Loading summary
Transcript62 lines
- [00:07]
Pat Ford
Hey, everybody. Welcome to the David Pakman Show. I'm producer Pat Ford filling in for David today. David is traveling, but fear not, he'll be back tomorrow. We have such an awesome show I'm going to present to you today. We're going to talk about George Santos back in trouble again, if you can believe it. He is under investigation. Uh, we're also going to talk about Trump backing away slowly but surely from his anti weaponization fund, his slush fund for the January 6th. There's. We're also going to talk about Trump picking the person who's perhaps the most unqualified person in the entire country to lead the nation's intelligence apparatus. All of that and more on the David Pakman show today. I wanted to start off today talking about the economy, comparing Donald Trump's economy to the that of Joe Biden's. And of course we should talk about the economy because it's always pretty much the top issue in the country. And Trump came to office in 2024 saying that the Biden economy at that time, when you looked at all these different metrics, it was on life support. You needed a Donald Trump to turn things around. And of course, people pointed to him being a businessman and saying that he did well in the first few years as president as a steward of the economy. Of course, before COVID happens, they always left out conveniently. But there were a lot of people saying that the economy wasn't doing well under Biden. Sure, there were some numbers pointing in the right direction, but people didn't feel that the economy was doing well. And they turned to someone in Donald Trump who went to the grocery store and said he was going to bring prices down, even though he never seems to know how he's going to do it. And when he gets into office, he later says, well, that problem seems a little bit too hard, so we're going to focus on other things like the ballroom instead. But anyway, let's compare Donald Trump's economy to Joe Biden's economy, taking a look at how things were when Joe Biden handed the reins off to Donald Trump and seeing where things are now. By the way, this was all inspired by a Jubilee Surrounded performance that Dave Rubin did. Dave Rubin went on Jubilee Surrounded. The episode aired on Sunday and I'm sure a lot of you have seen it by now. Dave Rubin, political commentator who is a right wing guy who famously left the left, he did this Jubilee surrounded debate and it really didn't go well for him. At any point of the entire appearance. The two Hour video I watched was basically just a humiliation ritual for Dave Rubin. But a lot of people have been pointing to this one moment specifically as perhaps his worst moment. And it was when he was asked to defend the Trump on the economy and compare Trump's economy to that of Joe Biden. So here is Parker, who uses the screen name Parker, Get a Job, who is just absolutely giving it to Dave Rubin.
- [02:54]
Parker
What is one main metric that Donald Trump has made better off since he got in office? Like an example would be GDP, unemployment, inflation, etc.
- [03:01]
Dave Rubin
Well, right now, first off, the big beautiful bill was just passed last year. And it's kicking in now, right? It's kicking in now. Okay, so we are see. We're going to now see results of that, like even the tariffs. All right, so let's do tariffs. Are you for or against tariffs?
- [03:15]
Parker
Against the universal tariffs. So what's the main metric that he made better off?
- [03:18]
Dave Rubin
What?
- [03:18]
Parker
What's the main metric that he made better off? Gdp, unemployment, Inflation. Do you have any idea?
- [03:24]
Dr. Oz
Listen,
- [03:27]
Parker
I don't think you do.
- [03:28]
Dave Rubin
Do you think. Hold on. So you're arguing that things economically were
- [03:32]
Parker
better under Joe Biden at the end of his administration?
- [03:34]
Dave Rubin
Absolutely. So can you give me an example of how.
- [03:36]
Parker
Yeah, GDP growth is better off. Real median wage growth is better off. Inflation was better off at the end of his administration. Unemployment was better off at the end of his administration.
- [03:44]
Pat Ford
I covered the debate aspect of this yesterday on the bonus show, but I got to say, why does Dave Rubin ask Parker to give him an example when he already knows that Parker has the examples ready? Because he used them before. Just side note, but not the main point of this story.
- [04:00]
Parker
We're doing worse year of job growth in the past four years, just this last year under Trump's administration. The inflation, 3.8% year over year since Trump got in office. We're seeing all of those economic indicators become worse off. Can you tell me anything that he's done to make it better off? You say it's broken for Democrats. It sounds like it's broken right now under Trump.
- [04:16]
Dave Rubin
Have you looked at the stock market?
- [04:18]
Parker
It's worse off in terms of growth in 2025 as compared to 2024. If you look at Dow Jones and S&P 500, they're both up quite a
- [04:25]
Dave Rubin
bit right now, but lower rate. Well, you know, things don't happen overnight. So Donald Trump, for example, things don't. That's true. That's true. There's a. There's reality. There's actual reality. Like you put policies into place, and they don't just kick in the next day. Right.
- [04:38]
Parker
Donald Trump in a year and a half.
- [04:39]
Todd Blanche
Donald.
- [04:40]
Pat Ford
Yeah. So a poor showing from Dave Rubin. I encourage you to check out more of the Jubilee debate performance, if that's your thing. But the bigger issue for Dave Rubin is that he's trying to defend the indefensible here. The truth is that there's really not a bunch of ways you can spin the numbers to make the argument that Donald Trump is doing better now with the economy than things were under Biden, and actually put together a chart comparing all of the major indicators inspired by this Jubilee debate performance and inspired by Parker specifically. So we have a bunch of different economic metrics here, about a dozen or so, maybe a little bit more. And I put in the numbers, and then if you can see in the column all the way to the right there, it says which era was better. Almost all of them say Joe Biden did a better job handling that specific metric than Donald Trump. So starting with the inflation rate, of course, there was a bunch of talk about inflation during Biden's administration. It was the number one thing he was attacked on because inflation was high. But it had to do mainly with the pandemic and the fallout from the pandemic with supply chain issues and things getting back online. So Biden actually took a situation where we did have high inflation and brought it down to 3% by the time he left office, which really isn't far off from the Fed's target. And Trump now has brought up inflation because of his war in Iran, as you can see from the chart, 3.8% as of April. Unemployment, another important metric. Biden killed it when it comes to unemployment. 4% when he left office. It's ticked up just a little bit to 4.3%. But still, you got to give the win to Biden GDP growth, something that Lutnick and Hassett love to talk about when they go on the business shows like cnbc. But as you can see, the end of Biden's administration was plus 2.4% in the quarter for 2024, Trump, 1.6% in Q1 of 2026s and P500 performance. Now, the truth is that the stock market has been bonkers for both presidents in both time frames. Here, 34.6% in the end of Biden's term and up 25.7% since Trump took office for the second term. Both are unsustainably high. But if you're taking a look at the comparison here, you still have to give it to Biden. How about consumer sentiment? Things were better under Biden. Again, it's hard to find areas in which Trump beats out Biden. I mean, you have the borrowing and interest rates because the fed funds rate in the 30 year mortgage rate are a little bit lower now than they were under Biden. But also that was just following the trend line and it would actually be a bigger gap if it weren't for Trump's war in Iran. That was totally unnecessary and has done a lot of bad things to the economy, including affecting what, what the 30 year mortgage rate is. We have gas prices, of course, a lot worse under Donald Trump because of the war. $3.08 versus $4.32. I'll spare you the rest of this, but as you can see, not too many metrics that Trump is beating Biden on. The credit card delinquency rate is one of them, but it's pretty much a wash. And you'll love this. One of the things that Trump is beating Biden on is corporate profits, which of course is not a priority at all to progressives and people who just want to see the economy perform well for the average person. Not the well off, not the super well off. So when you look at all of these different metrics, there are just a couple, just a few that Donald Trump is beating Joe Biden on. And seeing that, I am not surprised at all why Parker wanted to bring up this conversation during the Dave Rubin debate. Because what was David Rubin supposed to say during that exchange? Oh, the mortgage rates are half a percent better. Corporate profits are better than ever before. There really was nothing on the table for Dave Rubin to be able to point to. He would have to really think outside the box. And of course he wasn't able to get it done. So very difficult challenge for Dave Rubin. And it's really not entirely his fault. It's Donald Trump who decided to put America into this terrible position with the economy. New polling shows that the American people are fed up with Donald Trump's nonsense. They've had it with the vanity projects. They hate the idea that he slaps his name on buildings where it doesn't belong. They don't like the idea of him constructing a ballroom and having a UFC cage on the front lawn of the White House. All of these things that Donald Trump is doing to distract from his war in Iran, to distract from the tariffs, to distract from the Epstein files, really, to distract from his poor approval ratings, to make it seem as though he's doing such a Great job. That all these different institutions can't help but put his name on them. Like the Kennedy center, for example, that Trump claims, oh, they were just so gracious enough to put my name on the building. No, you put your own name on the building. And a judge recently stepped in and said that you can't do that. It turns out we have the polling. This stuff is super unpopular. The American public is not buying this. Even when, when you take a look at MAGA supporters, Trump supporters, there are only a small slice of that demographic who thinks that Trump should put his name on buildings. Because a lot of people go along with the American tradition, which is that you don't do that for living presidents. If you want to do something like put your name on a building, or if you want to put your face on a coin or a bill, that should be done by people who come after you as a way to honor your legacy. But you shouldn't be doing that yourself. So here we have the polling. Now, of course, I could have just shown you the polling, but we actually have CNN's Harry Entin presenting it, which is 10 times better, obviously. This guy, I don't know how he does it. He is in his 30s, but manages to sound like a 1950s baseball announcer for the Mets or something. I mean, this guy is just so awesome. We're going to take a look at him covering some of the results of polling having to do with. With Donald Trump's unpopularity.
- [10:52]
Harry Entin
You know, I'm just going to quote Michael Jordan here. Stop it. Just stop it. The American people are saying to the President of the United States, you could see right here, Kate's laughing off there on the side. I mean, just look at this. Naming government buildings after Trump acceptable right now, as he is President of the United States of America. Just 9%. Just 9%.
- [11:11]
Pat Ford
Literally.
- [11:11]
Harry Entin
You can put it on your two hands. When you can put something on your two hands, you know, it's a very small section of the public. My little footnote on here includes just 17% of Republicans. 50% say not acceptable at all.
- [11:23]
Pat Ford
So on that 9% number, we know that the absolute floor for Trump's Support is around 30%, should we call it? That's as bad as things ever seem to get for him. There are about 30% of the country who will stick with him no matter what. But even when you take a look at that 30%, that's just people who are willing to vote for him, who are willing to make a case for him being president, who think that he's Better than the alternatives. Looks like only 9% of the general public believe that it's acceptable to go all in on the cult. Like stuff like slapping your name on buildings and putting your face on coins.
- [12:01]
Harry Entin
Clear plurality here. And then you get this additional 21% who say, you know, it's okay to put President Trump's names on government buildings, but only after he leaves office. But the bottom line is this greatly unpopular President Trump or the government putting his name on government buildings. I think the American people are standing up and applauding the fact that Trump is leaving this aside because the American people, simply put, are not with it.
- [12:25]
Pat Ford
Now, with that 21% number, of course, there's a big difference between you yourself saying that you're going to name things after yourself, but it'll only take effect once you're no longer in office, versus other people who come after you in a way to honor your legacy, naming things after you. One is a clear vanity project that shouldn't happen. The other is something that's completely normal and happens all the time. So that's another thing to point out here.
- [12:50]
Harry Entin
Okay, Americans who believe it's okay right now to name government buildings for Trump, just 9%. To put that into some perspective, 10% of Americans believe that the Earth is flat. And 12% of Americans think that the moon landing was faked, which of course it was not. And of course the Earth is actually round.
- [13:08]
Pat Ford
Well, a quick correction here for Harry Enton. He actually means to say spherical, because something can be both flat and round. Yeah, I'm both shocked that as high as 10% of Americans think that the Earth is flat, because that means that statistically, if you come across 10 people, one of them is going to think that the Earth is flat, which is pretty crazy to think about. I also thought that people would think that the moon landing was fake at a higher clip than 12%. But, you know, that's also probably not something to be proud of.
- [13:35]
Harry Entin
So fewer Americans think it's acceptable right now to put President Trump's name on government buildings than believe two conspiracy theories. Either the Earth is flat or the moon landing was fake. And when you're lower than that, you know that you're doing something quite, quite unpopular, which, again, I'm going to pull out another quote, Siskel and Ebert, two thumbs up. The American people are giving right now to the idea that President Trump is just going to walk away from this Kennedy center fight.
- [13:58]
Pat Ford
How does this fit in kind of the broader, larger context of President Trump and his name and all of the Focus.
- [14:06]
Harry Entin
Yeah. Okay. President Trump got elected to a second term to deal with inflation. Of course, right now what we're talking about is President Trump getting record low ratings on inflation, not just for himself, but for any president. And it just goes back to this. Trump, on issues facing most Americans, focused enough. Just 29%, just one in three Americans say that President Trump is focused enough on the issues facing most Americans. The clear majority, the super majority, more than 2 and 3, 68% say no, he's not focused enough. And that is why his approval rating has been falling in the 30s in multiple polls, because he's focused on the wrong issues. He's focused on putting his name on the government buildings they're talking about. What was at that $250 commemorative bill that we're talking about right there. Dude, again, just to quote Michael Jordan, Stop it, stop it. Focus on inflation, focus on the economy, and then maybe your approval ratings will actually get above 40%.
- [14:56]
Pat Ford
All right? So I had to let that play for a little bit and let Harry Enton cook there do what he does best. He's absolutely right, though. 68% of Americans think that Donald Trump is not focused on the right priorities. That is a big number. But it also makes a lot of sense because he so obviously is not focused on the right things. He's not even talking about the things that got him elected. He's not even talking about prices anymore, what groceries cost. Remember that old fashioned word, groceries? He's not even using it anymore. Obviously he can't talk about gas prices because he's the one that caused them to surge. So Donald Trump can't fix any of those issues. It's too hard to fix any of those issues. So what is he doing? He's focusing on the things that are easy to control. Things like building a ballroom, things like making sure that the reflecting pool is chlorine blue instead of just a normal reflecting pool transparent color. All these things that just aren't that important. UFC fights on the front lawn of the White House, which I'm sure Trump would participate in himself if it wasn't for the bone spur issue. All of these things are just not important to the American people. And we're seeing it reflected in the polling. The truth is, though, Donald Trump can't focus on the serious issues facing the public. If he could, he would. If he could actually talk about how he's doing better when it comes to prices then Biden, he would. If he could talk about how he's doing better when it comes to inflation or unemployment or gdp, he would. But as we talked about in that earlier segment, he can't because the numbers don't back up the case for him. So he has to Talk about the $250 commemorative bill and the Kennedy center and all these things that simply just don't matter to the American people. All right, we're going to go to a quick break. I'm Pat Ford filling in for David Pakman today. There's plenty more of the David Pakman show coming up soon.
- [16:45]
Sponsor/Advertisement Voice
If debt feels like it's draining your attention each month, multiple due dates, rising interest, balances that barely move, you are not alone. Our sponsor, PDS Debt, works with people facing credit cards, personal loans or medical bills. And they don't use a 1s fits all approach. They review your specific situation, connect you with custom options that are really designed to save you money and pay your debt off faster with no minimum credit score required. PDS Debt has helped hundreds of thousands of people and is A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau with thousands of five star reviews nationwide. Instead of juggling statements and guessing on next steps, they focus on clarity, a realistic timeline and practical guidance you can actually use. The process starts with a quick, simple free assessment which will match you to the best path forward today. Waiting can cost more in interest and fees over time, so don't wait another month. Take back control in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment at PDS debt.com/pacman the link is in the description A lot of people put on music while they work, assuming it helps them concentrate. But in practice, familiar songs, lyrics or constantly changing tracks often will take attention away from what you're working on rather than supporting attention. And that's where Brain FM comes in. Our sponsor, Brain fm is a music app designed to support focus, relaxation or sleep with music created by human musicians working alongside neuroscientists. Instead of generic playlists, Brain FM offers task specific modes like deep work, creative and motivation depending on what you're trying to do. What makes Brain FM different is the science behind it, because it's the only music app funded by the National Science foundation based on their unique audio technology designed to influence brain activity associated with focus. Brain FM also has published peer reviewed research showing their technology supports attentional performance. They even have an optional ADHD mode for people who benefit from additional stimulation. But the app really is built for anybody looking to reduce distractions and stay engaged with their work. You can try Brain FM totally free for 30 days by going to Brain FM Pacman 30 days is a long free trial. Go check it out. The link is in the description.
- [19:17]
Pat Ford
Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the David Pakman Show. I'm producer Pat Ford, filling in for David today. He'll be back tomorrow. Some of you are probably seeing me for the first time, but others, I'm sure, know me from the bonus show. I co host the bonus show every single day and I do so with David. We talk about some of the stories that we didn't get to on the regular show. So if you want to watch me on the bonus show every day, be sure to become a member. And if you were waiting for the best opportunity to become a member or. Well, we have one coming up because on June 9, we're doing a very special membership drive. It's a one day only thing. In order to get involved, you have to sign up for the Substack, absolutely free, our newsletter. It's over@widpakman.com substack Sign up for free. And then on June 9th, you'll get an email with the instructions as to how to sign up for membership and you'll be able to do so at a significant discount. We at the show have been going strong for over two decades now. I myself here have almost worked at the show for a decade. And you better believe it's because we've been able to build something strong here, something that is able to cover the Trump administration adequately. We have a full staff with employees and benefits and all these things that, you know, if we didn't have, frankly, I don't know if I'd be here still 10 years in. So if you want to support the show, now is the time to do it. June 9th, we're doing a major membership drive and I encourage you all to do so if you're not yet members. You know, a central argument for Donald Trump's campaigns has always been that he's the best when it comes to hiring people. He knows how to pick the right people for the right positions. And he would back that up with his decades of real estate experience in New York and running the Apprentice reality show, where the premise was actually that he had to fire the people who didn't belong there and hire the person who was best equipped for the position. And he was able to convince the American people that he was actually good when it comes to this. But taking a look at how Donald Trump has performed in his two terms in office, it actually goes to show that he's not good at all when it comes to hiring the best people, as he loves to say. Just look at what has happened recently. I mean, Pam Bondi is gone, Greg Bevino is gone, Kristi Noem is gone. Tulsi Gabbard is the latest to step down from the administration. So he's not good at this when it comes right down to it, because we're seeing it in the turnover rate. Also, he decides to pick people who are just completely unqualified for the positions. Like Sean Duffy, for example, over at the Transportation Department and acting NASA Administrator. That's insane. What about Linda McMahon, who is Vince McMahon's wife. She's the WWE lady. Was she qualified to be Education Secretary? Of course not. And then you have Pete Hegseth, who, yes, did serve in the military, but didn't have any significant leadership role and is basically remembered as the weekend Fox and Friends guy. He was obviously not qualified to be Secretary of Defense. So Donald Trump is putting people in these positions who are not qualified whatsoever. It's obvious that we're seeing a lot of turnover and we're seeing a lot of failure in the different departments beneath him. But surely for a role as important as Director of National Intelligence, Donald Trump would put someone in place who is actually qualified, right? At least with some intelligence or military experience. Hell, the DNI has to be in charge of the CIA and the NSA and the FBI and all these three letter spy agencies. You need someone competent in that role, right? Republicans want to gut the Education Department, but they don't want to gut the entire intelligence apparatus, do they? You'd think that Trump would want to put someone there who knows what they're talking about. Even Tulsi Gabbard had little bit of relevant experience when it comes to it. She was a member of Congress, which of course made her privy to information that the average American doesn't know when it comes to intelligence matters. She also was a member of the military, so you can argue she had some relevant experience when it comes to the position. Bill Pulte, who Donald Trump decided to choose for this position, has absolutely no relevant experience. Zero, zilch. And he is now the new acting Director of National Intelligence. Pulte's entire educational and professional baseline is rooted in commercial finance and real estate. He has earned a degree in broadcast journalism, which, you know, no shame there. But of course it is not at all relevant job experience. And he also ran a private equity firm, of course he did, and gave away cash prizes on social media. His only government experience is working in Trump's sales second administration as the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, where his primary focus has been to expand upon the idea of a 50 year mortgage, which would just be this major handout to the banks and allow them to collect interest on people over the course of a much longer loan. 50 years as opposed to 30 years, which will stretch Americans thinner and thinner and make it so that they're not able to accumulate as much wealth over time. That was his big proposal. Or over at the Federal Housing finance agency, the 50 year mortgage. And he's going to take that experience and parlay it into being the Director of National Intelligence. Now, by law and obviously historical precedent, the DNI is required to have extensive national security experience, yet Pulte has absolutely none. He was also involved in the meme stock push and crypto rug pulls and used his access to mortgage documents to go after people Trump was opposed to as a way to get political retribution. Here is Dr. Oz, who we're going to talk about later. He was behind the White House podium for some reason, I guess, filling in for Caroline Levitt. This is something they do, I guess. He was speaking about a number of things. And he was asked a question about Bill Pulte being chosen as DNI despite having no experience in the field whatsoever. Here is how Dr. Oz handled it.
- [25:17]
Dr. Oz
Yes, sir, doctor, thank you. Since you're here speaking on behalf of the administration, part of the reason we're asking about the president's decision to appoint Bill Pulte to be the head of Director, head of National Intelligence is it's been four hours and we've been asking the White House why he's qualified to do so. You're a heart surgeon or a heart doctor? Yes. Would you recommend a patient go see someone who isn't? You're asking the question with a premise that Bill Pulte is not qualified. I don't know anything about his situation. I appreciate you wanting an answer. I'm not be the one giving it to you. Go ahead.
- [25:46]
Pat Ford
Thank you so much. It's a good question. Would you want someone who's not a heart doctor doing open heart surgery on you? Would you want someone who is not a lawyer defending you in court in a murder trial? Would you want someone who is not at all experienced when it comes to intelligence or military matters as the Director of National Intelligence? None of these things make sense. None of these things would make me all that comfortable. And also, if it wasn't enough that he's leading the dni, which is this overarching agency that's, you know, overseeing the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and all these, you know, important spy intelligence agencies. He's also going to continue on as the FHFA director. Like he doesn't have enough on his plate. And that's absolutely insane. The idea that they can say that we're going to do a bunch of different things at once. This clearly opens us up to the possibility of being more vulnerable. Right. For all these things about how Democrats are asleep at the wheel when it comes to defense and intelligence matters, here is Donald Trump putting someone in charge who is not qualified whatsoever. So God forbid there is some attack on this country. Can we argue that it was because we weren't ready, because we had this guy at the helm? That could be something that comes up and could be something that Donald Trump eventually has to answer to. Also, by the way, Pulte, when he was over at the fhfa, I guess he still is now, he decided to spend a lot of time targeting Democrats who he accused of mortgage fraud. So he would investigate people like Adam Schiff and Letitia James and Lisa Cook. But he decided to ignore people who could be accused of the exact same thing, like, for example, Ken Paxton. And there's also a ProPublica report that Donald Trump did something like this, but a very long time ago anyway. Yet another example of him using his power to go after Donald Trump's political opponents and applying a different set of standards to Democrats than he does for Republicans. But consistency certainly doesn't matter. Also, apparently in Trump's administration, relevant job experience does not matter. What does matter? Loyalty. And apparently Bill Pulte does have that. That's what got him in this position. Well, this was embarrassing. Dr. Oz, the head of Medicare and Medicaid in this country, was trotted out by the Trump administration to do a White House president press briefing to fill in for Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary. It's a weird thing that the Trump administration does from time to time. Like they'll put Vance or Rubio or some other Cabinet secretary in at the podium to answer questions about a number of different fields. Of course, Dr. Oz isn't qualified to talk about a number of these different categories. Like he was asked a question about Bill Pulte being chosen as the next Director of National Intelligence, which, you know, obviously doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But is Dr. Oz, the TV doctor guy who's the head of Medicare and Medicaid, really the person to ask about that question? It's all very strange how they do things over at the Trump administration. But because Dr. Oz is a doctor, he was asked questions about Donald Trump's medical situation. Why he, for example, loves to do annual physicals several times a year. Well, Dr. Oz says that it's because he just loves the results that he gets. All of that and more I'm going to show you in some clips. Here is Dr. Oz at the White House podium yesterday talking about Donald Trump and his health.
- [29:08]
Dr. Oz
The first issue was about Ebola.
- [29:15]
Pat Ford
He's had four already. The president's supposed to have one a year.
- [29:19]
Dr. Oz
I actually have talked to the President about what he's sent to all of you, and I think it's just a routine regular exam. You remember, I had the president of my show 10 years ago. He also presented records. And at the time, I was stunned at how well he was doing, because so many of these numbers, naturally, over time, will start going in the wrong direction. But if you look at these records, they're spectacular. You know, his cholesterol, his blood pressure, all the numbers are in excellent parameters. His ability, and I work with him frequently. Many of you get to see him almost every day. That amount of energy and that amount of mental acuity does not exist in a vacuum. You have to have a vessel to carry it. And the president has unique ability to just keep going at all hours of the day with remarkable strength.
- [30:04]
Pat Ford
All right, so there's really a lot there all hours of the day. It's because he doesn't sleep enough. And we're seeing that he's making up for that sleep that he's not getting during Cabinet meetings. Mental acuity, I'm not seeing that. Have you seen Donald Trump's radio recent speeches? Have you seen him try to do an interview lately? He always has to resort to the weave because he can't keep together a cohesive line of thought. And, of course, when it comes to these medical reports, you can always just put whatever information on the report. If you're Trump and trying to manufacture something that shows that you're in good health, you can say that the cholesterol numbers look great. You can say that the weight number is where you want it to be.
- [30:44]
Sponsor/Advertisement Voice
And.
- [30:44]
Pat Ford
And then you have someone like Dr. Oz, who is, yes, a legitimate doctor, say, well, I'm looking at the sheet here, I'm looking at all these numbers, and everything looks spectacular to me. Well, are we really investigating where those numbers came from? If they were done accurately, if these tests were done at all, or if we just have some doctor writing down whatever number? So that's what's important here. Here is more of Dr. Oz still taking questions about the President's health.
- [31:09]
Dr. Oz
Yes, go ahead.
- [31:11]
Pat Ford
Hey, I just wanted to follow up on her question behind me. If the President is in such perfect health, why does he keep going back in for checkups?
- [31:17]
Dr. Oz
I think he likes the results. He does really well. He aces the test every single day. And I do actually believe that he is curious to make sure everything is going in the right direction. He's a very meticulous person in so many ways that are often underappreciated. But for him to want to know all the numbers and keep on top of him, it's a same reason he calls people at, you know, odd hours, because something's on his mind. He wants to deal with it. Yes. In purple.
- [31:41]
Pat Ford
I got to say, I love when Dr. Oz is calling on people and he has that big arm coming in. He's like the purple, the red. I like that. That cracked me up a little bit. But Donald Trump goes to physicals all the time because he likes getting what the results are. He likes to see what the numbers say. And he's very meticulous. So he wants to get what his blood pressure done all the time. And he wants to like step on the scale and get told that he only weighs 220 pounds and that he's 6 foot 3, even though he's obviously heavier and shorter than that. That's a tremendous waste of time. Even if it were true, even if it was the case that he's in totally fine health. But he's very meticulous when it comes to things. And he has to go to Walter Reed. He can't even do these checkups at the White House, by the way, even though they have some stuff there to be able to do simple tests and things. He has to go to Walter Reed and he has to do it several times a year. And it's just because he's so meticulous and it's really important for him to do that. Even though he's president and certainly has a whole bunch of other stuff that he could be working on, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So Dr. Oz's explanation here, obviously not holding up to scrutiny. And to wrap things up, we also got some deranged question about Trump derangement syndrome from some right wing reporter. I guess we have to call them. The reporter asks Dr. Oz how to deal with Trump Derangement syndrome or something to that effect. And Dr. Oz goes along with the idea. Let's take a look. Let me leave you with.
- [33:13]
Dr. Oz
We're, we have one last question, but I I do want. Okay, go ahead, ask him. I'll come to you. I have a GOP question. What's your question?
- [33:22]
Pat Ford
Very quick, do you have any medical advice for the American citizen out there that are suffering from a very serious ailment called Trump Derangement Syndrome?
- [33:30]
Dr. Oz
I am concerned about folks who have focused their entire life energy on dislike of the president. It's disheartening to see people lost in that way. But, you know, treating stupid is really hard.
- [33:45]
Pat Ford
Now, of course, Donald Trump claims that Rob Reiner died because of Trump Derangement Syndrome. So it would be interesting to see if Dr. Oz could follow up on that, whether that was the actual cause of death as Donald Trump claimed it was. Yeah, this whole Trump Derangement Syndrome thing never makes sense. It's obvious why people should be upset over what Donald Trump is doing. And the real Trump Derangement Syndrome is giving him excuses for every single thing that he does, despite the fact that he's doing things that continue to be unprecedented. Like, by the way, going to your annual physical four times in a single year. So something that Dr. Oz didn't do such a great job at defending. All right, we're going to go to a break now, but we'll be back with more of the David Pakman show right after this.
- [34:29]
Sponsor/Advertisement Voice
There isn't one mattress that's perfect for everybody. Some people want firmer, somewhat softer. Some are side sleepers, back sleepers. A mattress that's good for one person might not be the right one for somebody else. That is the idea behind our sponsor, Helix Sleep. Instead of one generic mattress, hoping it works for everyone, Helix sends you a mattress that is based on your specific sleeping needs and preferences. I've been sleeping on a Helix mattress for years now. It fits my sleep style perfectly because before I got it, I took the Helix Sleep quiz. I answered questions and I was matched perfectly with the right mattress for me. Support, but not too stiff. Cushioning, but not too much. And Helix also has free shipping, 120 night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty. Go to helix sleep.com/pacman and you'll get 20% off site wide. The link is in the description. When it comes to what you're getting dad for Father's Day, don't overthink it. Get him something that'll keep him comfortable every day. Something practical. Sheath underwear delivers exactly that. Our sponsor Sheath makes premium pouch underwear with a smart front design that will separate and support and give everything room to breathe. The room everything deserves, which is very important during the hot summer months coming up. Sheath's lineup includes soft bamboo and modal options, along with different cuts and colors. You can give him an everyday essential without being boring. She fuses fabric that's lightweight, breathable, built for comfort through long days at the office, work days or just lounging around the house for Father's Day. Get dad the underwear he would probably never think to buy for himself, but will be glad he owns when he's got it. Go to Sheath Underwear dotcom and use code Father for 30% off until June 21st. The link is in the description.
- [36:39]
Pat Ford
Welcome back to the show. I'm Pat Ford filling in for David Pakman. Today. He is on his way home from a little trip and he'll be back tomorrow with us. Donald Trump is backing away from the idea of a $1.8 billion slush fund. He had this idea of doing $1.8 billion put aside for his anti weaponization fund. Taxpayer dollars, by the way, which were intended to go to people who were rioting at the Capitol on January 6, who were beating up cops and who were trying to engage more broadly in efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Donald Trump wanted to give all those people a thank you in the form of $1.8 billion between them, and now it looks at least as though they're backing away from the idea. So the fund was created by the Justice Department and was intended to compensate people who claimed they had been unfairly targeted by government investigations or prosecutions under the Biden administration. And the fund was actually created as a way to do a settlement in the case where you had Donald Trump suing himself because he said that his tax returns being released by the IRS made it so that he was worthy of compensation. And as a way to settle the case, he decided to come up with this slush fund out of thin air for his supporters. It was certainly very legally dubious. And courts were saying that this slush fund isn't allowed to stand. They were blocking any payments from going out from it. Obviously, if you're just diverting taxpayer dollars into doing whatever pet projects you want to do, that's highly illegal. If you want to pay off your supporters, if you want to pay off the people who beat up cops on January 6th, well, that's going to make it so that it's seen as even worse, I would say. And they're obviously going to try to put a stop to it if they're at all able to. The courts are. And you had Republican congresspeople who were also just not willing to go along with it. John Thune and Mike Johnson were saying that Donald Trump should move away from the idea because obviously it was a toxic idea. They hate the fact that Donald Trump continues to talk about the 2020 election, let alone the fact that he pardoned all the January six there's and now wants to give them payment as if part of hardening them was not enough. And it's good that we're seeing that they're deciding to back away from the idea. But, you know, would, would it be all that surprising if they decided to bring back the idea after the midterms once Donald Trump is officially a complete lame duck when he doesn't have to worry about elections anymore? I wouldn't be surprised if he decides to do this and he'll try and see if the courts try to step in his way. But at least for now, they're backing down from the idea, which is great. Good to see. Here is Todd Blanche, who used to work as Donald Trump's personal lawyer. Now he's the acting attorney general, talking about this slush fund and saying, don't worry about it because it's kaput. Now, of course, there are still a bunch of questions to ask about it, like why did you come up with the idea in the first place? How far along was it? Who are you going to pay out? Is this going to come back as a proposal down the line? So a lot of questions that they should ask Todd Blanche here importantly, but here is him responding to some of it. Mr. Attorney General, I wanted to ask a few questions about the Anti Weaponization fund. We know that the department has agreed
- [39:55]
Sponsor/Advertisement Voice
to pause this effort until at least June 12th.
- [40:00]
Pat Ford
I wanted to ask what your plans were for the fund after June 12th.
- [40:05]
Todd Blanche
So thank you. So, look, we're not moving forward with the fund. You're right that there's a date that in the case in the east of Virginia in June. But we are not moving forward with the fund, period. The reasons for the fund is something that President Trump talked about for a long time, which is the fact that there were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them.
- [40:29]
Pat Ford
I mean, listen to the victim complex here. There are a lot of people in this country who had the government weaponized against them. It's like, yeah, but rightfully so, because they committed crimes and they were convicted. They went through the criminal process. It's not like they were just railroaded. They were heard out by a judge and jury and given an appropriate sentence. A lot of these people Just got slaps on their wrist. A lot of the people that did more serious things actually did face serious charges, which is what you're supposed to have in a criminal justice system. You would think that the Attorney General of the United States should know that. But maybe because I guess he's just acting agey, he doesn't know that yet. But that is an important piece of law that these people had their day in court. And by just saying the government was weaponized against them, you could apply that logic to any prosecution, because in a way, the government is weaponized against you when there's a case against you.
- [41:20]
Todd Blanche
Important as they were before. But we are not moving forward with the fund.
- [41:24]
Pat Ford
Not moving forward ever, correct? Oh, there's no more fund then?
- [41:29]
Todd Blanche
Well, to the extent there was a fund, and remember, the fund wasn't set up yet. There were no commissioners named. There was no. No claimants brought anything in front of. There was no claims made yet. So, yes, we're not moving forward with the fund.
- [41:42]
Pat Ford
Honestly, it's too bad that we don't have that list of names and how much money people would get, because I'd love to see that. I have a bunch of questions like, would you just take the $1.8 billion and take the amount of people who were January 6th defendants and do an equal distribution? Because then they would all get about a million dollars each and every. And would that be the best way to go about it? Or if you're Trump, do you want to give some more money to people like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell? Because you can argue that they did more for you in the courts and in the media than those average January 6th? There's. Do people who maybe beat up cops get entitled to more money than those who were merely trespassers? Like, do the trespassers get 5k and the people who assaulted police officers, they get a million? Like, what exactly would the distribution look like here? I'd love to see that. So it's a little unfortunate that we're not going to be able to see what exactly they came up with it. But good, of course, that they're backing away from the idea. It was completely untenable politically, and that's why they decided to. But it's still an idea that Donald Trump came up with. It should have just remained a shower thought, but I guess, you know, it makes sense to him why he would come up with the idea, because he got away essentially with part of pardoning all the January 6ers. Is it really all that much of a stretch to also give them money? Isn't it sensible that if you're able to give them their freedom and basically give an apology on behalf of the government for prosecuting them, that you could also give them some money in addition to that? It seems like it's actually a sensible approach for Trump to at least try it. But obviously, when it comes to the court of public opinion, the American public, we're not going to go for this. It was going to be something that was hugely unpopular because. Because Trump's efforts to overthrow the 2020 election were unpopular as it was. I can't believe he was able to win election in 2024 with that on his track record, the fact that he had a coup attempt on his track record. But the economy, I suppose, was in a position that was so bad that Americans overlooked the concerns to democracy and all these other issues. Now, what we've seen is Trump taking back control of the White House. He's not able to fix any of those economic matters that he got elected on. And by the way, when it comes to these democracy matters, he's doing things like pardoning the people who beat up cops on January 6th. He's doing things like trying to get money for the people who did that, who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. So it's something that, of course, is not good for Donald Trump's reputation, It's not good for his credibility in his poll numbers, and that would clearly affect Republicans poorly in the midterms. So it's a little bit unfortunate in a way that Donald Trump is backing away from the proposal. I'm not saying that I want to see it happen. I'm not saying that I want people to get money from this, but it would be a little bit more advantageous politically, I suppose, if this was caught up in the courts for a little bit. At least for right now, they're backing away from the idea. So we can say rest in peace, I suppose, to the Trump anti weaponization Fund.
- [44:42]
Sponsor/Advertisement Voice
If you've been paying attention to recent events, you've seen how the line between church and state is. Is blurring, how religion can be brought into public life in ways that raise real constitutional questions. That doesn't just affect one issue. It shapes policy, it shapes rights and how power operates broadly. Our sponsor, the Freedom From Religion foundation, works to protect separation of church and state because it protects you and it protects me. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the United States, the question isn't just what we celebrate, it's what do we defend? Visit ffrf.us/david or text my name David to 511511 to learn more or to join because protecting that separation protects our rights. The info is in the description. Text fees may apply. One thing that drives me nuts about political media is how two outlets can cover the same story and make it feel like two different events took place. Not because any of the facts have changed, but because the emphasis of the stories is different. This is why I use Ground News, because Ground News pulls together reporting from across the political spectrum and you can compare the headlines side by side and see how different outlets are framing the exact same issue. You can look at the bias distribution, you can look at factuality ratings. You can see who owns the outlets behind the reporting, which makes it easier to separate the substance from the spin. For example, Trump's EPA recently decided to remove limits on those forever chemicals in drinking water. Ground News shows how outlets like PBS and Raw Story are getting it right and right wing outlets put this anti Biden spin on it or they just stay very vague to avoid implicating Donald Trump. Ground News also has a blind spot feed. This is for stories that are underreported by one side and you can also get a personalized feed based on your interests. Go to Ground News slash Pacman or scan my QR code to get 40% off the ground News Vantage plan. The link is in the description.
- [47:09]
Pat Ford
Welcome back to the show. I'm Pat Ford filling in for David Pakman. Today, George Santos just can't seem to stay out of trouble, can he? He just got out of prison not because he served his full sentence, but because Donald Trump decided to commute his sentence early because George Santos is a fan of Trump and that is all it takes to get your sentence commuted these days. Donald Trump let him out of prison early and George Santos apparently didn't learn the lesson that going to prison is bad in a place you don't want to go to. But instead he learned the lesson that you can do whatever you want if you're a Trump ally and get away with it because the President is going to have your back and find a way to let you out of prison. And so that made it so that he felt more emboldened to commit crimes. Allegedly, we should say, because he still under investigation here. I saw earlier there was a charge related to this case, but now I'm seeing just an investigation at this moment. And for what? For using Kalshee to line his own pockets to place bets in these prediction markets that he was privy to that could he could affect the outcome of and make a bunch of money for himself. So Santos, we know of course, his background, he was expelled from Congress after it became clear he was a total fraud because he got elected on all these lies about his education and work history. Then later on it became clear that he also seemed to have been committing a bunch of crimes and there were things to investigate him criminally over. And that led to his ouster from Congress. He eventually got a seven year federal prison sentence for wire fraud, money laundering and stealing from his own political donors. And, but he only served four months of that sentence because Trump let him out early. So four months after being released from prison back in February, George Santos took to social media right before Donald Trump's State of the Union address. And he posted a video to X. Santos said that he was going to be going to the State of the Union address that night, that he would be at the speech, attending from the gallery. And, and so what happens? There was a prediction market on this very thing. Would George Santos go to the State of the Union address? Because that's something that you could bet on this day and age. And at that exact moment when George Santos made the announcement, traders on the platform put in a bunch of money, millions of dollars. And the odds that he would go to the State of the Union, of course, skyrocketed. And then ultimately, Santos never showed up. Sue the State of the Union. He instead posted a message on X while Trump was speaking for the event, claiming that he was stuck watching the speech from an airport television, which caused the Kelshi market odds to plummet. And what he hid from the public at the time was that he actually put in place secretive bets, massive bets on Kalshee, allegedly at this moment, this is what they're investigating. And he was wagering that he would not appear at the speech, meaning that he was deliberately misleading the public to manipulate the market. And he walked away with tens of thousands of dollars in profit from the deception. I got to say, is it, is it really worth it? Tens of thousands of dollars when you're running this clear risk, like it's obvious everything that you're doing, everything is timestamped. All these moves that you're making when you decide to make these announcements, when do you decide to make the sales and place the bets? Like you can't get away with doing something when everything is tracked like this. And is it worth it for tens of thousands of dollars when you can get hit with charges? I suppose if you're George Santos and you figure that Trump will just give you another get out of jail free card. Maybe it could be for him. Kalshee quickly detected the suspicious trading activity and froze Santos's account and referred the case to to the Commodity Future Trading Commission and the Department of Justice. And I gotta say, this Santos guy, he's a criminal, sure, but he is no criminal mastermind. All of the crimes that he commits, and with this one, of course still being allegedly. Of course none of these things are sophisticated. They're really not intelligent. Like I said with the Kalshi thing, you can track it so easily. And all of his other crimes he's committed before, they were just dumb things like that you can easily catch someone on. Like when he was a teenager in Brazil, he stole a checkbook from his mom's parents Boss and used $1,300 to buy clothes. Of course he was caught when it came to that. He also stole money from his own donors because he had all the bank account information from all the people who were giving money to him. And then he also claimed $24,000 in COVID 19 unemployment benefits at a time when he was working for an investment firm and making $120,000 a year. All these things are tracked and easy to solve. So George Santos is no criminal mastermind. And he's going to keep doing this stuff. I mean, it's really obvious. Even if he goes to prison for a long time, it's going to be a lot before he's reformed and not doing this type of scam anymore. How do I know? Because four months wasn't enough for him. Of course, four months is far short of the seven year sentence that he got. But four months for a lot of people would be enough to scare them straight. At least for a while, right? At least for a few years. But what we saw from George Santos is he just waited another few months and then he was ready to allegedly commit crimes again. So you can't write this stuff. The saga continues with George Santos. And one more thing I wanted to mention having to do with this George Santos thing. I've noticed that he's starting to get welcomed in a little bit more in polite society, as if he's doing some sort of like rehabilitation tour. This is of course, after all this latest news broke. But he would go on Piers Morgan and of course he does his own podcast and he's trying to do all these other media appearances and just be like another right wing pundit. Should we allow that to happen as a people? Like, should someone be able to lie their way into a Senate seat, commit a complete fraud on the people he's supposed to represent in that district in New York, get caught and face some accountability. Sure, in this fact that he was kicked out of Congress, but then only getting a little accountability with the criminal stuff that he did. Trump letting him out of office and now he gets to parlay that entire story into a media career where he can have the opportunity to make money. You know, it doesn't sit right with me. I don't think it's the type of thing that we should be rewarding. But that's just my opinion when it comes to it. And certainly with this case, I'll be interested in following it if we'll see charges come his way soon. That seems to be where things are headed. But who knows, maybe Donald Trump will step in and say, you know that George Santos guy, I like him, he's an even bigger liar than I am. And that gives him another get out of jail free card in my book or something like that. We could see that happen. Donald Trump step in and shut down the investigation. I would not be surprised whatsoever if that took place. Well, that's going to do it for today's episode of the David Pakman Show. Thank you all for watching today. Thank you for listening to me guest host and cover the stories I wanted to get to today. I should mention that if you like what I do, you should become a member because we're going to be doing the bonus show here in a bit and we have a lot of stories we're going to talk about. We're going to talk about Melania Trump being named in this bombshell new Jeffrey Epstein allegation having to do with her allegedly being an escort to Jeffrey Epstein and also an allegation having to do with how she met Donald Trump. We're also going to talk about Scott Pelley getting fired by CBS News for standing up for what he believes in. And what he believes in is basically the 60 minutes staff being protected and the show as an institution being protected. So we're going to talk about those stories on today's bonus show. If you are thinking about becoming a member, there's an awesome opportunity coming up for you to do just that. Because on June 9, we're doing a one day only membership drive. In order to get involved, you have to go to davidpakman.com substack Sign up for the free newsletter and on June 9th you'll get an email with instructions for how to sign up for a discounted membership so it's a one day only thing that we're doing. You just gotta get on the substack before June 9th and then on the 9th you'll get that email. I'll see you over at the bonus show if and when you become a member. And it was a pleasure hosting today. David Pakman will be back tomorrow. I'm Pat Ford filling in for David today. We'll see you next time.