The descent into lies, fear, and chaos

Summary

---

The David Pakman Show — Episode Summary

Episode Title: The Descent Into Lies, Fear, and Chaos
Air Date: July 16, 2026
Host: David Pakman
Special Guest: Congressman Jamie Raskin

---

Main Theme & Purpose

In this episode, David Pakman delivers an in-depth, analytical, and often sharply critical overview of the current political tumult under Donald Trump’s administration. The show dissects key controversies—from the math-defying immigration crackdown, to the institutionalization of proven falsehoods, the chaos of an ever-expanding foreign conflict with Iran, and the surreal moments of public and political discourse. Pakman is joined for a central interview by Rep. Jamie Raskin to explore legal, ethical, and constitutional violations in recent administration moves. The episode's tone blends dark humor, exasperation, and rigorous fact-checking.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Illogic and Harm of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

• ICE Deportation Quotas: Trump’s directive for 3,000 criminal undocumented immigrant arrests/deportations daily faces a basic impossibility: “There just aren't enough violent, undocumented criminal illegals to satisfy his demand for 3,000 arrests and deportations every single day… It’s a math problem.” (David Pakman, 02:10–05:50)
  • The enforcement mission has broadened, leading ICE to target people with no criminal records, via tactics like traffic stops, because the numbers simply don’t add up.

“If your mission is finding violent gang members and dangerous criminals, why would routine traffic stops be one of your most important enforcement tools?”
—David Pakman (07:00)

• Quotas Change Behavior: Arbitrary daily targets force ICE to arrest people outside the stated goal, exposing the hollowness of the “worst of the worst” rhetoric.

2. Institutionalization of Election Lies

• Jay Clayton Nomination Meltdown: Trump's pick for Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, repeatedly refuses to answer the factual question of who won the 2020 election, under grilling from Senators Jon Ossoff and Mark Kelly. (09:50–16:15)
  • Extended transcript of this exchange serves as a humiliating case study: truth is politically perilous in Trumpworld.
  • Silence and equivocation from nominees now serve as loyalty tests to Trump’s preferred narratives, regardless of reality.

Ossoff: “Who won the 2020 election?”
Clayton: “I’m not going to get into that with you, but you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee.”
—(10:15–11:13)

“The lies become a condition of employment. And when you select government officials according to their willingness to accommodate the reality of the leader rather than reality as we know it, it is a very dangerous situation.”
—David Pakman (16:59)

3. Trump’s Public Incapacity and Policy Absurdities

• Physical and Cognitive Decline: Trump appears frail, falls asleep at events, and drifts into confusion—especially when discussing policy. (21:41–23:36)
  • His statements about the CHIPS Act and transgender qualifications are “dementia personified.”

“Is there any explanation here other than he has no idea what's going on? What some might call dementia, cognitive decline. This is terrifying, terrifying stuff.”
—David Pakman (22:22)

• Magnet Obsession and Corruption: Trump’s push for magnetic technologies is revealed to coincide with a Pentagon contract benefitting a company invested in by Donald Trump Jr., exposing classic self-dealing. (23:36–24:51)

“Why is Trump now pushing magnets? As usual, there is a family grift.”
—David Pakman (24:51)

• Trump’s “Populist” Confession: On tax cuts, Trump boasts about helping friends buy private jets, a revealing moment of accidental honesty. (25:52–27:05)

“The tax cuts helped a friend who didn’t even need a private plane to be able to afford to buy one. What a populist message; that should immediately be made into a campaign ad.”
—David Pakman (27:05)

4. Escalating Chaos: Iran, Delusion, and Dissonance

• Iran War/Narrative Collapse: Despite frequent official claims that Iran’s military is devastated and desperately seeking peace, the war continues to grow.
  • Fox News’ Jessica Tarlov centrally confronts the contradictions: “If it was as obliterated as you say it is, we wouldn’t have any of these problems. That’s the truth.” (66:48–67:05)
  • The shifting timeline and repeated redefinition of “victory” echo the endless wars of recent US history. (69:06–69:29)

“We were promised this started at 24 to 48 hours, then it was a few weeks, then it’s a few months… threatening to end the civilization, he says every day… It feels like BS at this point.”
—Jessica Tarlov (69:06)

5. The $1.8 Billion Slush Fund & Systemic Corruption

(With Rep. Jamie Raskin, 39:33–46:34)

• $1.8B earmarked for Trump loyalists and insurrectionists, shut down in court as “collusion” (Trump vs. Trump). Massive constitutional issues:
  • Only Congress may appropriate funds; the 14th Amendment forbids paying for insurrection.
  • Trump is exploiting the Treasury’s “judgment fund” to compensate such individuals regardless.

“It was collusion from the beginning and then left the very strong impression it was a fraud on the court… The whole administration is a money-making operation. It’s a get rich quick scheme for Trump, his family and his friends.”
—Rep. Jamie Raskin (41:48–44:23)

6. The Epstein Files Obfuscation

(With Rep. Raskin, 46:34–51:07)

• Despite promising full disclosure, the Trump administration is covering up and selectively releasing Jeffrey Epstein’s files, potentially to avoid implicating Trump or allies.
  • Ghislaine Maxwell’s unusual prison perks and transfer are pointed to as evidence of special treatment.

“Todd Blanche is still sitting on 2 million documents, and he says, well, it’s because they’re redundant or they’re not relevant... That’s not up to you.”
—Rep. Jamie Raskin (47:14)

7. Vice President J.D. Vance’s Rogan Interview

(58:15–65:37)

• Vance repeatedly appears awkward, pushes conspiracy theories (“Epstein was Mossad or CIA”), and admits, “If people want to say we mishandled the Epstein release: guilty.” (59:13, 61:11)
  • Offers a candid critique of US military policy—“You can’t just say, we’re going to bomb until something good happens. That never works.”
  • Admits administration’s lack of clear direction in Iran; acknowledges “cool problem” for Republicans.

8. Political Reality vs. Make-Believe

• Trump claims that stock buybacks are banned, plants are being built everywhere thanks to his executive orders, and makes up facts about tax bills, all of which Pakman debunks with exasperated clarity. (29:46–33:18)

“It’s completely detached from reality. Now, there are some companies that have announced new facilities. Some of those said they’re doing it thanks to Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill.”
—David Pakman (30:15)

9. Media and Political Honesty

• Throughout, Pakman and his guests emphasize that the persistent refusal to acknowledge basic facts—on elections, policies, or wartime—dismantles trust in government and opens the door for authoritarianism and chaos.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Math Problem With Deportation:
  “Once you understand the reality that there aren’t 3,000 a day available… you realize that Trump’s entire immigration policy doesn’t make any sense.”
  —David Pakman (05:50)

• Election Lie Still Endures:
  “This is an extraordinary illustration of how a political lie survives even after it’s been disproven. The correction doesn’t get the attention of the initial claim.”
  —David Pakman (11:49)

• Jessica Tarlov on Iran:
  “If it was as obliterated as you say it is, we wouldn’t have any of these problems. That’s the truth.”
  —Jessica Tarlov (67:05)

• Jamie Raskin on Corruption:
  “The whole administration is a money making operation. It’s a get rich quick scheme for Trump, his family and his friends... It’s like watching the Sopranos.”
  —Jamie Raskin (44:23)

• JD Vance’s Awkward Rogan Moment:
  “I think that we should have just dropped everything [Epstein files] at the very beginning... but we should have just done it as quickly as possible.”
  —JD Vance (61:12)

• Pakman on Trump’s Priorities:
  "The most genuinely engaged Trump is during the entire interview is when he's asked about his picture on a gold coin... Policy is vague, it's confused, it's fictional, it's made up. Personal tributes command his full attention."
  —David Pakman (35:14)

---

Key Timestamps (MM:SS)

• 02:10–07:00 — Trump’s immigration math problem and quota-driven ICE tactics.
• 09:50–16:15 — Jay Clayton grilled over refusal to state Biden won 2020; Senators Ossoff/Kelly exchanges.
• 21:41–24:51 — Trump’s decline on display: confusion on CHIPS Act, magnet obsession, sleep in public.
• 25:52–27:05 — Trump’s “populist” anecdote about private jet tax breaks.
• 29:46–33:18 — Trump fantasy on stock buybacks and economic reality.
• 39:33–46:34 — Jamie Raskin interview: slush fund, court decisions, corruption mechanics.
• 46:34–51:07 — Epstein files coverup (Raskin).
• 58:15–65:37 — J.D. Vance on Rogan: Epstein, charisma, Middle East war, and conspiracy.
• 66:48–69:29 — Fox’s Jessica Tarlov exposes Iran war contradictions.

---

Additional Noteworthy Moments

• Repeated Theme: The show hammers the point that official White House messaging directly contradicts basic facts, and that this forced denial has become a filter for public employment.
• Pakman’s Humor & Tone: Frequent use of sarcasm and "can you believe this" rhetorical flourishes maintains an engaging, incredulous tone, especially as he details Trump’s gaffes, obsessions, and contradictions.
• Audience Takeaway: The episode paints a picture of a governing environment driven not by policy or law, but by patronage, denial, misinformation, and self-enrichment.

---

Conclusion

This episode functions as both a searing critique of the Trump administration's mendacity and dysfunction and a documentation of the ways in which institutional norms and legal boundaries are eroding under the weight of enforced falsehoods and corruption. Interviews and pointed commentary bring to light the dangers of fact-avoidant politics, unrestrained executive power, and endless war—punctuated by moments of absurdity and dark humor.

For listeners seeking to understand the ongoing chaos, contradictions, and the consequences of government entrenched in self-preserving lies, this episode delivers a comprehensive, unflinching account.

---

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Donald Trump's nominee to lead national intelligence was asked one of the easiest factual questions imaginable. Who won the 2020 election? And he completely freezes, rather than risk upsetting his tangerine overlord. Meanwhile, the mass deportation operation is running into a math problem. There just aren't enough violent, undocumented criminal illegals to satisfy his demand for 3,000 arrests and deportations every single day. Trump then appears shockingly unwell during a public event, falls asleep again, launches into an obsession with magnets that is actually based on lining his pockets. I will explain. And we will also look at the lone liberal confronting the absurd contradictions of the expanding Iran war in the middle of a Fox News segment. And J.D. vance reminds us why he's not considered the charismatic one during a disastrous appearance with Joe Rogan. Also, remember when Donald Trump's tax bills banned stock buybacks by corporations? No, it's because they didn't. But now Donald Trump is acting like any companies who bought back their own stock did something very wrong. We'll look at it in detail. What a day. Well, welcome, everybody. I am not sick. I partially lost my voice screaming yesterday at a loud bar during Argentina's insane victory over England in the World Cup. But we are here to do a show, and so my voice is going to have to cooperate. There's really no other choice. We have a math problem facing the administration right now. And in fact, it's Donald Trump's immigration strategy that has a math problem, because the White House for a while now has said, we want ICE arresting 3,000 criminal illegals every day and deporting 3,000 criminal illegals every day. These are their phrases, by the way, not phrases that I use. Once you understand that number, once you contextualize that number, almost everything else happening with Donald Trump's immigration crackdown starts to make a lot more sense. Now, remember that Donald Trump told us he would be going after the worst of the worst. These are violent criminals who are undocumented, gang members who are undocumented, major drug traffickers who are undocumented. The point is, we are not going after grandmas and service workers, and we're going to go after people who pose a genuine threat to public safety. And that promise was politically popular when Trump made it during his campaign, because most Americans agreed with that. If you have committed some violent crime and in the process of going after you, it's determined you're here illegally, of course you're going to be deported once your criminal matter is adjudicated. That was quite straightforward. Most Americans agree With that, if you're in this country illegally and can commit serious violent crimes, there is a lot of support for removing those people. But the question that nobody was asking back then other than a few of us, and the question that the administration doesn't seem willing to answer is how do you find 3,000 dangerous criminal undocumented immigrants every single day? Not just one day. Hey, we did 3,000 today. Cool. Not, we did it for a week. That's 21,000. Not for a month. That's 90000 every single day. That is more than a million arrests a year. Where are the 1 million violent criminal undocumented immigrants supposed to come from? And the answer is they do not exist. Once you understand the reality that there aren't 3,000 a day available because there simply aren't that many in the country that fit that that can be characterized as violent criminal illegal aliens, you realize that Trump's entire immigration policy doesn't make any sense. Now there's excellent new reporting from the Washington Post. ICE quietly paused many routine traffic stops after this series of deadly encounters. Recently, two immigrants were shot dead by federal agents. Both seemed to be the wrong people. Put aside whether they should be shot, they weren't even the people that were being looked for. And it looked for a brief period of time, like the administration recognized that these aggressive tactics became a political liability. People saw them and said, this is not what we were promised at all. But Trump didn't like it. Trump stepped in, reversed the decision, posted the truth social media. The traffic stops are so important. They're an effective crime fighting tool. Let's keep doing it. Now think about that for one second. If your mission is finding violent gang members and dangerous criminals, why would routine traffic stops be one of your most important enforcement tools? You don't usually catch cartel leaders because someone forgot to use a turn signal. Sometimes it happens. You hear about these one off stories, but if you're looking for 3,000 a day, you're not going to dismantle 3,000 violent criminal illegals a day by pulling over random commuters. And the traffic stops become valuable for a different reason. They just maximize encounters and they maximize the number of people ICE can question, which can lead to more arrests. In other words, the traffic stop ICE tactic is the type of tactic you adopt when your success is measured by hitting an arbitrary quota. Quotas change behavior. Imagine if you went to police and you said, arrest every serial killer in America. Most people would go, sounds great. Now add a second instruction. I expect 3,000 arrests every single day. Well, now it's a different mission. And eventually, you've arrested most of the serial killers that you're going to find. And if you don't change the quota, officers have two choices. You either miss the quota. You're like, we don't. We just can't find 3,000 a day. Or you start arresting different people. And that's the incentive structure Trump has created here. As immigration arrests have surged, the composition of the arrests has changed. And when you analyze ICE data, you find people with no criminal conviction, no pending charges, no gang affiliation are the targets of these arrests. Other analyses have found some tiny share of ICE arrests actually involve people with any kind of record or who are even ultimately charged with anything. Now, that doesn't mean there are no undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes. Of course there are, and Americans broadly supported getting those out of the country. But the point here is there just aren't enough of them to sustain 3,000 arrests a day, a million arrests a year. It's a math problem. You can post whatever you want to truth, social, but. But it doesn't change that. And so, as we've seen the enforcement expand, we saw that at first it did kind of seem like they were going after violent offenders, and then it was broader criminal histories, even if they relate to, you know, domestic violence or not, that we excuse any crime. But it's not violent criminals who put the public at risk. And then it's workplace raids and farms and hotels and residential neighborhoods, and now it's just traffic stops. And every time they expand, we have the same conclusion. The pool isn't big enough to do 3,000 a day and stick to criminal, violent people. Now, notice something else. At the same time, the administration is sending two different messages. And one is, our priority is deporting dangerous criminal aliens. The other message is, every undocumented immigrant is subject to removal. Now, those are two different policies. One of those policies is a targeted public safety enforcement. The other is just mass deportation, and mass deportation of people who are economically beneficial to the country, who are members of our communities, many of whom have been here a very long time and have done nothing wrong other than the civil infraction of being here undocumented. Once you've promised the public deportation numbers are going to be 3,000 a day, you have to broaden and just start sweeping up random people, because the math doesn't work otherwise. So the administration is now trying to manage that. They want Americans picturing that everybody being detained and arrested by ICE are violent criminals, and they're Just finding ordinary undocumented immigrants, going about everyday life and even sucking in some citizens into this entire thing. That's why you see the business raids and the neighborhood sweeps and, and why they need the traffic stops. They sold a mission of focused public safety, but the enforcement system demands the fuel, which is a million arrests and deportations a day. The numbers simply don't support it. And that's why we're seeing what we are seeing right now. Donald Trump's pick to run National Intelligence to replace Tulsi Gabbard is a guy named Jay Clayton. And Jay Clayton was reduced to sitting in silence to avoid acknowledging that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Here is Senator Jon Ossoff in a clinical taking apart of Clayton, who tries to pull the whole. Well, Joe Biden was sworn in, but the question is, who won? Asif is really good at this or no.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Did the President of the United States pardon a convicted narco trafficker?

[Jay Clayton]

Yes.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Who won the 2020 election?

[Jay Clayton]

You know, I'm not, I'm not going to do this with you.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

This is a job interview. We have established that you have an obligation. It's a pretty honest and forthright with the committee. Yes. You do have an obligation to be honest and forth. Forthright with the committee.

[Jay Clayton]

Yes.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Who won the 2020 election?

[Jay Clayton]

Like I said, I'm not. I'm not going to get into that

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

with you, but you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee.

[Jay Clayton]

Is anything that I just said not honest or forthright?

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Yes. You're not being honest or forthright. Who won the 20 election?

[Jay Clayton]

We can keep doing this.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Well, we're going to keep doing it because you're not being honest and forthright.

[Jay Clayton]

I'm not going to engage in the theater.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

It's a simple question, Mr. Clayton, and I've answered. Who won the 2020 presidential election?

[Jay Clayton]

I've answered it.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

You're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public. But you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?

[Jay Clayton]

No, that's not right.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election? I have answered the question. Answer it. What is your answer?

[Jay Clayton]

I've given you my answer.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community. Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question? To have to indulge the President's delusions. We know. You know. Everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?

[Jay Clayton]

I think I gave you the answer.

[David Pakman]

This is an extraordinary illustration of how a political lie survives even after it's been disproven. The correction doesn't get the attention of the initial claim. I believe Jon Ossoff is right when he says Clayton knows who won the 2020 election. It wasn't a technicality. It's not, well, I don't know who won, but Biden became the president. No, everybody in that room knows who won, and the audience knows. Clayton's problem is that when you say the answer out loud, it has a cost, a political cost. Trump has made acceptance of his election lies a loyalty test, and Clayton is looking for a job from Donald Trump. Now, I write about this dynamic extensively in my new book, Pay Attention. People integrate information into their identities. And correcting misinformation is a lot more than just, oh, here's a fact I update. Because when your identity is based on these lies, quite frankly, when you correct the information, you're revisiting an identity that you've built, which might mean breaking with your political tribe, or it might sacrifice your standing within it. In this case, your job with Donald Trump. Clayton was offered a choice between an obvious fact and the position he wants inside Trump world Director of National Intelligence. And what he's choosing is a silence that sustains the lie about 2020 for everyone watching. Now, look at how easy this is. Hey, David, who won the 2024 election? Donald Trump. See how easy that is? Do I like that result? No. Do I think he's been a good president? No. Do I wish that he hadn't won? Yes. But that's it. He won and Biden won. In 2020, Trump supporters see another powerful person treating the election result as if it's unsettled. And that just reinforces a falsehood through repetition and social validation. And that's how lies become institutionalized. He doesn't have to. Jay Clayton doesn't have to go out there and go, I believe it was rigged and Trump won. He has learned that he just shouldn't acknowledge reality and silence and looking really stupid is better than acknowledging reality. Now, here is Senator Mark Kelly trying the same sort of general area of discussion with very little success.

[Senator Mark Kelly]

So can you tell me why Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election?

[Jay Clayton]

I really. I'm going back to my constitutional law here, but I don't want to continue to have debate about this, but I

[David Pakman]

believe, understand that there's really no debate. These guys are creating a problem by just not going, oh, yeah, Trump lost.

[Jay Clayton]

He had the most electoral votes, so

[Senator Mark Kelly]

he won the election.

[Jay Clayton]

He followed our process, had the most electoral votes, was declared the winner.

[Senator Mark Kelly]

And, and who has the most electoral votes? Is it the person that wins or the person that.

[Jay Clayton]

I think that's your characterization. I really, I'm not going to continue.

[Senator Mark Kelly]

The reason why we struggle with this, and I think it's especially important in the job you're nominated for, is because it seems that folks who are nominated for these positions just fundamentally refuse to disagree with something the President says. And the problem I have with this is he isn't in the room today. You're going to be in a room with him many times, and at times you should have a difference of opinion. And if you can't disagree with him when he's not in the room, are you going to be able to disagree with him when you're sitting across from him in the Oval Office or the Situation Room? That's, that's what I struggle with. Because this job is different. This job not about softening the edges when the truth is unpleasant. It's about delivering information and making sure the President understands that information. And by the way, people risk their lives to get this information. And if it's not transmitted to the President, if he doesn't understand it, I mean, there's going to be disagreements. We expect that. But I really struggle with this, especially in your position, because you can't disagree with him on this because he doesn't like the fact that he lost in 2020, as you said, Joe Biden was, was certified because he got the most electoral votes. That means he won. But you still refuse to stay say that.

[Jay Clayton]

And I was sitting at the SEC when this occurred. And I can tell you that I may be the people worked harder, but I don't think anybody I know worked harder to make an effective transition.

[David Pakman]

These people really are pathetic. Now, Senator Kelly kind of identifies the real qualification Trump demands, which is not subject matter knowledge about what you're going to be doing in this case running national Intelligence. It's, are you willing to suppress your own judgment when reality conflicts with Donald Trump? And Clayton says, you know, I'll be candid, I'll be independent once I'm in the job, but this is the job interview. And he can't candidly answer one of the easiest facts, factual questions that exists. And it gets directly to the title of the segment Is this some kind of mental illness or is it just fear? In Clayton's case, fear and ambition, I think. Explain the behavior. He understands the truth. He understands telling the truth may cost him the position. Trump created an environment where you could be a highly accomplished person, but you got to sit there silently. You must not say Joe Biden just genuinely won the election. We talk in the book pay attention about how repetition, social enforcement, reinforcement and these trusted messengers make these lies very durable. And this is the next stage of that process. The lies become a condition of employment. And when you select government officials according to their willingness to accommodate the reality of the leader rather than reality as we know it, it is a very dangerous situation. Make sure you've preordered my book where I delve into this extensively. There's a limited number of signed copies left@david pakman.com/attention have you ever actually looked at what's in your dog's food? A lot of kibble is made with extreme high heat, then patched back together with a bunch of synthetic ingredients that I struggle to pronounce. But our sponsor, Sundays for Dogs, is different. It was founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a vet and dog parent, to just be real food that's easy to serve. Sunday starts with all natural meat. They add highly nutritious foods like kale, ginger and blueberries. No fillers, no nutritional blends and it's gently air dried. No need for a fridge freezer prep or mess. A friend of mine has been using sundaes and loves it. Their dog gets very excited for meals now. They love knowing that they're feeding something simple and complete and genuinely high quality to their dog. Sundays also just launched a new fish recipe with Omega threes to support skin coat joints and brain function. Go to Sundays for dogs.com/pacman for 50% off your first order. The link is in the description. Let's say you just finished a business call or a meeting, you think you caught all of the important parts and an hour later your notes are scattered and you don't remember exactly what was said. The Plaid Note Pro is designed exactly for that gap between I heard something, I'm going to need to use it later. It's about the size of a credit card, thin enough to slide into a wallet, attaches magnetically to the back of my phone for a call, an interview, a meeting, talking through ideas out loud. I can hit record once, stay focused. Plod will transcribe the audio, separate the speakers, summarize the key points and then convert them into action items. I can also search and interact with everything later using the Ask Plod feature. Unlike my phone plot also has up to 50 hours of battery life. It has enterprise level privacy and security standards. So go to plod.AI/pacman and use the code PACMAN for 10% off all products. The link is in the description. A shockingly unwell Trump went to Pennsylvania to support defense and innovation and was shockingly unwell when trying to speak. Is there any explanation other than cognitive decline here? Of course he fell asleep and the administration rapidly wants everybody to forget that they did this. Trump is very quickly becoming a liability where you kind of can't take them anywhere. Donald Trump on the CHIPS act, an impenetrable word salad that some are describing as dementia personified. Can you make heads or tails out of what this guy is talking about here? Deeply unwell chips.

[Donald Trump]

We had this ridiculous CHIPS act where you get billions of dollars to a company and they didn't even know what the hell to do with it. You give them billions of dollars, they say they're going to build. Nobody knew what to do with it. And of course the standards were so high, if you weren't transgender, as an example, you didn't qualify.

[David Pakman]

You must be trans. To qualify for. For what, sir? Oh, I don't know. Just to qualify.

[Donald Trump]

So they get the money that hired to look all over for transgender people to run the company. Large portions. They couldn't find them. They weren't into the chipmaking business, I guess. Right. They had other things on their mind. But this was the Biden fools, those idiots that almost destroyed our country.

[David Pakman]

Is there any explanation here other than he has no idea what's going on? What some might call dementia cognitive decline. This is terrifying, terrifying stuff. Now, almost a rite of passage at this point. Trump falls asleep again during this event. And while Pete Hegseth is speaking, Donald Trump's head actually lulls back. I have never seen anything like this. And this is the guy, the nodfather who was saying, sleepy Joe can't be president. Look at him. Go back.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

Companies, the tech companies, our best innovators, have the ability to get into the Defense Department. You shouldn't have to sue your way

[David Pakman]

in to the Department of War, which

[Jay Clayton]

is what companies in the past have had to do in order to compete.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

I hope these companies can attest the fact that because of President Trump's leadership,

[J.D. Vance]

we have an entirely different folks.

[David Pakman]

He's asleep. But Biden couldn't do it. Now there's another interesting thing I want to talk to you about, and that is magnets. Now, you might say, david, what do you mean? Donald Trump has had a growing obsession with. With magnets. And I think I figured out why, and it probably won't surprise you.

[Donald Trump]

And the same thing with the magnetic elevators. We want them to be made hydraulic, which you can. It can be hit by lightning. It can be hit by anything. When a little water touches the magnets, it doesn't work anymore. And you're right, you're in the Atlantic Ocean with waves that are 60ft high and the Pacific Ocean waves with waves that are 70ft high. And they're talking about magnets. It makes you.

[David Pakman]

Now you might be going, well, this is very weird. Why is he obsessed with magnets? I thought one of the many wars he ended was the infamous war of magnets versus water. But he keeps going, and here he starts to give us a sense of why he's so obsessed with this.

[Donald Trump]

Do magnets. Okay, I'll tell you how to make money. Do magnets. You're doing a lot of great stuff. Do magnets. Because one thing we don't have, but we're getting close, but do magnets. So. So I hope John Gray is listening to me so he can give him a couple of bucks and go into the magnet business. I guarantee it's going to be successful. It's one thing we don't. For some reason. It's not complex, not hard. We have the material for some reason. They just don't. They don't do it. We need magnets. So one of you companies out there, go out, I'll teach you how to make money.

[David Pakman]

What is it that is going on here? Well, a new investigation by ProPublica reports that the White House asked the Pentagon to give a $620 million loan to a company with ties to Donald Trump's oldest son. The investigation, based on interviews with Pentagon officials and reviews of Defense Department documents. The company in question is Vulcan Elements. It makes rare earth magnets for drones and satellites. And Donald Trump Jr's venture capital firm took a stake in the company three months before the Pentagon announced this deal. Why is Trump now pushing magnets? As usual, there is a family grift now, maybe the most relatable moment. Donald Trump saying, my tax cuts helped a friend buy a private jet, which should instantly be made into a campaign.

[Donald Trump]

But we passed the largest tax cuts in American history. We delivered 100% expensing. That's a big one. That's. I think we had the greatest economy in the history of our country. In my first term. We then got hit with COVID But even including Covid, we did a great job in Covid. We never got credit for it, but it, every country was ripped apart by that disaster. We know where it came from. It came from Wuhan and I said that. But we were all ripped apart. And China got hit very, very hard. It was delayed, they got hit very hard at the end, but it was a terrible thing. But we had the greatest economy in history and before COVID nobody had ever seen anything like it. But if you just took those three years and look at what we're doing now, we're going to blow them away. I mean, unless some horrible event happens, which is always possible, you know, always have to at least think about the horrible events. Who would have thought that Covid could have happened? A thing like that could have happened. But we delivered 100% expensing. And that expensing, I think where you write it off in one year. I have friends that bought things that frankly they didn't need. I have a friend that never flew in a private, private plane in his life and he ended up going out buying a very expensive private plane.

[David Pakman]

The tax cuts helped a friend who didn't even need a private plane to be able to afford to buy one. What a populist message that should, that should immediately be taken. And made a campaign ad. Trump on Iran as the cease fire has fallen apart. We're bombing their bombing. It's absolute chaos. Trump goes, oh, they want to settle this whole thing, really.

[Fox News Interviewer]

We, they want to settle so badly. They don't like what we're doing and

[Donald Trump]

they do want to settle.

[Fox News Interviewer]

We'll find out whether or not we settle with them or we just finish it off.

[David Pakman]

If Iran wants to settle so badly, then why can't you get this damn deal done? He has no idea what is going on. And the Iran war has turned into one of the most humiliating foreign policy blunders that I've ever reported on. And, and you know, I started following this stuff closely during the Iraq war of George W. Bush. Just pathetic. And Iran has, Iran's been desperate to make a deal for four months and somehow it won't get done. And Trump also wants to make a deal. Gee, I wonder why that's going on. And finally, when Donald Trump says most people don't know something, what he means is that until very recently he didn't know something. Take a listen to this.

[Donald Trump]

Democrats dumb. You take the, the be out. Most people don't know that dumb has a B. Okay, But The U replaces the E and you have a Democrat. And I just don't understand because their policy is so dumb, what they've done to this country and what they will do to the country if we don't win the midterms or win the election. Everything that I'm talking about, you could

[David Pakman]

just, you know, a lot of people don't know that the word mnemonic sounds like it starts with an N, but it actually starts with an M. And the thing about M is it's a nasty letter because it could be silent. If it's at the front of a word, it can be silent elsewhere, but they won't tell you that on the fake news media. Nasty, nasty people. This guy is in real trouble. And we're in trouble because he's arguably the most powerful person in the world. Before his disastrous event about innovation in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump gave an interview to Fox News and. And blurted out stunning lies and had visible short circuiting of his brain. Trump is now describing an American economy that exists only in one place. His own head. Ever hear the phrase a legend in his own mind? An economy that exists only in his own mind. Stock buybacks have supposedly been banned. Factories are springing up everywhere. And somehow nobody interviewing Trump ever bothers to ask for a single example. Listen to this.

[Fox News Interviewer]

Will you wait a week or maybe less? And we're going to have that very soon.

[Fox News Interviewer 2]

You're going to nudge the CEOs.

[Fox News Interviewer]

Well, they've been nudged. Oh, they've been nudged. And you know, one thing, speaking of your show, and your show is great, by the way, and you are. And so you know exactly what I'm talking about. Some of these companies are spending tens of billions of dollars on stock buybacks. They're not allowed to do that. That anymore. Now they have to build plants. So they're building plants all over the country. Will you wait a.

[David Pakman]

No tax on.

[Fox News Interviewer]

Or maybe less.

[David Pakman]

And we're going to have no tax on tips and no tax on Social Security, which happens to not be in Trump's tax bill. But Trump goes, that's what's in the bill. And similarly, stock buybacks aren't banned. Companies are allowed to buy back their own stock. They continue to do it. They're continuing to announce massive stock buyback programs with the goodies that they got from Trump and his tax bill. So where did Trump get the idea that they've been. Companies have been ordered to stop buying shares and start building factories? I have no idea. I have no idea. Maybe somebody explained a provision involving a particular company or an industry. And Trump said, oh, stock buybacks are banned, but they're not. And then Trump has been repeating now for a year and a half, almost two years, that companies are suddenly building plants and factories all over the country because Trump told them to. It's completely detached from reality. Now, there are some companies that have announced new facilities. Some of those said they're doing it thanks to Joe Biden's infrastructure bill. But it's very easy to announce. You've then got a plan, get permits, financing, construction. This is years and years. And Trump routinely will take projects that were conceived earlier, like under Biden, and say, I did it. He'll take projects that will never be completed and say, I did it. And he'll take corporate spending that was on track to happen anyway and say, I did it. And say, these are all personal accomplishments. Now, a huge share of the investment that Trump is celebrating is going to data centers built around automation and AI. And those projects are very expensive, and they create relatively few permanent jobs. We've talked about the data center situation quite a bit. And meanwhile, the facilities that his administration is expanding most aggressively are ICE detention centers to imprison thousands of people as part of a mass deportation campaign that we were told would go after violent criminal illegals and is just sweeping people up. Trump on Iran, they're nasty, but trust me, they really want to make a deal.

[Fox News Interviewer 2]

And you came to the conclusion that you couldn't negotiate with the irgc. Does that mean that you might wipe them out like you did isis?

[Donald Trump]

Yeah, it does.

[Fox News Interviewer]

We will see what's happening. We received a call just as I was coming here. They want to meet. They always want to meet. But, you know, this should have been done by other presidents for many years, for 47 years, but really a lot longer than that. And it wasn't. And I never understood why, but now I do. Because if you're not going to do it the way I'm doing it, you're never going to make a deal with them. They were very difficult. They're good negotiators. There were two tapping everybody along for 47 years. Then Obama came in and he just offered him, you know, a fortune of money. He paid him off 1.7 billion in green cash and hundreds of billions of dollars.

[David Pakman]

Green cash.

[Fox News Interviewer]

And that really set everyone else back because they started making. Wanting to make nuclear weapons. And then we hit him a year ago, just about a year ago, with the B2 bombers, and that ended that. So we got a little bit lucky. Our timing was a Little bit lucky, yeah.

[Fox News Interviewer 2]

So, Mr. President, Dan Kaine, raising Cain is your chief of staff. He was the one Joint chief of staff. He was the one who wiped out isis.

[Fox News Interviewer]

That's right.

[Fox News Interviewer 2]

Could he be tasked then now to wipe out the irgc? If you can't negotiate?

[Donald Trump]

Well, we're going to be in good shape.

[Fox News Interviewer]

I mean, they are really. They've been depleted. Their weapons are down very 91%. The, the drone capacity is way down. They still have, but not a lot. Their manufacturing capacity is down. Their rocket launchers and their missile launchers are way down. Their missiles are way down, you know, down. They're probably depleted by 88. Close.

[David Pakman]

So how are they continuing to bomb to 90% now?

[Fox News Interviewer]

That doesn't mean there's still not danger. And there is. They're nasty people, but they want to make a deal. I can tell you. They want to make a deal.

[David Pakman]

They really don't seem to want to make a deal. This is Trump's entire theory of diplomacy. You call the other side nasty people and insist they're desperate to make a deal. You give no evidence, you have negotiations that are going nowhere. And Trump always says, everybody's so scared of him, they want to make a deal. Iran wants a deal, Russia wants a deal, China wants a deal. It's perpetually moments away. It's been. It's been moments away for 21 weeks at this point. And then months pass, years passed pass, and we don't get the promised result. He needs the audience to believe that every foreign government is scared of him and privately begging for his approval because that protects him from having to explain what is the actual strategy, because there really is no strategy. Finally, the Fox interviewer says, oh, your face is going to be on a coin. And Trump goes, yeah, I was so surprised by it. It's very cute.

[Fox News Interviewer 2]

One last quick one. Your face is now going to be on a coin, it looks like from the Treasury Department.

[Donald Trump]

Yes.

[Fox News Interviewer 2]

What do you think about that?

[Donald Trump]

I was very honored.

[Fox News Interviewer]

Cute.

[Donald Trump]

Not a bad picture, but it's very cute. They gave me a coin that's very

[Fox News Interviewer]

unusual from what I call coin. Yeah. A gold coin and a silver coin. It was very unusual, but I was honored by it.

[David Pakman]

Did you notice something interesting? The most genuinely engaged Trump is during the entire interview is when he's asked about his picture on a gold coin. Ask him about Iran. And he goes, yeah, you know, I don't know. I mean, they're desperate. I'm not sure. Ask him about the economy. And he goes, well, stock buybacks are banned. No, they're not Iran. They're nasty people. And tell him his face is going to be on a coin and suddenly he has thoughts about the picture. He finds it cute, he's honored, he wants everybody to know. It's not bad. This is really a window into Donald Trump's priorities. Policy is vague, it's confused, it's fictional, it's made up. Personal tributes command his full attention. And the presidency is increasingly one big award ceremony. FIFA gave me the Peace Prize, they're putting my signature on bills, they're putting my face on a coin, they're putting my name on the Kennedy Center. If half of it or 75% of it is canceled because it's illegal or violates policy, he doesn't care. This is the presidency under Donald Trump. What a humiliating state of affairs. If you get scam calls, texts or emails, you know, people just trying to sell you stuff or sending you sketchy messages, this isn't happening by accident, because your name, phone number, email, home address, relatives, job history can just be sitting there in a public database. And then marketers can get access to it. Scammers, different companies, and then they target you. What our sponsor, Incogni, does is just get rid of all that information from the corners of the Internet where scammers get it. And this includes people, search sites, online directories, data broker lists. Incogni will send removal requests to hundreds of notorious sites. And they'll keep just following up, and if your data comes back, they'll get it removed again. What I think is the best is the custom removals feature. This is with the unlimited plan. Sometimes you might find your information somewhere else, some one off directory or a search result or a business database. You can paste that link into Incogni and they'll get to work right away to get it taken down. Removing your info from these databases means it's harder for scammers and identity thieves to to reach you. And you can get 60% off an annual plan at incogni.com/pacman with the code Pacman. The link is in the description. Who doesn't love getting away during the summer? But traveling can make habits get kind of weird because you're sleeping somewhere different. It's a different schedule, you might be eating at different times. So all your basic stuff isn't automatic anymore. This is why our sponsor, AG1, just makes a lot of sense for summer. One scoop 8 ounces of water. Simple habit to keep high quality nutritional support in your routine, even when your day is kind of wacky. AG1 is a daily health drink with a multivitamin, pre and probiotics and a bunch of other great stuff. The next gen formula has 75 plus ingredients that just help to fill common nutrient gaps. No big deal. Easy supports gut, health and energy. One small, simple thing. It'll make a noticeable difference for you whether you're traveling or at home. Visit drink ag1.com/pacman to get a free ag1 travel case with seven free ag1 travel packs in your welcome kit with your first subscription order while supplies last. That's drink ag1.com/pacMan the link is in the description. Congressman Jamie Raskin joins us today from Maryland's 8th congressional district, also ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Always great to see you and my audience is eager to hear from you what you think is going on with this $1.8 billion slush fund. Supposedly it's d dead, but Todd Blanch is being a little cagey about this during the confirmation hearings. There's rumors that they're going to try some subterfuge to end up doling the money out anyway after. Yes, if he's confirmed. What's your sense of this right now?

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

All right, well, look, the $1.8 billion political slush fund for the proud boys and the Oath Keepers is part of a general package that also includes, we cannot forget, a a complete pardon for Trump, his family and his businesses for any criminal, civil or tax liability investigations, prosecutions, offenses against the law that have been committed up until this point. So it's both that and then also giving Trump $1.8 billion of the taxpayers money for him to dole out to the convicted criminals who beat up our officers who chanted hang Mike Pence who came to try to overthrow the presidential election in 2020. All right, so the courts have come down very hard on this and we've got just a magnificent decision. It is a beauty to behold from Judge Williams in the Federal District Court in South Florida or the Southern District Court of Florida, which said that this wasn't real litigation, it was collusion. In other words, Trump suing the Trump administration. Trump versus Trump does not have the requisite adversity and adversary relationship between the two sides such that it constitutes a real case or controversy. So she just shut that down. She said it was collusion from the beginning and then left the very strong impression it was a fraud on the court. And, and that there should be Rule 11 sanctions against the lawyers who brought it. And it's been referred to the various state court Bars. So, for all we know, Todd Blanche could be sanctioned, reprimanded, admonished, or even suspended for his role in setting up this fake case. And he's been very squirrely about defining who, who exactly came up with this idea for the $1.8 billion slush fund. Now, what are the constitutional problems? They are allegiant. One, Congress appropriates money and sets up programs like this, not Donald Trump or the President.

[Donald Trump]

Okay.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

Two, if a court is going to be awarding money, then a court has got to decide that if there's going to be a real case or controversy. Again, not the president, who is trying to write the law, appropriate the money by stealing the money and then giving it away. He's trying to have all the powers of government collapse into him. In any event, even if Congress wanted to do this, which we never would, it's against the Constitution, which says in the 14th Amendment that no money shall be appropriated for the purposes of paying for insurrection. Now, that was written after the Civil War, but it's written in general terms.

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

And the House of Representatives already impeached Trump for inciting an insurrection against the union. So of course it was an insurrection. He's been impeached for that purpose. So where does it all stand now? Well, Todd Blanche keeps saying in his various hearings, it's not moving forward. Which makes me think of a car that's at a stop sign. It's not moving forward, but then five seconds later, it's moving forward. So we need to freeze this into law. We've got a bill to do just that and a discharge petition. I just checked. I think We've got like 175 or 180 members. We're getting real close. We need another 25 to sign it. Hopefully that happens before people leave town today. And then we're gonna have to turn up the heat on Republicans to actually put their votes where their mouths are because they're saying they're opposed to it. But then we've got to put it into law. And the reason we have to put it in law is that even if the courts stop the so called anti militarization slush fund, Trump has already just been taking money out of the general judgment fund in the Department of Justice, which had always been used just to pay off court verdicts and true settlement agreements. But they've just been taking money out of that and giving it to people like Michael Flynn, who got $1.25 million, Carter Page, who got $1.25M, which seems to be the going rate for insurrectionists these days, although they gave $5 million to the family of Ashley Babbitt, even though there's been no court verdict and two different federal investigations said that the police had acted completely appropriately in defending the Vice President and the Congress from the rioters attack on the House chamber. So they are going to keep just taking money out of this judgment fund and giving away to their people unless we stop it. And that's why we've got to stop it now.

[David Pakman]

I'm trying to. If, even if you pass the no, no carte blanche act, can you stop the administration from the backdoor channels like the Treasury's judgment fund to just, just take money out? Like what would be the legal process of the legislation in preventing that?

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

The no carte Blanche act forbids both any money going to or out of this anti weaponization fund and also the judgment fund.

[J.D. Vance]

Got it.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

So the judgment fund shall not be used to give any money to the President or his family or his businesses. And also no money shall go to any members of his cabinet or any of his political appointees. If these guys slip and fall and they want to sue the government because they've got a real cause of action, you know, there was some malpractice by a federal doctor or something. Go to court like everybody else and they can sue. I've got no problem with that. If Donald Trump thinks he can sue and win in court on all of his imaginary claims, have at it. No problem with it. But Donald Trump should not be able to use his power as the executive, which of course in court he insists is absolute in total within the executive branch. He, he should not be able to use that power in order to just give himself or his family members or his cabinet money. And so everybody knows at this point that the whole administration is a money making operation. It's a get rich quick scheme for Trump, his family and his friends. He's already made more than $2 billion since last year, which is more than all the salaries of every member of Congress put together. Double. It's more than every president has ever made in history. Both their government salary and outside of office together. Not even close. I mean, it's hard to imagine exactly how rich he's getting through his office, but the whole thing is corruption. But it's like watching the Sopranos. Every day they wake up and they try to figure out another way to just take money away from the taxpayers. And meantime, they've added at least $2 trillion to the debt and it might be closer to 4 or 5 trillion, at least $2 trillion.

[David Pakman]

One president on the Epstein Files, Todd Blanch, gave a very odd interview to Stephen Miller's wife, Katie Miller, on her podcast, where he kind of just played dumb about everything. He said, I don't even know what a client list would be. I. I certainly haven't seen one. Epstein himself is dead, therefore the entire investigation isn't going forward. A lot of things that don't really make any sense. What is, what is your sense of the handling of the files based on everything you know? Now, should we have any hope or expectation that this isn't dead and that there will be an accounting for the alleged perpetrators?

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

Well, if we're going to be a democracy, the truth is going to come out, because democracy needs a ground to stand on, and that ground is the truth. So it's gonna come out. The question is, when is it gonna come out? Now, remember, Trump and his people campaigned on complete release. Cash Patel was saying these people could release it right away. They're just not releasing it because of who's on the list. Then they get in. Then it's getting way too close to comfort for Trump, who, of course, is all over the Epstein files and was Epstein's best friend for more than a decade. And there are all these allegations of Trump's sexual abuse and sexual assault against women. So then they want to just sweep the entire thing under the rug. They flip over, and then Cash Patel and Todd Blanche and these people are doing everything in their power to cover up what's in there. Well, they're in violation of federal law. We passed the Epstein File Transparency Act. They. Todd Blanche is still sitting on 2 million documents, and he says, well, it's because they're redundant or they're not relevant. Like, that's not up to you. Dude, we passed a law to say you've got to release them. We'll decide if it's redundant. We'll decide if it's relevant or not. It's not up to you. That's not in the statute. So he knows exactly what he's doing. And just like when Ghislaine Maxwell was subpoenaed to go before the House Oversight Committee and suddenly, what do you know? Dodd Blanche snaps to attention, flies to go see Ghislaine Maxwell. Was he trying to conduct an investigation to find out who were the other co conspirators and the enablers and the men that they were working with in this global sex trafficking conspiracy? No, he was going to make sure that she wasn't gonna implicate Donald Trump. And apparently he liked what he heard because next thing you know, she gets transferred to this Club Fed minimum security prison camp, which doesn't even allow sex offenders, which is what Ghislaine Maxwell is. There are something like 10,000 convicted federal sex offenders in America today. Not a single one has ever been assigned to a facility like that. And there's a rule against it, which is why none of them ever been there, because they don't consider it safe for the other inmates to have a convicted sex offender in that population. And it's not only that she got in, she got all kinds of special sweetheart Trump hotel style perks like room service and a therapy puppy and super privileges for communicating with the outside world. And she gets the gym to herself when she wants to work out and so on. We've blown the COVID on all of that stuff and he can't even deny it. And he's got no good explanation of why that's happened other than the fact that he's Donald Trump's lawyer.

[David Pakman]

In a lot of these recent confirmation hearings and other hearings, we see that the nominees of this president, and sometimes there are people who already work for him, are asked what's a pretty straightforward question, who won the 2020 election? And it's been asked in a lot of different ways and they play all of the same games. Joe Biden was sworn in. Yes, but was that because he won or because there was subterfuge? The who had who, who? You know, they talk about electoral votes or they talk about these kind of narrow ways of avoiding saying, listen, our guy just lost. That's it. Is there, then these exchanges happen where the Democrat asking about it says, you're not responding to the question. And the person being questioned says, well, I did respond in my own way. You just didn't like my answer. What do you make of that dynamic? And are those non answers considered responsive in a legal sense to the questions?

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

Well, no. I mean, any judge looking at it would say it's clearly non responsive. I mean, if they can answer, who won the presidential election in 1800, was it Adams or Jefferson? Or if they can answer, you know, was it Carter or Ford? And if they can answer about 2016, was it Trump or Hillary Clinton, which was much closer. In fact, Hillary beat Trump by 2 1/2 million votes in the popular tally in 2016. In 2020, it wasn't even close. Joe Biden got more than 7 million votes more than Trump did beat him 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. We have 60 federal and state court decisions repudiating and rejecting every claim of electoral fraud and corruption at the state level. Trump's own Attorney general, William Barr, said that the information that he was trying to get out there was BS and the claims were all bs. It's just not an open question. So the fact that these people won't say that just reflects their very reasonable fear that if they state the obvious historical facts, their nomination will be withdrawn by the President. He will drop them like a hot potato. We know that's gonna happen, but I think our friends over on the Senate side shouldn't be saying, who won the election. They should say, did Donald Trump win the 2020 presidential election? Let them deal with that one. Because, you know, the only correct answer from Trump's perspective there is yes. And then at that point, they're aligning themselves with Trump's moronic historical revisionism.

[David Pakman]

This obsession with 2020 is going to sort of culminate tonight with a prime time, if 9pm Eastern is primetime speech from the president where we don't know exactly what he's going to say, but it seems as though it is going to be based on the false claim that he did win in 2020.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

And. Yeah.

[David Pakman]

And thus he will ask or roll out something related to the midterms and November. Do you have any insight as to what he is likely to try here?

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

Well, people should arm themselves with the facts of what we know. I just kind of went through them about what the real vote was, what every court has said.

[Senator Mark Kelly]

Yeah.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

But all, all clues and hints we're getting suggest that he's going to talk about foreign interference, which is a real issue. For example, in 2016, there was a huge campaign of sabotage and disinformation and espionage by Russia and the so called Internet Research Agency, which broke in and got the emails from the DNC and Hillary's campaign and so on. That was something that was just settled fact, according to more than a dozen American intelligence agencies, which determined that Putin had this campaign to interfere in the US Presidential election and skew things in Trump's direction. Now, Trump rejected the overwhelming findings of his own intelligence community because he said he asked Putin and, and Putin said it wasn't him and he accepted that. Ok.

[David Pakman]

He denied it very strongly.

[Congressman Jamie Raskin]

That's right. There was also a definitive intelligence report called an ICA, an intelligence community assessment done in 2020, saying there was no foreign government tampering with any of our machines, with any of our systems. Of course, Trump's own election experts said it was the most safe and secure presidential election in American history. But there were attempts, as in 2016, to have foreign disinformation and influence campaigns on the media, in the social media, which is something, by the way, that Trump and the Republicans have absolutely supported. I remember, you know, going up against my friend Jim Jordan and James Comer. They were upset when our intelligence agencies just alerted social media that there were attempts at foreign propaganda on social media. They said that that was a First Amendment violation. They lost on that. But the Republicans were saying it should be free reign for them to come get in. And so of course, Russia came in and so maybe, and we know that Iran, Russia came in on Trump's side in 2020. Iran tried to do some anti Trump stuff, but in any event, none of it affected the vote. And if we want to talk about whether we should keep foreign governments out of the social media ecosystem, let's have that debate and discussion. But that's very different from whether foreign governments actually altered the result in any particular state. And if he's got evidence to that effect, he should bring it forward. Some people are saying that this is going to be about Venezuela, that, you know, was all part of the hit on Venezuela, the, you know, the arrest of the president and they're going to get him to concoct some story and so on. So who knows what he does. But this is not in the realm of political science. It's in the realm of political science fiction because we already know that it was a fair election despite again, Putin interfering on Trump's behalf and maybe Iran trying to put out some anti Trump stuff online. But it was a free and fair election as anybody would understand it. And so, you know, everything else, we'll see where he goes with his conspiracy theories.

[David Pakman]

Tonight, Congressman Jamie Raskin. I'm getting red alerts that you have to go. So we will leave it there. And I always appreciate your time and look forward to having you back. 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 Vice President JD Vance reminding us why he's really just not very good at this. And the total lack of charisma and gravitas really makes him come off horribly. I don't know how else to say it. He appeared on the Joe Rogan program, made some stunning Admissions admitted we screw out, screwed up, or they screwed up at least about one thing. And it is very interesting to see him sort of musing about different topics and being increasingly unlikable, but also seemingly incompetent. Here is Vance in the way he does where it just comes off as so pathetic. Musing about how Joe Biden eats ice cream. How Biden eats ice cream. This is the Vice President of the United States. He might be the only person in the world who thinks Biden eating ice cream was sending sexual messages.

[J.D. Vance]

Thing I couldn't get over Biden is, is just bad staff work, man. The way that he ate ice cream, I mean, it's like, you know, we could bring some of this stuff up, but it's like they would get him eating ice cream in the most, most ridiculous suggestive way imaginable.

[David Pakman]

This is like when, this is like when Tucker Carlson was saying that some of the newly styled Eminem's aren't. Or was it Skittles? I think it was M and Ms. They're not attractive enough anymore. And we're all kind of like, who else is thinking about that? And similarly, J.D. vance goes, oh my God, Joe Biden's ice cream meeting was just so suggestive, so suggestive. J.D. i don't think anybody else was thinking about that. Rogan floats. One of his ideas. Most people, most people believe Jeffrey Epstein was Mossad. And J.D. vance kind of plays it up and goes, yeah, Mossad or CIA or. He clearly had some kind of connections there. What, what is J.D. talking about?

[J.D. Vance]

I mean, I have theories. There's, there's of course the.

[David Pakman]

Well, most people think he was Mossad.

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah, Mossad or CIA or some other deep state, whether in America, Israel or another country, or both.

[David Pakman]

I think Vance knows none of this stuff is true, but he still pushes the same lines from the Kremlin about Epstein.

[J.D. Vance]

You know, look, was he, he clearly had connections to the upper, the highest levels of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact, one of the interesting story, One of the interesting things the Epstein says saga reveals about, and I try to make this point, it's one of the reasons why I'm always careful and I say there are some elements within the Israeli government who don't like our peace process because there are a lot of elements within the Israeli government that actually do like our peace process. They recognize that this indefinite campaign is not good for them either. And the Epstein thing is interesting because as much as I know, you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu not A particularly popular person in the United States of America right now, Epstein seemed to be connected to the elements of the Israeli deep state that were left of center.

[David Pakman]

It's so weird to hear the sitting vice president talk about the deep state. It's like, dude, if the deep state exists, you're the deep state. What are you talking about? And then I think he makes the admission that is the most likely to anger Trump from this entire interview, which is, hey, you know what we did mishandled the release of the Epstein files. And what's interesting about this is that it's widely documented that JD Was saying all along, this stuff is going to come out. We've got to release all of it. And it's been widely written about, including by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in their book Regime Change. And what JD Says here, I actually do believe is what he genuinely, genuinely thinks.

[J.D. Vance]

Yes, but if people want to say we mishandled the Epstein release, guilty, we did say, especially the communications of it.

[David Pakman]

What do you think should have been done?

[J.D. Vance]

I think that we should have just dropped everything at the very beginning. And like, obviously it takes a little time to review the stuff, to find the stuff, to redact things where you have victims and so forth, but we should have just done it as quickly as possible.

[David Pakman]

I don't have much of a commentary here other than to say this has been a growing disagreement to it. Two of the big disagreements between Vance and Trump that have been documented significantly are Vance wasn't on board with trying to hide and cover up and selectively release Epstein files. Vance is on record based on reporting that, and now he's saying it personally. At the time, he was just like, it's going to come out. Let's just get it all out. And then there's so much stuff. We can just kind of do damage control as to the specifics and second area of agreement, Vance did not think that the Iran war was a good idea. Now, he still works for the president and he went out there and he defended it, but that's the topic we get to next, which is really interesting, which is Vance explains, if you're going to do military stuff, you need a very clear objective. Military power can do a lot of stuff, but just doing stuff has to serve some objective. And it's sort of interesting because what's happening is we have strikes on and off for unclear reasons, an administration that has shifted four to five times the whole reason for doing this Iran thing. And Vance's critique really does apply to Iran, even though that's not what he's saying here.

[J.D. Vance]

They think that America should just. That we can basically, you can wave a magic wand with the military and accomplish whatever you want. And, you know, it's not that simple. You actually have to have a very clear objective. Military power can accomplish a clear objective, but you've got to have that clear objective. You can't just say, we're going to bomb until something good happens. That never works. The United States has tried that before for they think that America should just.

[David Pakman]

All right, I sort of agree with him. It's just tragic and funny that that's not what's happening with Iran. The strikes are on, the strikes are off. The point is nuclear, the point is regime change. The point is ballistic missile capability. The reality is that Vance is totally against the war in Iran. And I don't say this as praise of JD he's an isolationist and isolationism has pros and cons, but he has to be supportive of it because he's vice president and extensive reporting about that. And he kind of acknowledges he has no idea about the objectives, even though he's pretending that that they do. When he says, I don't know exactly where this is going to go, we're on the right track, but I don't know where it's going, well, you're kind of saying that you don't really know what the point of it is.

[J.D. Vance]

And I guess my summary view, Joe, is that I of course can't predict the future. I don't know exactly where this is going to go, but I think fundamentally we are on the right trajectory. It's just going to be really messy and there's going to be a lot of stops and starts and I guess

[David Pakman]

stops and starts and I don't know where it's going, that means you don't really know what the point of all of it is. He's sort of acknowledging the most important part, which is what are the objectives? Like, I don't know, we're kind of like kind of going in the right direction. I think we'll figure it out, but I don't really exactly know. Finally, JD says that he really has been meaning to look into the UFO thing, but he just doesn't have the time. Notice that he is saying this while on a three hour long podcast episode.

[J.D. Vance]

And a lot of it, like the UFO thing, like I have said that I am going to, like I'm going to look into the UFO thing and I've been saying that for a year and a half and I haven't done it yet because I haven't had the time.

[David Pakman]

He's just really busy traveling to Austin, Texas, to spend three hours doing the Joe Rogan program. Sorry, J.D. i'm just not really buying it. And really, really. The last thing from JD he talks about the cool problem that Republicans have. They're not that cool.

[J.D. Vance]

Republicans still fundamentally have a cool problem.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[J.D. Vance]

There's something more charismatic, more cool about the Democrats as opposed to the right. So you said something about there are too many dorks or something on the right.

[Senator Mark Kelly]

There's a lot of dorks.

[J.D. Vance]

You know, fair. I'd say there's a lot of dorks.

[David Pakman]

There's a lot of dorks on the left, too, but it's a different kind of door.

[J.D. Vance]

It's a different kind of dork. But the point is that there's something, you know, like, okay, if you're a pop star, you're a rock star, you're an actor, you're in all these cultural centers, you're more likely to be left than right. And so I think that a lot of young people who are attracted to these population centers, they sort of move along with the performance, prevailing culture.

[David Pakman]

I think that's.

[J.D. Vance]

That's one thing that's going on.

[David Pakman]

Why would anyone think JD Isn't really cool and fun to hang around? I don't know why anybody would have that impression. The Rogan interviews are interesting because no matter what Rogan does, if you give uncharismatic people with no interesting and original ideas three hours, you're giving them a lot of rope to hang themselves. And that is exactly, exactly what happened here. One of the most revealing exchanges related to the political space this week happened on Fox News. It wasn't a Democratic congressperson. It wasn't an antiwar activist. It was our friend Jessica Tarlov. Jessica Tarlov asked a question that nobody in the Trump administration seems to be able to answer consistently. And it goes back to what we were just talking about with J.D. vance, which is if Iran's military has been devastated, if their nuclear program was already obliterated, if they're supposedly desperate for a deal, the way Donald Trump said 10 times in the last 24 hours, why does the war keep coming back? And why does it get bigger and bigger? Take a look at this.

[Jessica Tarlov]

It feels like BS at this point. You know, we've tried bombs, that didn't work.

[David Pakman]

We tried to plug in bombs.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Didn't work.

[David Pakman]

I think we destroyed their entire military.

[Jessica Tarlov]

If it was as obliterated as you say it is, we wouldn't have any of these problems. That's the truth.

[David Pakman]

Iran is literally, Jessica, it's one drone.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Everything.

[David Pakman]

It's one tanker.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Donald Trump has made it clear that if he can get on TV and say the markets love what's going on, that it's going to be fine. And the timing of it, you've even made jokes that, you know, things have got to be ready to go by Monday morning. You know, you get a little off time.

[David Pakman]

Commercial breaks.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I.

[David Pakman]

Jokes are off the record, Jessica.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Well, now they're on the record, Jessica.

[David Pakman]

Okay, okay. We're doing commercial break out now.

[Jessica Tarlov]

All right, all right, all right.

[David Pakman]

I can't wait till next block.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Fine. You get me in the B block, I get you in the A.

[David Pakman]

All right, listen. The administration has spent months telling Americans that the strikes were overwhelmingly successful. And we've heard words like destroyed, obliterated, knocked back into the stone age claims that Iran's capabilities of all kinds have been destroyed. They have no military, they have no navy, they have no leadership, they have no air force, they have nothing. Victory is here for the taking. But it keeps getting more and more difficult to square that with reality, because if the threat is gone, why are we starting new bombing campaigns? Why are we saying Trump just yesterday said he's planning on doing war crimes where he goes, we're going to get bridges and power plants and civilian infrastructure. Why are military officials now talking about a ground campaign? Trump yesterday said, maybe we'll go in with boots on the ground. Either the mission was accomplished quickly, easily, and all of that like the administration said or it hasn't. It can't both be. Both can't be true. Jessica Tarlov saying, we took. We were told it'd be 24, 48 hours, weeks, months, bridges, power plants, all of it. How much longer is this going to go on?

[Jessica Tarlov]

Jessica has some notes over there. Let's turn it over to her. I did. So Jesse's best case scenario is that maybe this is a good situation in a year and a half, that seems like a while to wait for.

[David Pakman]

I think we have a good handle on things.

[Senator Mark Kelly]

Jessica.

[David Pakman]

We haven't been hit. They get hit over and over and over again.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Jesse, we were promised this started at 24 to 48 hours, then it was a few weeks, then it's a few months. It's been bridge and power plant day, I think three times, you know, threatening to end the civilization, he says every, every day. Or sorry, only about 40 times that Iran wants a deal. Also another 40 times the war is almost over. It feels like BS at this point.

[David Pakman]

And even the claim that the US hasn't been hit, well, listen, the mainland, of course, hasn't been hit. It's very far from Iran. But US Bases have been hit throughout this in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, I think, I think Jordan and maybe Saudi Arabia. Like, this whole like, we haven't even been hit thing is really quite stupid at the end of the day. And it's another look at how the timeline has changed is the point Jessica Tarlov is bringing up. We were told last summer's strikes would solve the problem and then it would wrap up. And then it was like, oh, actually, we've got to go back in. But it's going to be very quick. We need to do a little more pressure. One more round of bombing, another warning, another declaration that they're about to surrender, another promise that it's over 40 times, it's basically done and we've got a deal. And if you've followed American foreign policy over the last several decades, this is a familiar pattern, which is we start a military intervention with a lot of confidence from the people in the White House. Officials say that the objectives are limited and it's going to be a very quick timeline. The timeline starts to slip. The objectives change and expand. What it means to win is completely redefined. And suddenly the public is being asked to support a conflict that is very different from the one they signed up for. We are months into this thing. Trump campaigned on ending wars and he has started one. And his supporters were told, we're not going to be policing the Middle East. That's stupid. That doesn't make sense. But instead, now they're going, we might do boots on the ground and attacks on civilian infrastructure. What a shift. And it explains why even someone sitting on the Fox News set is able to point out the obvious inconsistency, which is, if victory has happened, why does victory keep needing another week and another bombing campaign and another escalation and another promise that the end is near. You got to stop listening to the promises and just look at what's happening, which is three week war became. I got to go back. And I'm, I'm estimating, I think this is week 21. It might be week 22 or 23. Good for Jessica for bringing that to the Fox News audience. We will review today on the bonus show, the Todd Blanche confirmation hearing for Attorney General. We are going to talk about calls for from AOC and others for networks not to air tonight's primetime Trump speech and two Spaniards have been gored as the bull run festival has concluded. I I've spent a lot of time in Spain and around the Spanish and ingrained in Spanish culture and I want to talk about the bull run and also bullfights. We're going to talk about all of that on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com and get instant access and send in those preorder receipts for my book. Pay attention to info at David Pakman Dotcom One lucky person who sends in their preorder receipt will get this specific copy of the book. This is the first ever printed copy, copy number one and the first ever bestseller printed copy of the Echo Machine, my first book. We'll put these together. I'll write a nice dedication. One person will get that. If you want to be in the raffle for that, send your preorder receipt for Pay attention. Any version, even if it's the audiobook or the Kindle book, send it to [e-mail] thank you to everybody who's been preordered.