Financial Analyst (3:25)

Last Friday, the Dow there were and

David Pakman (3:28)

I apologize, this is not Maria Bartiromo. This is Liz Clayman.

Financial Analyst (3:31)

Couple of the indices.

David Pakman (3:32)

I mean, the Russell's already in correction

Financial Analyst (3:34)

territory and the NASDAQ was very close to recession to, I'm sorry, to correction territory. Have it happen. Has the market not come down enough,

David Pakman (3:43)

have valuations of stocks not come down enough?

Financial Analyst (3:47)

And do you think that there's going to be some trigger where we see another leg down?

Political Commentator (3:54)

I'm betting on that, yes. I think that, you know, we're heading towards the likelihood of a recession and that's what ended the bubble of 1982. The oil price was increased tenfold by the Arabs and that pushes into recession. The technology bubble of 2000 ended when we got into a recession in 2001, 2002. And so I think we're heading towards recession and it could happen late this year or next year.

David Pakman (4:24)

Well, that must be, I don't know, like a Twitter economist, you know, like the Twitter epidemiologists from the COVID era. Right. It's just someone on Twitter. Wrong. Well, okay, but it must be like an MSNBC contributor. No, it's not an MSNBC contributor. It must be a communist, anarchist, socialist. Mark. No, it's not that either. This is multibillionaire investor Leon Cooperman who says we are barreling towards a recession under Donald Trump. Now that brings me great pain. I know that every time this comes up, I get emails. David, you looked gleeful as you were seeing the billionaire predict the recession. Now it would be forget about the fact that I care about other people, which I know is a foreign concept. In MAGA politics, I do care about other people. I also care about myself. And as I am invested in the market, broadly speaking, not about individual stocks, but just broadly, you think I want to see a decline in the stock market such that my own mutual funds and all of it and index funds are just going to go down in value? Of course not. Of course I don't want to see that. What I am fascinated by is how people keep falling for the idea that Donald Trump is a good steward of the economy because he what I mean, at the end of the day, what did Trump really do? He's a good businessman. If he had just taken his inheritance and put it in index funds, he'd be wealthier than he is after doing all of the business things that he has done. So that's my personal view. I take no joy in the future financial hardships that might affect me or anyone else. Now, putting that aside, this is a pretty significant political problem for Donald Trump because Trump has built his entire brand around the idea that he is the guy who fixes the economy. He's the businessman, he's the deal maker, he's the guy who's supposed to make everything go up. And when people in friendly territory start saying, you know, I'm relatively sure we're heading towards a recession, you're cutting directly at the core pitch of Donald Trump. Now, to be fair, there's always someone predicting a recession. And in fact, since 2014, since the last recession, but acutely since 2014, someone has been saying, this is the year. In the next year we're going to have a recession. There were people convinced it would be 2016 and then 2017, 2018. We did have a pullback, a Covid related pullback that was, that was global. Of course, in 2020, eventually someone will be right. If you're always predicting a recession, eventually you will be right. That's not really the point here. The point is where this is being said and who is saying it. As a contrasting backdrop to, I'm the president who knows the most about the economy and will keep it running smoothly and we'll fix every problem, which has been the pitch from Donald Trump. Now, when the warnings about recessions start showing up on Fox, it usually means the concern is spreading beyond just the usual critics. And once that happens, it does become difficult to contain the narrative when people see, by the way, I haven't even, even, even checked in, we've got to update our gas price 399. Okay, so as gas prices are 399, the average person who drives a gas powered vehicle notices that daily. That's like a daily reminder of something that's happening in the economy. And most people, when they think why are gas prices suddenly 399 instead of 273 like they were nine weeks ago, most people understand why. And it is not because of something Joe Biden did. It's not because of something Obama did.

Political Commentator (8:16)

Obama.

David Pakman (8:17)

It's because of Donald Trump's choice to start an optional war in Iran. But then in comes Trump and in comes everybody else and they go, it's temporary and it could have been worse and there's a greater good and it's all going to go down. But then you start hearing from people like Leon Cooperman and then you turn on Fox News or Fox Business where you're usually given good news about the economy. When a Republican is president and they're saying the exact same thing, it becomes more difficult to dismiss these concerns when they are coming from allies. And that's where you start to see this shift. Now, we've talked before about voting issues versus non voting issues. For example, to a great degree, talking about guns in national elections is not a strong issue for Democrats. Anybody who wants more gun safety regulations is probably already voting for Democrats. And talking about gun safety regulations often activates pro gun right wingers who will now be much more motivated to come out and vote against you if that's what you're talking about. So there's a strategy behind that. When we think about the economy, it is a voting issue. We know that time and again it's so cliche. It's the economy, stupid. The James Carville quote from the 90s. To a great degree, the economy is a great motivating factor, especially if people perceive that the economy is not going well. Especially if people perceive that those on the ballot are responsible for the economy not going particularly well. So my expectation, my belief, my prediction is that if things stay the way they are, the results for Republicans, especially in the House are going to be far worse than they expect. Now the Senate, it's sort of 5050, 52, 48. Right now Republicans do have some seats they can lose. And remember, even a 5050 Senate means Republican control because the Vice President, J.D. vance gets the tie breaking vote in the case of a 5050 situation. But I expect that if the economy is roughly the way it is right now, Republicans end up getting the very short end of the stick and losing a ton of seats in the House of Representatives. And by the way, because we also go beyond the politics. We go to the personal here. It will be terrible for a lot of people. Donald Trump gave a speech to Republican congressional members at a fundraising dinner. And. And this was not a good idea. This is deranged, even for Donald Trump. As Republican allies in the room were stunned into silence at a lot of points because of Donald Trump's incoherence, his speaking ability clearly rapidly deteriorating, and Trump's brain accused of breaking mid speech, if you can believe it, here is Trump whining about how during the State of the Union, the Democrats sat there motionless, no clapping, blah, blah, blah. But the Republicans did a good job of clapping like trained seals. My words, not his.

Political Commentator (11:21)

The Congressional medal of honor, 100 years old. And the Democrats sat there emotionally. Emotionalness, no clapping, nobody standing. Republicans, you did very well. You were going wild for all of them. Now, at the end of the evening, they were clapping on everything I said because they were called in by people watching on television. Did you see? They were passing around notes and they were saying, you guys are being killed tonight. Start clapping. And they were clapping for everything, everything I said, even good Republican things. They were clapping wildly, but it was too late. They have no heart. And now you see what they're doing. They just.

David Pakman (12:03)

This goes to the brittle and dark core of who Trump is and what Trump represents. Why weren't they clapping? For me, the Republicans knew the assignment, they knew the applause lines, and they sat there clapping like trained seals every time they perceived I wanted applause. Why couldn't Democrats do the same thing? Now, another topic that does seem to really be a problem for Trump's big a brain is that depending on whether it's convenient, Trump says, we are in a war or we're not in a war. If he wants to be the big boy war president, then it is a war. If he wants to argue that it was urgent and he didn't need, nor should he have sought congressional authorization, he says, well, then it's not a war, it's a military operation. And Trump acknowledges during this weird speech to Republicans that there are people who don't like the word war. Yes, because of something called the law.

Political Commentator (13:05)

But they're doing it for two reasons. Number one is they want to deflect from all of the tremendous success that we're having in this military operation. I won't use the word war, because they say if you use the word war, that's maybe not a good thing to do.

David Pakman (13:19)

Oh, they don't. It's not that it's not good. It might suggest that this war is illegal, which is a little problem, like

Political Commentator (13:26)

the word war, because you're supposed to get approval. So I'll use the word military operation, which is really what it is. It's called a military decimation. But they don't like the good publicity. They don't like to see us succeed. They want to see our country fail.

David Pakman (13:42)

Yeah, you know, I have not seen a single person in the United States genuinely concerned about the war in Iran because they want to see the United States fail. In fact, when you say, hey, I don't know that these troop deaths are a worthwhile sacrifice for this deranged and harebrained escapade in Iran, that's not because you want to see the country fail. It's because you want to see it succeed. And you don't want to see the country succeed. Send people to their pointless deaths for a project that Donald Trump dreamed up. Trump making a really weird statement about Iran's desire to make a deal. And I'm trying to read between the lines. I think Trump is saying here that they'll be killed either way. You'll see what I mean when you listen to this clip.

Political Commentator (14:31)

Like we're doing in the Middle east with Iran. And they are negotiating, by the way, and they want to make a deal so badly, but they're afraid to say, say it because they figure they'll be killed by their own people. They're also afraid they'll be killed by us. There's never been a head of a country that wanted that job less than being the head of Iran.

David Pakman (14:52)

It sort of sounds like Trump is saying they might be killed either way. If you, if you buy into this just totally whacked out logic from a guy who knows nothing. It sounds like Trump is kind of saying the people we're dealing with might be killed either way. Well, that's not a very good incentive to make a deal, is it? That doesn't really sound like it. Beyond parody. In a Kafka esque moment, Donald Trump says he hates mail in ballots just days after voting by mail. You can't make this stuff up.

Political Commentator (15:23)

I hate mail in ballots. I've won with mail in ballots, but I hate mail in ballots because basically it's a way of cheating.

David Pakman (15:32)

It's a way of cheating. By the way, I just voted by mail last week, hilariously, or actually this week, sorry, two days ago, hilariously, in an election for his home district that was flipped from a Republican to a Democrat, which we covered yesterday. Trump, absent of any substance, goes back to the Greatest hits. And we settled eight wars 100%.

Political Commentator (15:59)

But I do. We did a lot. We settled eight wars. People sort of forget.

David Pakman (16:04)

And it's not that we forget, it's just not true.

Political Commentator (16:06)

Another one, I tell you, we're winning so big, nobody has ever seen anything like we're doing in the Middle east with Iran.

David Pakman (16:13)

Okay, so now it is a war. Understand that in if Trump wants a list of wars he won or ended, we are in a war in Iran. If Trump wants to argue that it was urgent and he couldn't pause even a second to get congressional authorization, well, then it's not a war. It's merely a special military operation or whatever it is. Now, I know some of you are wondering, is Trump covered in baby oil during this speech because he is so shiny? And the answer is he is not. He's just soaking wet and, as usual, extremely swollen and orange. Final clip. Donald Trump's perfect brain forgets tsa, and he refers to them as the other, as the other people that ICE is at the airports trying to help. The other people, you know what's happened,

Political Commentator (17:06)

and they didn't need any rehabilitation, but they did in terms of the fake news. And they're doing such an unbelievable job at the airport. Said they had one line, it was four hours yesterday and today was a half an hour. Big, big difference. And if we have to, we're going to send in the National Guard if we need to.

David Pakman (17:26)

Now, before Trump forgets about the name of the tsa, I do want to mention they keep harping over this thing. There were long lines, and then ICE showed up and the lines went away. The issue that a lot of these airports are having is that all those early morning flights have people showing up before TSA is even open. And so the lines get really big, and then by the afternoon, it's mostly resolved. I experienced this last week when flying myself. So there's sort of a. Just because it happened after doesn't mean it caused it. There's long lines in the morning and then they're resolved, whether ICE is there or not. But anyway, that doesn't matter here. Here's Trump forgetting what the TSA is

Political Commentator (18:05)

because we only, you know, we have 6,000 ICE agents and we have 40,000 of the other people that they are helping out.

David Pakman (18:13)

So 40,000 of the other people that they are helping out. Really a guy whose brain is firing on all cylinders, isn't he? Well, you know, one guy who seemed to really struggle with Trump's presentation to Republican members of the House is the speaker of the House MAGA Mike Johnson. And later on in the show we will look at the latest declarations that he made. And I will warn you, he seems to know what's coming for Republicans in November. He seems terrified about it, but he also doesn't seem to have any ideas for how to turn it around. Some people are impossible to find. A gift for their birthday comes around, you have no idea what to get. I have the perfect solution. Our sponsor Book By Anyone Book By Anyone lets you create a fully personalized custom generated book where someone you know becomes the main character in their own story. I tried it. I uploaded a picture of myself, answered a few questions, ended up with a hilarious book about myself called the Froth Files where I as the main character uncover a massive political conspiracy and hidden in the latte art of my morning cappuccino. If you're watching on YouTube we're showing the book right now. You can see how great it looks. Whole thing took under a couple of minutes. Answer a few prompts, pick a theme, pick cover art and they generate and print a full length book centered on the person you uploaded a photo of. It is a funny, unexpected gift that people enjoy receiving for an unforgettable gift. Good to book by anyone. Dotcom Order your book today with free shipping. The link is in the Description when we talk about privacy online, your email account may contain more detailed information about your life than anything else. Your purchases, work conversations, account logins, medical updates Most big tech email providers do scan your inbox. They build advertising profiles around your activity and then they target you using that data. I recommend Start Mail, our sponsor. Start Mail is a platform that functions just like the email services you're used to. No learning curve. But unlike the big tech email providers, Start Mail does not scan your email, it doesn't track you, it doesn't sell your data, and you also get privacy tools that the other email providers do not offer. You can create unlimited email aliases so you don't have to give anybody your real email address when you sign up for stuff. Super useful. You can also send PGP encrypted emails even if the recipient doesn't use encryption. Switching to Start Mail is really easy. You migrate your emails and contacts with a few clicks. Go to start mail.com/pacman to get 50% off your first year. The link is in the Description the David Pakman show remains an audience supported program. Our one week Trump Gas membership drive is in date four or five Every day we are dropping the price of a membership to the price of a gallon of gas. 399 a gallon where we are today is relatively high as far as gas is concerned, but it's quite low as far as memberships are concerned. So I invite you to sign up today, use the coupon code Trump Gas. All one word, all lowercase, no space to get a membership discounted all the way down to 399. This is not a low, low introductory price in this environment. On my show, when you get a discounted membership, you keep it as long as you want. You can also pay for the year at once and get not only the discounted price, but two months free. So go to join pacman.com the coupon code is Trump Gas. The price will update tomorrow based on tomorrow's price of gas. If you think it'll be higher tomorrow, well, today's a good day to sign up. If you think it'll be lower tomorrow, then wait a day. But that's where we are right now. Caroline Levitt is the White House press secretary. She reappeared and instantly collapsed in an impenetrable word salad. She was asked about a letter from our friend Congressman Jamie Raskin, and she delved into a wall of text in, in audio form, orally. That's a you are. And it made no sense. This is the press secretary, a professional at communicating, and this is the answer she gives. Look at this as well.

Political Commentator (22:54)

Does the White House have a comment on a letter that was sent from Congressman Raskin to the doj, alleging that the DOJ recklessly released damning information in

David Pakman (23:09)

regards to President Trump's document?

Political Commentator (23:11)

Here we go.

Caroline Levitt (23:12)

I saw that letter from Congressman Raskin this morning, who I would add, has zero credibility. And this letter was clearly a cheap political stunt. What the congressman did here, Brian, and for everyone in the room who's hopefully not reporting on this as fact, is that he took untrue and salacious claims in a memo that was produced by Jack Smith, who has been completely discredited for his lawfare and his which.

David Pakman (23:36)

See if you can follow the thread as the tangents come off of tangents

Caroline Levitt (23:41)

come off of tangents against this president. And that information was unverified. It never even made it into the indictment because it was so unverified. And what happened to that indictment anyway? It was thrown out. And Jack Smith has been proven again to be a prosecutor on a witch hunt against President Trump. He tried to throw him in jail ahead of the 2024 election. The Biden Department of Justice was fully on board with this lawfare campaign. And in fact, this Story that was concocted by Congressman Raskin was so ridiculous. I understand his communications team reached out to some outlets in this room who responsibly said, we're not going to write this because this is just too much. However, of course Ms. Now did write that story this morning because they continue to be left wing propaganda for the Democrat Party. But I think Jack Smith has been proven to be a liar and a fraud.

David Pakman (24:30)

And this is, this is one sentence, folks. Like, I'm not literally saying there's no, there's no periods in it, but this is one response to Jamie Raskin's letter. And she goes into 2024, Lawfare, Joe Biden, Jack Smith, salacious claims, memos, political stunt, Capitol Hill, Democrats want to get on tv. What, what is she talking about? That should be studied like the Zapruder film in communications courses as to how not to communicate. Now, as if that's not enough, the question of regime change came up. And Caroline Levitt goes, listen, the regime has changed. How else can you say it? The president yesterday said that he had achieved regime change in Iran because the regime has changed in terms of, I

Caroline Levitt (25:23)

mean, has it not? Well, the leadership, their entire leadership has been killed and nobody has really seen or legitimately heard from this alleged new leader. So wouldn't you say there's been a change in the regime?

David Pakman (25:34)

There has been. You know, I was kind of thinking to myself, when the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, died and was replaced by Kim Jong Un, did the regime change? Would the people in North Korea say, oh, yes, there was regime change when Kim Jong Un replaced Kim Jong Il and later Kim Jong Il un will be replaced, I guess the rumor is by his daughter or something like that, Is that regime change? Because if that's not regime change, the 86 year old Ayatollah being replaced, being replaced by his son doesn't sound like regime change to me either. But we're supposed to just shut up and go, yes, there's been regime change, which also wasn't the goal, but it happened and it means we succeeded even though it wasn't why we went in. Guys, come on, come on. A reporter asks a question about young voters who voted Trump because they were promised lower prices and no wars. And Caroline Levitt goes, everything Trump is doing, he's doing for young people in

Reporter (26:41)

my reporting speak a lot to young voters, many of whom voted for President Trump for the first time in 2024, you know, hoping to have no more wars and to have lower prices. Now with the war taking place and with gas prices going up, curious what President Trump's message would be to those voters who kind of swung into his coalition in 2024, but maybe don't feel the administration is going as they had expected.

Caroline Levitt (27:00)

President Trump is doing this for you. He's doing this, doing this for young people so that we are no longer threatened by a rogue terrorist regime in the Middle east that seeks to kill the brave men and women who serve in our country in the Middle east, many of them young people themselves, young men and women who serve this country honorably in uniform and have been threatened, killed and maimed by the rogue Iranian terrorist regime for 47 years. President Trump finally had the courage to step up and do what's right by our national security, our homeland security. Security.

David Pakman (27:29)

What is she talking about? I mean, it is incoherent. This is, this is an incoherent form of communication. The question is, he promised no new wars and lower prices. We've got new wars and higher prices. Everything he does, he's doing it for young people.

Caroline Levitt (27:42)

As for the temporary short term fluctuation in gas prices, the President has said once these combat operations are over, this administration is going to continue to unleash American energy dominance. We're continuing to.

David Pakman (27:55)

As soon as the wars we promised wouldn't happen and the prices that went up, which we promised wouldn't happen, as soon as the wars are over, we're going to get back to lowering the prices. But for now, they're up. What? Oh, God. This is just. It is. It is indefensible at this point that the reason Caroline Levitt's presentations are increasingly incoherent is because it is indefensible. Caroline Levitt asked about MAGA Mike Johnson saying the war is wrapping up, but at the same time, the 82nd Airborne Division was just deployed to Iran. How is it wrapping up if there are new deployments? And Caroline goes. Options. The President likes options, too. If I may, Speaker Johnson today described the conflict as wrapping up, but the 82nd Airborne Division, they're typically deployed at three the beginning of conflicts. So does the White House consider this

Commercial Narrator (28:49)

conflict as wrapping up or is it changing shape?

Caroline Levitt (28:52)

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are meeting our goals of Operation Epic Fury expeditiously. The President likes to maintain options at his disposal. It's the Pentagon's job to.

David Pakman (29:04)

If I may, Speaker Johnson. All right. That. None of that makes sense. Caroline, I'm so sorry. On the issue of the legality of the war, Caroline Levitt is asked a good question. Which is, is there a point in this conflict where if it grows enough, Trump would say, all right, I definitely need congressional authorization now. And Caroline Levitt says, well, we're already in major combat operations, so there is no such point. So she's basically saying, since he didn't do it to begin with, he's never going to do it, no matter whether he should or should.

Reporter (29:40)

Two questions for you. First, if the war in Iran continues past this current round of peace talks and with thousands of troops on their way to the Middle east, is there a point, either a number of ground troops or a number of days at which the President will consider seeking authorization from Congress?

Caroline Levitt (29:55)

Well, as you know right now that formal authorization from Congress is not necessary because we're currently in major combat operations in Iran, the Department of War, and the president, as I said, estimated about a four to six week timeline for the full completion of these military combat

David Pakman (30:11)

operations, which, by the way, means we have zero to two weeks left in that period.

Caroline Levitt (30:15)

Again on day 25 today, and as a courtesy, nevertheless, the administration did notify Congress, the Gang of Eight ahead of the launch of the operation 25 days ago. And we've also had our top national security officials. Officials go to Capitol Hill to bring.

David Pakman (30:30)

So listen, she's basically saying, we told eight people, we told eight people. So that's good. But if Trump did need the authorization before, that ship has sailed because now we're at war. And you're not going to go and get Congressional. Congressional authorization for a war that has already started, are you? It's. It's just incredible logic. It's incredible. It's backwards because he already failed to get the authorization he should have gotten. Now he's definitely not going to go get it. It's too late. We're at war now. Caroline Levitt, the best White House press secretary ever. Or the worst. I guess it depends on your perspective. Pete Hegseth, Pastor. I know, I know that that's a crazy phrase to begin with. Pete Hegseth's spiritual adviser and pastor is praying for the death of Democratic Senate candidate James Tallarico. They want him dead. They want him crucified. Not metaphorically. They don't want him proverbially or metaphorically. Poetically. Dead. They want him dead. They are praying to God that he kills James Tallarico. This came from a podcast appearance involving Brooks Pottager, not a random fringe guy, but the spiritual adviser slash pastor to Pete Hagseth. Here's what he had to say about Talarico, who recently won a Senate primary against Jasmine Crockett in Texas.

Pharmaceutical Advertiser (31:53)

We're talking about that. And so I say, even in the debate, I think you might have seen it, but that I had on campus the other day, I pray that God kills him. Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ. That's the first thing.

David Pakman (32:08)

We want him crucified with Christ.

Pharmaceutical Advertiser (32:10)

That's exactly right.

David Pakman (32:11)

Him to be, I think, Saul of Tarsus. Isn't that nice? Talarico of Tarsus. Yes, that's what I want.

Political Commentator (32:16)

Who.

David Pakman (32:17)

Who would say I was holding the garments while they stoned Stephen? And. And now I'm the. Yeah, that. That's what we want.

Pharmaceutical Advertiser (32:22)

Yes. We want death and new life. Right. And if it would not be within God's will to do so, stop him by any means necessary. Oh, God.

David Pakman (32:31)

Right. Wow. The complete and total dehumanization of your enemies. These guys are dangerous. Okay? If you look at history, you don't have to look very deeply. If you just take a casual once over of history, you see that when they start dehumanizing their adversaries, things get very ugly very quickly. Now, what is fascinating is to look at the response from James Talarico, who again recently won his Democratic primary and will be facing off against whoever wins the Republican runoff in Texas. Talarico might have been expected to respond with threats, but Talarico is not really a threats kind of guy. You might have said, well, I'm sure Talarico responded to these clowns with insults, right? I mean, they are clowns, after all. Nope. Tallarico is not an insults guy either. James Talarico response was that he still loves them. In fact, he said on Twitter, quote, jesus loves Christian nationalism kills. You may pray for my death, Pastor, but I still love you. I love you more than you could ever hate me. Listen, you might not like Tallarico's politics, you might not like his tax policy, you might disagree with James Tallarico on LGBT rights, but if you claim to be a Christian. I don't. I'm not. If you claim to be a Christian and your options are, I pray that God kills him, or you may be praying for my death, Pastor, but I still love you. Who's the real Christian there? Who's really putting forward the gospel of Jesus? Is it the one hoping for the death of others or the one spreading love? Now, I'm a cultural Jew. I'm not a Christian. Jews don't proselytize, Christians do. If Christians are proselytizing to their views, which of these views is more accurately representative of what Jesus would have taught. And so when you frame your political adversaries as enemies or demons or people who should be killed versus you frame your adversaries as people you disagree with, but you don't hate back. You love them as fellow humans, which is the view that is appropriate. This, from this pastor, is an example of how Christianity has been perverted in the United States by these hardcore right wing Christians. Something I've. I've been very interested in as I've traveled to Catholic countries like Italy or my birth country of Argentina, where a really large share of the population identifies as Catholic. Is the number of people who identify as Catholic a form of Christianity? It's a very, very high number. And you would go, wow, these must be really right wing places because the population is so Catholic, but they're Catholic in a different way than these American evangelical right wing Christian nationalists. They're not dogmatic and extreme in this way. And we have. It's not unique to the United States, but it's particularly notable in the United States. In the US We've had this perversion of Christianity from these Christian nationalist types, typically evangelicals, born again, etc. Who have no issue at all praying for the deaths of other people. We've seen videos from so many churches that I stopped covering it, where they're in the pulpit and they're saying we must pray for the end of this person and pray for the end of that person and this sort of sick stuff. And that's who this administration is in bed with. There's this wacky spiritual adviser to Trump, Paula White and all of these other examples. This is relatively mainstream in the United States when it should be considered whacked out fringe stuff. Now, good for Talarico. You know, if I were Talarico, I don't know that I would have had the restraint that he had when these people were praying for his death. But if you want to do something about it, be aware that this is an important race in Texas. It's an uphill battle, but it's potentially winnable and we might be able to flip a seat out of Republican hands in Texas. So if it bothers you that Pete Hegseth, spiritual advisor, is praying for the death of James Tallarico, you think James Talarico would be a better option than John Cornyn or Ken Paxton, who are the two possible Republican nominees there, if that's your view, you can do something about it. You can donate to Talarico in that campaign. You can phone bank, there's a lot of things you're going to be able to do as that general election gets going. These guys are disgusting. I know because there are lots of Christians in my audience. I know that there are lots of Christians who know that this is not reflective of or representative of the teachings of Jesus. I know because they've told me and I know because I've met them. Many VPNs claim they don't track you. Only one can prove it, and that's our sponsor, Private Internet Access. Private Internet Access is the only VPN with multiple real world court cases showing that when law enforcement requests user logs to, they don't have them because they don't log anything. Their software is open source. Anyone can inspect the code and confirm that there's transparency that you do not normally see in the VPN industry. You can use one account on unlimited devices, phone, laptop, tablet, even your router. Works with Netflix and YouTube and streaming services worldwide. It is like a secure tunnel between you and the Internet that nobody can see into. I've been using PIA for years. It's one of the few privacy or security tools I truly trust. Get 83% off just 203amonth plus four extra months free at PIA vpn.com/pacman the link is in the description One thing that's become impossible to ignore with mainstream AI chat bots is how aggressively they police what you are allowed to ask. Perfectly normal questions, get flagged, refused or answered with warnings like you're doing something wrong just for being curious. And so it starts to feel less like a tool and more like an interrogation, assuming that you are the problem. And that's why the AI tool I use instead is Venice, our sponsor. Venice takes a completely different approach. Your conversations are encrypted, they're only stored on your device, not on company servers, and they are never used for training data. There's no surveillance, there's no content policing. There's no treating users like potential criminals for asking questions. Venice runs open source AI models for text, code, images and video directly in your browser or app. No censorship. The Pro Plan adds features like PDF uploads, higher usage limits, custom system prompts, and uncensored image generation, all while keeping control in your hands. If you want AI that doesn't monitor or restrict you, go to Venice AI/PACMAN to get 20% off a pro Plan. The link is in the description it's great to welcome back to the program today Senator Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin. Senator, I'm so glad to have the Opportunity to talk to you and maybe you can answer what maybe are simple questions, but maybe they're not. Is your understanding right now that Donald Trump's invasion of Iran counts as a war required congressional authorization and thus is against the law as executed?

Senator Tammy Baldwin (40:14)

Yes, yes, and yes. So he would have some authorities if we were under attack or under imminent threat of attack to both our homeland or U.S. interests abroad. But that was not the case. And so this president, who in his first term ripped up the Iran nuclear deal that would have stopped progress of Iran's nuclear ambitions, you know, now is. Has entered a war of choice, which is illegal.

David Pakman (41:04)

The shifting justifications have really revealed that it's not clear this is necessarily winnable as defined. And I'll kind of explain what I mean. Initially we had the imminent nuclear threat justification and that nobody's mentioning anymore. Then there was regime change. Well, it's sort of like when Kim Jong Un replaces Kim Jong Il. It's hard to see that as regime change. I struggle to see the Ayatollah sun taking over as regime change. So then the focus has become ballistics missiles. But the ballistics missiles, correct me if I'm wrong, so did not represent the threat to the United States. Is that also your understanding? In other words, it undercuts the Imminence argument.

Senator Tammy Baldwin (41:49)

Absolutely. They had short range and medium range ballistic missile capabilities and none of those could reach U.S. soil. But I want to mention that you missed one justification. It was the first one that I ever heard from Donald Trump, and that was when Iranian citizens were protesting the regime primarily because of such a lousy economy and people not having opportunities to get ahead. And that was the first time I heard Donald Trump saying we might take military action to help those Iranian citizens. And then even early in the prosecution of this war, this illegal war of choice, he said, I've given you the opportunity. I've gotten rid of the Ayatollah. Rise up and take your country back. So that was sprinkled in among the many reasons that he said he was taking military action.

David Pakman (42:50)

I think my audience is quite frustrated, to put it lightly, with the improbable reality of holding the President accountable for this. And, you know, if Democrats take the House in November, yeah, he may get impeached. He won't be convicted, because I don't think the numbers will be there in the Senate. Criminal. It just doesn't seem likely. I mean, what levers are there, if any, to actually seek accountability here?

Senator Tammy Baldwin (43:17)

You know, what I want to do is end the war. It's illegal. It's a war of choice. And there I feel like we have a little more power. But one of the things that has to happen is that we have to have hearings. Now, some people say, well, how does that help? Yeah, right now this administration has only provided classified briefings to members of Congress about this war, meaning we exit that room and can't say a thing about what we've been briefed on. They need to come public. They need to come and have Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio answer questions under oath in public. What does that do that informs the American people? It shows that they didn't have that they weren't facing an imminent threat. It shows that we were not under attack. It shows that there has been a moving explanation for why we're there. It shows that they have no exit plan. And then the people can voice their views on this war. But without any information, that's really hard for the American people to do what they need to do in protest of this illegal war of choice. And so they have to stop acting in secret. What I've done, I may be getting ahead of myself here, but along with a number of my Democratic colleagues, we've introduced what are called war powers resolutions. Each of us have introduced slightly different ones. So we're not just bringing the same thing up over and over again, but been we've been demanding votes. Basically, we're going to put everyone on record unless you agree to bring Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio, Department of Defense, Department of State to the Congress in open hearings to state your case.

David Pakman (45:40)

One of the parallel areas of concern are potential insider trading and corrupt financial acts surrounding this. I'll give you a couple of examples. Someone who has taken control of Venezuelan oil after illegally kidnapping Nicolas Maduro would have a much more valuable asset on their hands if the price of oil spikes, which is exactly what this invasion of Iran has caused. And there is reporting that people associated with the president are now in control of those oil assets, which are worth way more and may be profiting. That's number one. Number two, there have been extraordinarily suspicious trading patterns both in stock and oil futures and in betting markets in advance of decisions that Donald Trump has made. Like, for example, Monday morning at 7:23am Donald Trump posted on Truth Social. Hey, great news. We're making big progress. I don't have to bomb Iran's energy facilities. And we know that in the 90 minutes prior to that, large amounts of money betting on oil going down and stocks going up were traded on markets. Talk to me about how closely you and your colleagues are following that and what maybe can be done there.

Senator Tammy Baldwin (46:57)

You know, I have seen this type of activity of it seems to be trying to game the stock market. And I have also seen what looks like war profiteering in many ways. But let me give you my example. That was quite shocking. He announced near the end of trading one day, the war is very complete. Yes, that created some. Some increase in stock values. And hours afterwards, he said, and, or maybe it was Secretary Hegseth said, tomorrow we will put, you know, send more bombs into Iran than we have at any day prior.

David Pakman (47:50)

Yeah, tomorrow will be the biggest day of bombing.

Senator Tammy Baldwin (47:52)

Exactly. So. So that's one of the examples I have seen. The other thing is, instead of having experienced State Department diplomats leading the charge on negotiations in a number of these conflicts, including Iran, he has Witkoff and Kushner, who have incredible now real estate interests in the region that will be impacted by whether the region is experiencing violence or not. And so that may be indirect profiting. But he's not sending his experienced diplomats who have served and negotiated in Democratic as well as Republican administrations who have a depth of knowledge, who know the people they're talking to. And he's not sending them. He's sending folks who have no experience in negotiating peace deals.

David Pakman (48:59)

Last thing I want to ask you about, and it is about the negotiations. After the president said, we're making incredible progress, Iran just kind of said, what? That's not true. We're not making any progress. Subsequently, when pressed, the administration and the president himself said, there is an intermediary that is involved in these negotiations, but I can't tell you who it is because they would get killed. What is your best sense right now as to whether these negotiations are even really taking place as described?

Senator Tammy Baldwin (49:28)

You know, I have no insight as to who on the Iranian side is talking to who. I am only seeing what is reported. I had a briefing yesterday. It was a classified briefing, but it was not stated State Department folks who were present. So when asked about negotiations, our briefers had no knowledge about who was discussing these items and what they were discussing. I did see news reported out quite recently that there were things that Trump has indicated he is demanding that are under consideration from leaders in Iran and some that have been rejected. Whether that was trade of information in the news or whether that was as a result of a discussion with an intermediary, I have no knowledge at all. We are not getting briefed on that.

David Pakman (50:38)

That is extraordinarily disturbing. But it is. It's also interesting and useful to hear that that you're also not getting that information which I think just goes to to how this administration is operating. We've been speaking with Senator Tammy Baldwin, U.S. senator from Wisconsin. Always appreciate your time. Thank you.

Senator Tammy Baldwin (50:56)

Thank you for having me.

David Pakman (50:58)

Quick break. One useful thing to share. I thought TikTok was just dances. Turns out it's where I learned how to save money, fix stuff and get real tips. Short videos, real people. Download TikTok now. 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 Donald Trump was up and atom early this morning. Or maybe he was just up all night, I don't know. He was stroking out on Truth Social as usual over things he does not understand. Now, if your instinct is to think that when Trump starts posting at 6am he's woken up calmly and had his coffee and eggs with Melania and had a beautiful morning after a long night of restful sleep, Wrong. He and Melania barely speak. She lives elsewhere. Trump probably spent half the night posting from his toilet and then chugged two Diet Cokes for breakfast. So then he starts posting, quote, Terminate the filibuster in all capital letters. Oh boy. It's he's starting with the get off my lawn sort of posts. So we start wondering, well, what, what is this about? What's the filibuster obsession with all of a sudden? Well, he posted more about it. He said, said, quote, chuck Schumer, a desperate crippled politician who has lost control of the radical left. Democrats will make a deal now because he thinks that if he doesn't, Republicans will terminate the filibuster, something which they should do whether he makes a deal or not. Clearly, Donald Trump has suddenly realized that the filibuster is unfair and it's time to start lobbying for the greater good. Of course not. Trump wants to pass the Save America Act. That's it. That's why he wants the filibuster gone. And here's the giveaway in another post where Trump said, quote, when is enough enough for our Republican senators? There comes a time when you must do what should have been done a long time ago and something which the lunatic Democrats will do on day one if they ever get the chance. Terminate the filibuster and get our airports and everything else moving Again, also add The Complete all 5 items. Save America act items. Go for the gold. All right, so let's go through this piece by piece. First of all, what is the filibuster? The filibuster lets a minority block most bills in the Senate unless 60 senators agree to move forward. It's rare that One party has 60 in the Senate. Right now, Republicans are 53, not 60. So the whole point of the filibuster, for better or worse, you might like it or not, the point of the filibuster was to require additional consensus than just a simple majority. 51 alone wouldn't be enough. You need 60. If you get rid of the filibuster the way that Donald Trump wants, Republicans with 53 votes in the Senate, a simple majority could just move forward. And as is always the case with Trump, this is not ideological or philosophical. It's simply what's better for me. If there's something Trump wants to get done and he doesn't have 60 votes, he goes, the filibuster sucks. We've got to get rid of it. If there's something Democrats want to do and they want to get rid of the filibuster, Trump goes, no, the filibuster is very important. When the filibuster prevents Democrats from doing something, he likes. It. When the filibuster prevents Republicans from doing something, he says it's bad. No real surprise there. This is about the Save America Act. You have to understand the various layers of what's going on to recognize why Trump is obsessed with this. Gas prices are up 45% in nine weeks. Iran war, 92% of Americans say, we got to wind this thing down. This makes no sense. Republicans are looking at historic defeats in November in the House of Representatives, maybe in the Senate, we don't know. And so Trump has now started to focus in on, we've got to pass the Save America Act. That's really what we need to do. And in the midst of this, it's, let's blame Democrats for the chaos at airports, even though Republicans control everything. So now Trump comes up for air with this whole, we've got to take control away from radical few radical Democrats that are preventing us from doing things. Let us get Save America act pass. He believes that if he can do that, it will rehabilitate his presidency. I don't believe it will. It's not going to pass anyway, but I don't believe that it would rehabilitate his presidency. Bonus. Bonkers stuff from 6am from Donald Trump on Truth Social, where he says, quote, central Naito nations have done absolutely nothing to help with the lunatic nation now militarily decimated of Iran. The USA needs nothing from Naito. But never forget this very important point in time, another thinly veiled threat to Naito. Now, it is relatively pedantic and boring to keep explaining what's going on with this, but it is important. And so I'm going to briefly do it, if you will grant me a minute or two of your time. One of the things that Naito provides for is a shared defense agreement. And Naito nations agree under Article 5, if a Naito ally is attacked, we will come to their defense as a group of countries. If the United States is attacked, other Naito nations will come and help defend us. But what Donald Trump has been loudly and erratically and disjointedly arguing for over the last several weeks is that Naito nations under Article 5 must come to the assistance of the United States in carrying out an optional war in Iran. That's just not what Naito Naito says. That's not what the Naito bylaws say. And so what was designed to be, hey, someone bombed the United States. Naito nations come like a phoenix rising over the horizon and help us defend ourselves. Trump is saying, well, I went into an optional war with Iran that led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Naito allies now must come and help us reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That might be nice. It would maybe help deal with the oil price spikes. It would maybe help deal with the gas price spikes. It just isn't actually what Article 5 says. And Trump, as usual, wants it always. They're not paying enough. And we might not come to their defense if they are attacked, if they don't start paying more into Naito. But here is a whole new thing that they now need to do. Because I launched this harebrained and misguided war into Iran, even though it's not actually what's in the writing, they don't do it. And Trump goes raw. Naito nations have done nothing. Well, they have no responsibility to do anything. In this particular case, I don't say that gleefully. You just should have thought about it before you started this optional war against Iran. Trump's allies are turning on him over the Iran war. Nancy Mace just came out of a House Armed Services briefing and basically said, this doesn't add up. This is fascinating. These are her words. She says that the justifications that have been given for the war in Iran are different than what she's being told behind closed doors. She posted to Twitter, quote, the justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House Armed Services Committee. This gap is deeply troubling. The longer this war continues, the. The faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people. That's a Republican saying, the longer this war goes on, the worse it's going to be, the more that people are going to be angry about this. If you were confident in this war and the reasoning for it and the ability to carry it out successfully, this is not how you talk. And what's fascinating about seeing Nancy Mace say this is that it alludes to illegality. I know that that's not the context she means it in, but you have to remember there is a very narrow set of circumstances in which a president can launch a war without congressional approval. I don't believe him. But Trump has off and on cited imminence of an attack against the United States as the reason why he did this without seeking congressional approval. It's been undercut, it's been debunked. It doesn't seem true. But every single time that someone like Nancy Mace goes, we're getting different justifications here. It sounds like Trump needed congressional approval. It sounds like this war is illegal. I know. It's so quaint, David. So quaint. Who cares about the legality? Ok, then comes the second statement from Nancy Mace on Twitter. Quote, just walked out of a House Armed Services briefing on Iran. Let me repeat, I will not support troops on the ground in Iran. Even more so after this briefing. These are magazines and they are starting to say no to Donald Trump. Now, Marjorie Taylor Greene also is distraught over what's happening in Iran from a strategy perspective. She long ago broke with Donald Trump. She has nothing else to lose. Nancy Mace is still a Republican congresswoman, although she's now running for South Carolina governor. Let's listen to what Marjorie Taylor Greene recently had to say. Oh, you are a longtime loyal supporter

Senator Tammy Baldwin (61:07)

of President Trump, but you broke with

David Pakman (61:09)

him in part because you felt he

Senator Tammy Baldwin (61:10)

was too focused on foreign affairs rather

David Pakman (61:13)

than the America first promises he's made

Senator Tammy Baldwin (61:15)

he made on the campaign trail as

David Pakman (61:17)

we enter day 17 of the Iran war. Do you believe the president's voters can trust him?

Financial Analyst (61:24)

Well, just to be clear, the president vote broke with me over the Epstein files, so that that always has to be said. He called me a traitor because I stood with women who were raped when they were 14 and 16. But I do completely disagree where the President has led the country. You know what, it makes absolutely no sense, Pamela, going into midterm elections, let's remove Donald Trump out of it. Let's just put any president president in there. Why would an American president lead his political party into the midterms, waging a full scale major war completely unprovoked on, on Iran, on behalf of Israel? And that's the way most Americans see it. They see this is for Israel, not for America. Why would an American president do that? Which is forcing gas prices to hike right here going into spring break where families are going to be driving out of town, going into summer, declaring and waging a major full scale war that, that seems to have no end in sight. That is not de. Escalating. It's escalating every single day. And it just doesn't make sense.

David Pakman (62:35)

It just doesn't make sense. Now I think more than likely Nancy Mason, Marjorie Taylor Greene have the same view on this Iran war. The difference is Marjorie Taylor Greene is now unfettered and unburdened because she's out of the House of Representatives and she's already broken from Trump and Trump has turned on her. Nancy Mace is still a Republican and at least in theory, I'm sure she would love Trump's support running for governor of South Carolina. Don't know if she's going to get it at this point in time, but these are the sorts of scenarios that create massive political problems for Trump. He can brush off Democrats, he can go. These Democrats are weak sissies, they're partizan, they're whatever. But when it's Republicans saying the justifications don't make sense, this is terrible for our ability to get reelected. If there's one thing politicians care about, it's which way is the wind blowing? Politically, they sometimes don't realize it until it's too late, but they do care about it. And so when they realize the way the political winds are blowing and they start to distance, especially on a war, it is worth paying attention to if you are Trump or if you're Republican leadership. I think Trump doesn't care right now. But Mike Maga, Mike Johnson knows it's going bad. I was hoping to get to it today. We'll get to his latest statements tomorrow. But if things keep going the wrong way, these cautious statements from Nancy Mace, I'm concerned about the justifications. It will be full blown opposition. The levy may break and then it will be a disaster for Trump. We will talk on the bonus show. About how there is division on the right over Iran, and as CPAC gathers, it's palpable. We'll talk about it. We will also see the army raising the enlistment age limit to 42 and easing marijuana rules. They want more people. And we will also see Trump mercilessly mocked again as Republicans give him a fake trophy, another BS prize. All of that and so much more on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com you've got 24 hours left on the Trump Gas membership discount. Use the coupon code Trump Gas to get a membership for 399, the cost of a gallon of gas today.