiated in 2024. And so the notion that we're going to run somebody who's going to usher in like a bygone era of compromise and bipartisanship and Kumbaya, I think is really misguided and, and I think whoever chooses that lane is going to find that out pretty quickly. But I think what's interesting is even across ideological lines, I think that we're going to have candidates who run on this frame of, okay, we have to break the mold a little bit. I think, for example, if we see somebody like AOC run, and I hope she does that, she is not somebody who is constrained by the confines of establishment politics, obviously. On the flip side, even somebody who likens himself to or thinks of himself as an institutionalist, like Gavin Newsom, I think that some of the lessons he learned from his own successful, successful venture into redistricting Prop 50, gave him the, the idea that, okay, you know, this is the kind of stuff that voters are going to reward when you're not just doing more of the same. When you think outside the box and when you actually fight fire with fire, I think that is some positive reinforcement. So, look, I think there's obviously an ideological difference between somebody like AOC and Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom's more establishment AOC is certainly more progressive. But even across those ideological lines, I think both of them understand that what is going to be successful moving forward is, is kind of breaking the mold a little bit and figuring out how to deliver on outcomes as opposed to just allowing norms and procedures and processes and institutions and the parliamentarian and the filibuster to dictate how we operate.
- [56:26]
David Pakman
Well, I think it is going to be a primary and an election the likes of which we have never seen before. That is my likely prediction. The book which I have here is the day after how to Wield Power in a Post Trump World. We've been speaking with Brian Tyler Cohen. You can. Technically, you're still pre ordering the book today, but it's out tomorrow. So it's sort of like you're just getting the book, I think is the right way to say it to people.
- [56:51]
Brian Tyler Cohen
Yeah. And, and it's available everywhere. Also, if folks are looking to see me in person, I'm going to be on my book tour tour. So I'll be in Washington D.C. on July 14, I'll be in New York July 15 and I'll be in LA July 18. And you can find the link to order the book at a raft of different retailers or grab book tour tickets@briantylercohen.com
- [57:12]
David Pakman
book I'm buying up all the tickets myself. So people are competing with me for the I, I want to make sure I control the entire. Congratulations on the book, Brian. Always good to talk to you and we'll, we'll talk soon.
- [57:23]
Brian Tyler Cohen
David, thanks for the work that you do and thanks so much for having me on.
- [57:27]
David Pakman
The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member@join pacman.com you'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com a sickly sounding Trump stunned Fox News hosts by alluding to Obama's a Muslim, but let's not talk about that. And Fox hosts were desperate to control Donald Trump. Now this interview just hours ago on Fox and Friends was ostensibly to honor the memory of deceased Senator Lindsey Graham. Trump ranted, raved and just generally made no sense. Like a complete clown show, the hosts tried and very seriously failed to keep him on topic. And here is Trump talking about how Obama was terrible on Iran and he was on the Iranian side because he's a. Well, let's not say Trump stopping short of saying he's a Muslim.
- [58:41]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
If you look for 47 years they've been tapping people along. Presidents, every president got tapped along, didn't do anything, and they became more and more powerful. This should have been done 47 years ago, shouldn't have been allowed to start. But Clinton let him go and Bush let him go. Everybody let him go. And Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side. Obama because, you know, he's a. Let's not tape let's, let's not say, let's leave that for another time. He was terrible.
- [59:13]
David Pakman
And of course there is Trump suggesting Obama was on the side of Iran, not the United States because Obama's a. Well, let me not say he's a Muslim. The most sort of stupid aspect of this is that Trump's best hope is a deal with Iran that isn't even as strong as the one Obama got. So what what's just like beyond belief is if you just go like, let's just for a second theoretically accept everything Trump is saying. Obama was on the side of Iran during that negotiation because Obama's a Muslim and he likes Iran better than the United States. Even if you accept all that, Obama still ended up with a stronger deal than the best scenario Trump is likely to get because it has been disaster after disaster after with Trump in trying to get Anything back in place. So if Obama's deal was the result of Obama being a Muslim with secret loyalties to Iran over the United States, why isn't Trump going to get even as good a deal as that? It's pathetic. It's humiliating. It's all made up. This is a president who's speaking this way. Trump again, talking. Remember this, this. This interview was supposed to be about Lindsey Graham. Trump goes, we need to be reimbursed for the Strait of Hormuz. We're going to get paid. Is it open or closed? Nobody knows.
- [60:36]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
We hit him very hard last night.
- [60:38]
Donald Trump
Every time they send a drone, we
- [60:39]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
hit them very hard.
- [60:40]
David Pakman
The war that is over is involving people hitting others very hard. Wow.
- [60:45]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
But we had a deal. What?
- [60:46]
Donald Trump
Nobody knows.
- [60:47]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
We had a deal. It was a done deal, and then they broke it. They always break it. We've had 10 deals with these people, and so we're just going to hit them very hard. And we're going to keep the strait and we'll probably run it. We'll become the guardian of the strait. Maybe we'll call it the guardian angel of the Strait. And we should be reimbursed for that. When we do that, we're going to be reimbursed because the other nations are very wealthy. They're on our side, and we can't be expected to do that for nothing, unlike we had for many years. You know, we guarded the Strait for 50 years more, and we never got paid for it. They made all the money and the United States was just, you know, not. They wouldn't. It's amazing. It's. We never made. We guarded it for nothing. And now we're going to guard it. We're going to get paid for guarding it. A lot of money. But we just.
- [61:36]
David Pakman
This is a delusional person. This. This is a person who is completely disconnected from reality. And remember that it was all over. And now Trump's back to, we're hitting him hard. We're going to figure out what's going to happen with the Strait. You signed a letter three weeks ago. I thought we were done with this, but of course we're not. The most ended war in history, which is back on. Donald Trump, in a moment of totally criminal egocentrism and mania, says that no one understood better than Trump how the ear bleeds. And this is, of course, related to the Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt against him. He's just so smart. He knows all about the ear.
- [62:15]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
They saw what was happening. Everybody saw very quickly. I knew. I knew exactly what was happening. There was nothing. I mean, it was amazing how I understood exactly. And I knew it was the year they thought it was all over because the ear bleeds. Something with some little fact. You'll ask your doctor that, who is, who's fantastic, by the way, just gave the report on Lindsay. He's such a great guy and such a great doctor, but you'll ask him. It has to do with cartilage, the
- [62:41]
David Pakman
ear bleeds more than it's got to do with cartilage.
- [62:44]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
So I got hit in the ear and it was a bloody mess, but I knew I only got it there. And they thought I got hit at many different locations because of the blood, the amount of blood. And you know, they blew it. They blew it because of the one
- [62:56]
David Pakman
thing, I mean, just random, random words. And then finally, just to give you a sense that really, this tells the story of the entire interview. Here is Lawrence Jones desperately trying to get a question in, desperately trying to slow Trump down. Because remember, there is supposed to be remembering Lindsey Graham and Trump is ranting about the Save America act and proof of citizenship. Lawrence Jones simply can't do it.
- [63:21]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
Years and be a. Terminate the filibuster. Everything goes away and we do anything we want. We passed everything we want and the Democrats are going to do it. And he started to see that because he was against. Because everyone sort of, again, not everybody, 20% were against. He was one. And now he was starting to say terminate the filibuster. Otherwise we're going to have, you know, these continued ridiculous, crazy. Trump deranged.
- [63:47]
Donald Trump
Trump deranged.
- [63:48]
Fox News Host / Lawrence Jones
These people suffer from a very fine disease known as Trump derangement syndrome. And he was seeing that. And Mr. President has really come a long way terminating the filibuster, which is the single smartest thing we could do because then you'd get everything. You know, that's the bigger. That's bigger. But even if we took the small loaf, and the small loaf is the State of America act, and it's very simple. It's voter ID.
- [64:15]
David Pakman
I'm not going to play the full 14 minutes. Narcissistic sociopathy, not an overstatement for what is happening. The death of a senator. And it's all me, me, me. Lindsey was with me on this and he wasn't so much with me on that, but it's ok, because then we figured out this other thing. Endless, endless. And if you think the interview was bad, just wait until you see what happened. On Truth Social. Donald Trump completely unraveled on social media. With a meltdown for the ages. Now, I want to communicate to you the insanity of this without subjecting you to reading walls of texts. So let's just start looking at these truth social posts from the president and then we'll skip over important parts of it so that we don't cause the audience to stroke out. Trump posting quote it's incredible. I win the election in a landslide. By the way. This is apropos of nothing. He's just. He's out of his mind. I win the election in a landslide against the entire Democrat party and almost 100% negative news. I won 86% of the counties in America. Remember that? There's very few people in the counties that he won. Won The Electoral College 312 to 226. Was the first Republican in decades to win the popular vote and decisively won all seven swing states. All 50 states shifted towards the Republican Party for the first time ever. And I had to run against not one candidate, but two. Sleepy Joe and Kamala, which has never happened before, against almost 100% negative press and fake news. All of them willing to do anything that I lose. And yet especially Maggot Hagerman, one of the most unattractive people in the news business and her lightweight assistant, Jonathan Swan. And the failing New York Times itself, which spends all of its energy on negative stories about me. All I do is win, often against all odds. But after the big election success, there's no g. He won. He did a great job. There's no saying, maybe we were wrong about him, the people were right, or maybe, congratulations, we wish you great success for our country. No, but after I won the election for the third time, the same people start immediately all over again. The failing New York Times. Okay, this is. It goes on and on and on. What is this really about? Is there a request for a policy change here? Is there any. And by the way, then he goes into all caps with Trump is the best political athlete of all time.
- [66:51]
Brian Tyler Cohen
Conc.
- [66:51]
David Pakman
Congratulations. Is there anything here that would substantively make the lives of the American people better? No, it's. They should acknowledge that I really won in 2020. They should be crawling on their hands and knees about how I'm a great political athlete. They should be praising me. There should be no investigative journalism or critical reporting about me. It should just all be rah, rah, rah. Trump, Trump, Trump. This is a dangerously delusional man. We. We have gotten so desensitized to this that it might not seem as crazy as it should. I know, it still seems crazy. This is a major problem. Trump continuing with other posts. Quote, I would often say in speeches and otherwise America will never be a socialist country. And I was 100% correct. It's so funny because how can you say that you are 100% correct about something that is forward looking? Has America ended yet? No. Therefore, how can you say that America will never be a socialist country? And you were correct. It could become a socialist country next year. I don't think it will. Or in 10 years? I don't think it will. Or in 100 years. Maybe it will in 100 years. Who knows? Trump not placed correctly in space and time. Ok, Trump continuing on another post. The radical left lunatics often referred to as Democrats have lost control of their party. They are being led by loud and unattractive people who have totally lost their way. Hopefully they will fight back and not let this sick communist ideology take over America. There's definitely some socialists, DSA and others. I'm not really seeing communists. I've got to tell you, this is a dangerously deranged individual. And as Brian Tyler Cohen said earlier in our interview, the left needs a plan for getting power back. And it has to start with winning at least the House of Representatives and sending these people into investigation and subpoena purgatory for the last two years of Trump's presidency. If we can't even manage to do that, we're in trouble. Now, who will replace Lindsey Graham in the Senate? We'll talk about it on today's bonus show. We will talk about the New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani, adding neighborhoods to New York City's immigrant enclave list after perceived snubs and an effort to help smokers quit is stalling under Donald Trump. All of that and more on today's bonus show. Get the bonus show. We are supported directly by our audience. Becoming a member confers great benefits, one of those being access to the bonus show. You can sign up, pick your pleasure at join pacman.com or@substack. David pakman.com.