Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
Something remarkable is happening. Trump's own allies are scrambling to find somebody else to blame for this Iran deal. That is a total and complete surrender. And Trump is now joking. If the deal works, I'll take the credit. If it fails, I'll blame J.D. vance. And the funniest part is that is what some in conservative media are already starting to do. We will also look at Jessica Tarlov cornering Vance as the lone liberal on Fox News with a very simple question that Vance never really answers, which is why does your defense of this deal involve imagining Trump as the Supreme Leader of Iran? It's weird, I know it's confusing, but we'll look at it. And former President Mike Pence is not pleased with this negotiation, saying that the Iran agreement is appeasement, which of course it is. And we are seeing more and more voters say, I'm frustrated by with what Trump is doing after I helped get him elected. We're also going to look at reports that taxpayers could be on the hook for the ballroom. Hundreds of millions of dollars. We had promise after promise that taxpayers wouldn't pay a dime. And later, a Trump nominee asked a simple question. You know the question, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? And he ties himself into impenetrable knots. All of that and more to today, Can we somehow blame the entire thing on Joe Biden or maybe even on Barack Obama? No matter what political problem MAGA is facing, no matter what issue Trump is up against that seemingly has him up against the wall, from a public relations standpoint, they always have this refrain. Can we blame Biden? Can we even blame Barack Obama? Trump has an idea as the surrender of the United States. Remember, we're going to get unconditional surrender from Iran. Instead it seems to be surrender from the United States. This pathetic, flaccid memorandum of understanding that probably helps Iran end up in a better place than they were even before Donald Trump's ill advised war. As criticism of this grows, Trump has a strategy. And the strategy is if it goes well, I'll take the credit. If it doesn't go well, I'll blame J.D. vance. We played this clip yesterday. I'll remind you of the way Trump said it. He liked the suggestion from Peter Doocy, Fox News reporter. Is there some element to this where you send the vice president? If it works out, great, you look like a genius for sending him. And if it doesn't work out, it's the vice president. I like that idea.
- [02:34]
Political Analyst/Commentator
Sure.
- [02:35]
David Pakman
What? This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming J.D. you better be careful, J.D. he's going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here. Yeah, I like that idea. Now, there's a reason why Howard Nutlik is laughing and Marco Rubio is not. Because Marco Rubio is doing the math and realizing, well, hold on a second. If Vance gets blamed, I probably also get blamed. And we talked about that yesterday. But let's zoom out a little bit. What I think is funny about this is that this has been Donald Trump's management style for the last decade that he's been in politics. Success has one father. It was born of Trump. Failure is always someone else's fault, as we are now over 10, almost 11 years into Donald Trump's political career. And he has never just taken responsibility for anything. He's never miscalculated. He's never. He's never even said, I hired a bad person. He goes, no, no, no, I hired a good person. They turned bad after I hired them. I'm still the best at hiring. It was completely unpredictable. Maybe it's the general's fault, maybe it's a lawyer's fault who gave Trump bad advice, or an adviser staff judges, even if Trump appointed them. The problem is judges are certainly the fake news media. Democrats are a popular scapegoat. Trump sort of joking, but the plan, of course, if this thing with Iran implodes, is to blame somebody else. And what's interesting is we're already seeing it happen. Prominent right wingers are already saying it and laying the groundwork. Here's Ben Shapiro, and he thinks that this MOU is pathetic, and he's right. But he's blaming who? J.D. vance. The argument from Ben Shapiro is the memo is bad, but Trump couldn't possibly have been the arbiter here. Vance didn't serve Trump well.
- [04:24]
Political Analyst/Commentator
That said, this MOU appears to be, just from the text, a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning. There were effectively five goals that were set by the administration at the beginning. One was ending the nuclear program. Not just nuclear weapons. No nuclear enrichment, zero enrichment. That is not in the deal. Ballistic missiles ended. That is not in the deal. And the president today suggested that ballistic missiles should actually continue to be held by the Iranians because the Saudis, our allies, also hold ballistic missiles. Then you have the support of terrorism. That is not part of the deal. Anything that looks like an attempt to end terrorism, a permanent opening of the strait of Hormuz toll free. Not only is that not in the deal, the deal appears to have a provision allowing Iran and Oman to attempt to toll the straits after 60 days. And finally, the idea that Iran would receive some sort of sanctions relief after all of those things happen. We are already seeing from day one relief in their ability to ship oil out of Iran.
- [05:17]
David Pakman
In my opinion, that all sounds bad, Right? But now we get his opinion as to how this happened.
- [05:21]
Political Analyst/Commentator
The Vice President of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president.
- [05:27]
David Pakman
It's J.D. vance's fault. TRUMP joking about it and Ben Shapiro going, no, we're going to go with that. We're absolutely going to go with that. Here's Sean Hannity on his radio program, and he goes, I don't think Trump even saw this mou. I don't think it has anything to do with Donald Trump.
- [05:42]
Sean Hannity
Let me ask you this, and I want you maybe to tell me that I'm wrong. So this big memorandum of understanding comes out. I've talked to Jared Kushner, I've talked to Steve Witkoff, I've talked to the President. I've talked to everybody. And I don't think a memorandum of understanding means a thing. And the president, I tend to listen to the president's words. And because that. That is final anyway, I don't even think the president saw the memorandum of understanding, to be very blunt with you. Oh, and he's saying, well, they either abide by it or I'm going to bomb the.
- [06:20]
David Pakman
Trump didn't even see it. Now, remember, even if you want to accept this at the micro level, Trump chose Vance. Trump empowered Vance. Trump put Vance in the role of negotiating. Trump approved the negotiation strategy. Trump publicly promoted the negotiations. So if the agreement's wonderful, Trump gets credit because he's the president. The buck stops with him. It's his administration. He chose JD he set up JD to be the negotiator. And if it's terrible, we are supposed to believe JD Vance was acting independently all along. Trump didn't set parameters for the negotiations. He didn't set parameters for the MoU. He didn't see the MoU. That is a very difficult argument to make. But there are probably, I mean, listen, there's probably millions of people in this country who will fall for that crap. And that is why they are going for it. They spent weeks declaring the deal was imminent and it would be historic and it would be great. The details leak out and it's terrible. A bunch of right wingers go, this isn't good. And suddenly who did this? J.D. vance is to blame. And the remarkable thing is Trump framed it as a joke when he was asked about it. But it's what they're doing. Ben Shapiro is already doing it. Sean Hannity is not necessarily with Vance but with others. They are already doing it. And I wonder if the magas are going to fall for it. My view is let's hold people accountable. Maybe that's a conservative idea. Personal responsibility, right? Trump started the war. Trump chose the negotiators. Trump set the parameters. Trump said the the MOU is ok. He's got to be accountable for that. Let's hold him accountable. An unfortunate stop for Vice President J.D. vance on his book promotion tour was Fox News is the Five. It wasn't unfortunate because of Greg Gutfeld's presence. It wasn't unfortunate because of Dana Perino. It wasn't unfortunate for him because of Jesse Waters. It was made unfortunate in because of the presence of the lone Liberal on the five, Jessica Tarlov. Jessica Tarlov humiliated J.D. vance. Now listen, I understand the position she's in when J.D. vance shows up. Just because she's on the left, she can't do everything she might want to do if it were not on Fox News. She still has to abide by some decorum, etc. But she does a very good job here of pointing to JD Vance all the ways in which this Iran deal is pathetic. And Vance really doesn't seem able to counteract any of the substance. Vance has media training. He's able to sort of try to deflect tangentially some of this stuff. But let's take a look a little bit of these exchanges. These are very good as the straight
- [09:11]
Mike Pence
opens throughout the summer. So I think what Jessica really wants
- [09:14]
David Pakman
to say is thank you.
- [09:17]
Alex Tabett
Jessica, do you want to say thank you?
- [09:19]
Jessica Tarlov
Thank you for being here. Very, very cool to have you with us, especially when we're discussing this topic that you're running point on. And I'm a little uncomfortable about what I'm about to do, but I've been amping myself up all day. So no, it's not called the Secret Service. They're already here, like 50 of you. You know, there's been leaked versions of this MoU, not just in the Iranian press, in the Saudi press, the Pakistani press, the American press has gotten their hands on some details as well. You know, the Wall Street Journal has it that Iran can immediately sell oil and that they're going to get some sanctions relief Right off the bat, that was something that we heard was not going to happen. So they have an incentive to get this going by Friday. And there's going to be money changing hands in the copies of the MOU that we've seen again leaked. We have this $300 billion fund. And I saw you last night, you were with Sean talking about it. He said, well, it's not our money, Gulf Nation money, our partners money, but that's still a $300 billion payday. And that's something that they desperately want to have. The punting on the nuclear program for the 60 day negotiation, that's the real tough stuff of this, right? That's the meat of what we really need to get done. And you say the JCPOA didn't have anything about that. It's in the preamble of the JCPOA that Iran will cease all efforts to have a nuclear weapon. That enrichment will be held at about 3, 3%.
- [10:41]
David Pakman
Well, they can't.
- [10:42]
Mike Pence
They can't get the dust.
- [10:43]
David Pakman
Jessica, also, and Barack Obama never buried
- [10:47]
Jessica Tarlov
it while the Vice President is here. Don't interrupt me. And then it'll be over really fast.
- [10:52]
Mike Pence
I wasn't interrupting him, I was interrupting you.
- [10:54]
Jessica Tarlov
I meant me. Be polite for our guest.
- [10:57]
David Pakman
Waters realizes. Oh, boy, she has the facts here. She is pointing out that there is this other thing. We're not comparing this MOU to nothing. We're not comparing this MOU to an unfettered Iran. We're comparing this MOU to the one we had that Trump got out of. And this is a major political problem for them because they keep acting as though the JCPOA was basically nothing. It had nothing meaningful to say about Iran's nuclear ambitions. It didn't do anything. And Jessica Tarlov points out the agreement specifically addressed enrichment. It specifically included containment commitments. It included Iran's not pursuing a nuclear weapon. And J.D. vance pivots here. We're going to watch it. He pivots to, oh, you learn that from the Wall Street Journal. Classic, classic move.
- [11:48]
Jessica Tarlov
You know, there's been leaked versions of this MoU, not just in the Iranian press and the Saudi press, the Pakistani press, the American press has gotten their hands on some details as well. You know, the Wall Street Journal has it that Iran can immediately sell oil and that they're going to get some sanctions relief right off the bat. That was something that we heard was not going to happen. So they have an incentive to get this going by Friday and there's going to be money changing hands in the copies of the MOU that we've seen again leaked. We have this $300 billion fund. And I saw you last night, you were with Sean talking about.
- [12:20]
David Pakman
He said, well, and let me skip forward, because we heard a bunch of this already. So let's actually get to J.D. vance's part.
- [12:25]
J.D. Vance
Let me address a couple of things, because I think you're making the same mistake, unfortunately, that a lot of the Iranian propagandists make when they talk about
- [12:31]
Jessica Tarlov
this, which is the Wall Street Journal.
- [12:32]
J.D. Vance
They. The benefits to the Iranians without any of the things the Iranians would have to give up and have to change in order to get those benefits. So you mentioned a $300 billion fund. I got to be very clear about this. Not a single cent of American money, under any circumstance, no matter what the Iranians do, goes to Iran. Not a single cent of American money.
- [12:50]
Jessica Tarlov
Other money.
- [12:51]
J.D. Vance
Here's. Here's what this says. This says, for example, let's say that the United Arab Emirates, who have been a great ally, let's say they want to invest in a power plant in Iran. What this deal provides is that if the Iranians have done everything we require them to do, then we will allow the United Arab Emirates to do that, because they can't do that right now without American approval. So we're fundamentally saying if the Iranians transform how they interact with the world, we will transform how the world economy interacts with Iran.
- [13:18]
David Pakman
He wants to play a game where he goes, the money isn't coming from the United States. If the United States is approving of funds going to Iran, it is, in essence, the United States enabling Iran to have the money. They never would have accepted that explanation in the Obama deal, ever, ever, ever. But their standards are different when it is Trump. The weirdest moment of this entire thing is when Vance goes, if Trump were elected supreme Leader of Iran, the Democrats would still say the United States lost.
- [13:54]
Dave Portnoy
Huh.
- [13:55]
Jessica Tarlov
Okay. And again, lots of criticism from the Republican side of this as well. It is a bipartisan concern.
- [14:01]
J.D. Vance
Well, I think, look, some of the criticism comes from the fact that if Donald Trump were elected the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Democrats would still say that the United States had lost.
- [14:10]
Mike Pence
This.
- [14:11]
J.D. Vance
There is a fundamental refusal to acknowledge how much has changed in the Middle east over the last few months.
- [14:16]
David Pakman
What does that even mean? Like, what. What. What is he. What would that be? The greatest victory would the great. Is. Is Vance going? There could be no greater victory than Trump becoming the leader of Iran. And even if that happens, Democrats would still say, we lost. The Supreme Leader is the person the United States has spent years describing as the central authority of the adversarial regime. The hypothetical is ridiculous, but it avoids the issue, which is not about whether Democrats like Trump. There are two questions. Number one, if this deal is so awesome, why do so many Republicans think it's trash? And number two, is the deal stronger than what we had? Because we are comparing it to an existing deal getting out of which has caused significant financial expense to the United States. It has led to people dying. It has put us in another war. And what we're seeing when we just look at before and after Obama deal, after getting out of the Obama deal, but before getting into the war and after getting into the war, Iran's circumstances seem to only improve and the United States circumstances seem to seem to only be diminished in how useful and positive they are for everyday Americans. Vance is prepared for this stuff, but he doesn't really deflect it in a substantive way. This is going to be a major problem for Republicans, especially if the deal ends up looking like the letter the frustrating part about debt is that even if you're doing everything right, the system is stacked against you. Interest compounds, the fees pile up and you end up paying just to stay in the exact same place while the bank collects. That's why I want to talk to you about PDS debt which works with people dealing with unsecured debt. That means credit cards, personal loans, medical bills. There's no one size fits all approach. They will evaluate your specific situation and make a plan that works for for you. There is no minimum credit score required. PDS debt is A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau. They have thousands of five star reviews and have already helped hundreds of thousands of people get out of debt. Every month you wait costs you more in interest and fees. Don't wait another month. Take back control in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment@pds debt.com pacman the link is in the description if you're trying to get away from cigarettes or vaping, one of the first practical questions is what you replace them with. Especially if you're not ready to eliminate nicotine immediately, check out our sponsor Zipix Nicotine Toothpicks Zipix uses quality plant derived nicotine with a very short list of ingredients. It gives you another option for managing nicotine with no smoke or vapor and Zipix comes in six flavors. There's two or three milligram options lets you control the nicotine as compared to a cigarette or vape. They're also easy to use throughout the day and in places where smoking or vaping isn't allowed, or it would require you to step out conspicuously for a cigarette, which can cause other problems. Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 toothpicks if you're reducing nicotine altogether or don't even use it at all. If you're tired of cigarettes or vaping, try Zipix Nicotine TOOTHPICKS and get 10% off your first order with code PACMAN@ ZIPIXTOOTHPICKS.COM the link is in the description. You must be 21 or older to order. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. On Monday this the preorder campaign for my forthcoming book Pay Attention will launch. I'm going to tell you how you can get signed copies of the book. I'm going to tell you about the campaign that already exists to try to suppress this book and so much more. Just letting everybody know, Monday is the day I'll tell you all about it. Where to preorder the book, where to get signed copies. If you want a signed copy, they will be available. Last time it took us a while to get that going. We will have it all ready to go Monday. More information forthcoming. Former Vice President Mike Pence is going on a sort of revenge tour of his own against Donald Trump. And when Mike Pence, a horrible right wing social conservative, thinks you've gone too far as a Republican, it's time to look around and go, what the hell am I doing? Mike Pence making the rounds this week, including Speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan Collins saying to Pence, it sounds like you believe some of what Donald Trump is doing here, the Iran deal, which is not really a deal, and all of this stuff, it sounds like you think it's a mistake. And Pence goes, oh, it's even worse than a mistake. Listen to this.
- [19:08]
Jessica Tarlov
So, I mean, pretty bluntly it sounds
- [19:10]
David Pakman
like you think from what we know
- [19:11]
Jessica Tarlov
so far, this is a mistake by the Trump administration.
- [19:15]
Mike Pence
Well, it's much bigger than a mistake. I mean, when the president took that historic step to strike those nuclear facilities last year, this is the first time in 47 years that an American president had taken the fight directly to the mullahs in Tehran and America was safer. And the fact that he tried diplomacy for the following year to begin to make progress and then finally recognized that we just got to take the fight to them, launched Operation Epic Fury. Our military responded brilliantly. But in this moment, the posture that we're getting from the Iranians. But my concern is what appears to be leaking out these immediate concessions, particularly sanctions waivers right out of the gate that would what would essentially be a lifeline to the Iranian regime, I think is ill advised. We ought to keep the pressure on, keep the blockade on, and if need be, let our armed forces get back to work.
- [20:17]
David Pakman
Now, just like I said about Megyn Kelly earlier this week, I'm going to table my analysis of Pence bigger picture for a moment. But his sort of micro analysis here is completely correct. Trump's giving a whole bunch of stuff away. We're not really getting much that's good for the United States. We're ending up where we were, if not worse positioned than before this entire war started. It is bigger than a mistake. This is a complete and total diplomatic and foreign policy disaster. He even uses the term in another moment of appeasement. And I got to tell you, I think Mike Pence is completely correct to use that word. Trump is appeasing Iran. Iran offered nothing and gets everything. Iran may go back to some of the things they put and agreed to for the Obama deal and that's it. Pathetic.
- [21:08]
Mike Pence
Well, Caitlin, look, Iran has been at war with the United States and our cherished ally Israel for 47 years. And I strongly supported the president's decision for the first time in modern history to take the fight directly to the mullahs in Tehran last year and then again this year. And I do believe the president has earned some latitude in negotiating an end to hostilities. But I have very real concerns. Look, I like, apparently like an awful lot of people on the. I just don't trust the Iranians. I've been too close to those issues from my time in the White House, many briefings in the Situation Room, as well as my years on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House. I mean, the Iranians, particularly on with regard to their nuclear ambition, have essentially a legacy of lies. They lied their way through the, the Obama Iran nuclear deal. We tore that up during the Trump Pence years.
- [22:11]
David Pakman
Notice he still thinks that was the right thing to do.
- [22:13]
Mike Pence
Biden returned to the politics of appeasement. And at least what we're hearing echo out of this, this potential memorandum of, this memorandum of understanding. It's, it smacks of impeachment. I mean, it sounds a bit like what I write about in my book that, that the progressive left has long embraced appeasement against our adversaries like Iran. But there are voices on the populist
- [22:40]
David Pakman
right that would have, it's really rich to say that the left embraced appeasement when we had a stricter deal under Obama than the best possible thing Trump could. And Iran was sticking to the deal. And I say this as a strong opponent of authoritarian regimes, a strong opponent of religiously based theocracies, and it was still better than what we're ultimately going to get here. So Pence is making some good points, but still in a context where he says a lot of really wacky stuff. One other recent clip, this is, again, Mike Pence sort of criticizing Trump, talking about the tariff stuff. And Pence disagrees with Trump there as well.
- [23:20]
Mike Pence
Congress has the authority to tax and tariff, not a president unilaterally. And that was a proper resetting.
- [23:28]
Senator Tim Kaine
But.
- [23:28]
Mike Pence
But I will tell you, as the administration continues their efforts to impose tariffs, things are not going well in Heartland. Now, the. You know, we have a cornfield right beside our house and an orchard on the other side. Farmers are hurting out there. I mean, farmers understand that what we grow, what we raise, we want to sell and sell to the world.
- [23:59]
David Pakman
So you get it. He disagrees with Trump about the tariffs. He thinks that the deal, the Iran deal is appeasement. Fine. So listen, there's some stuff in here where I agree with Mike Pence, but there's a lot of bullshit that he's still spouting about the president. Progressive left is worse. And all of this stuff, whether it's Megyn Kelly criticizing Trump for Iran or Mike Pence criticizing Trump for Iran or tariffs or whatever, I do not respect these people at all. Megyn Kelly could have come out much earlier and levied criticisms against Donald Trump. So could Mike Pence. Trump is now 80 years old. He's nearing the last couple of years of his presidency. He's nearing the end of his life, he's nearing the end of his political career. And now they go, oh, Iran, limits on constitutional power, appeasement, the power to tariff. It's too late to matter now, mostly. That being said, Pence did refuse to violate the Constitution for Trump back in 2021, but at the same time, that's a pretty damn low bar. Oh, he didn't violate the Constitution, all right. But he still is cheerleading the fact that they got out of the Obama deal in 2018 when that deal was working and it was stronger than what we're going to get now. Pence is right on tariffs, but he was in the room while Trump built the political movement that approved of the idea of let's do these blanket tariffs and said, let's vote for this guy. The damage to farmers was not this unpredictable consequence. It happened in the first term. It happened multiple times during the second term. And what Pence is really admitting is Trump accumulated powers Republicans would never tolerate in a Democratic president. That's really the admission from Mike Pence. He gets credit for refusing to try to overturn an election, even though he wouldn't have been able to actually overturn it. Ok, he gets credit. But this whole, like, heroic framing, it's such a low bar for public service. And so now he is, you know, him and Trump don't get along anymore. Pence may have incentives to try to pull down Trump's second term because he's angry with Trump and Trump embarrassed him and all this. But to say that I respect Mike Pence because of the stuff that he's saying now, he's right about some of this stuff, but you can find people who go, hey, the sun, the sunset, time changes a little bit every day. It's like, yeah, that's true, but that doesn't mean I respect you because you got some basic fact, right? So I am struggling to find any semblance of respect for these people. If I'm wrong, if I'm not being charitable enough or whatnot, let me know. Donald Trump and the Republican Party have spent years railing against government waste. They spent years telling us Washington politicians are spending taxpayer money recklessly. And Trump won't do that. He'll fix it. He spent years telling us, I'm going to run government like a business. Trump's not that good at running businesses, so that should have actually concerned us. But we now have a remarkable new report suggesting taxpayers are going to end up paying $300 million to help pay for Donald Trump's White House ballroom. Now, remember that Trump repeatedly said, you're going to pay nothing. It's donations. It's my friends who are giving me the money because they're just nice people. You won't have to pay for a single dollar. Now, we already knew even then that that wasn't true. And because the ongoing maintenance of this additional square footage at the White House was going to be paid by taxpayer money, the additional utility costs of that structure were going to be borne by taxpayers. So it was always a lie. But Trump insisted for months, taxpayer free, they're not even putting up 10 cents. We have that specific claim. We now have a leaked document that contradicts all of it. There's a new report based on internal documents. The total cost of the ballroom has swelled to $600 million. And according to those very same documents, half of it is going to come from the donations from Trump's friends. The other half will come from taxpayer money. More than $300 million will come through Secret Service, the White House military office and other federal accounts. All of those are funded by my taxpayer dollars and your taxpayer dollars. Now, even if you support the idea of Trump, even if you think the ballroom is a good idea, there is a really straightforward question here. Why did he say taxpayers would pay nothing if taxpayers are going to pay 300 million? And how did we know that taxpayers were ultimately going to pay? That is the issue here. It's not, oh, it's esthetically pleasing. I love the columns. Nice granite or whatever. The issue is that this was sold to us one way and it is developing the other way. This gap is massive between what we were told and what we are now getting. And of course, as soon as the, the, you know, it was going to be 150 million, 200, 303, 5400, at that point it should have been obvious we're going to be paying for this thing. And now the total cost is expected to be $600 million. And these projects don't end up getting less expensive, they get more expensive. I would expect it to cost even more. This is happening. This is the contrast that matters. Happening as Americans are dealing with housing costs we were promised would go down but have gone up. Health care costs we were promised would go down but have gone up. Child care costs that have gone up. Insurance costs that have gone up. Gas prices and energy prices which we were promised would come down but have actually gone up. That is happening at the same time as 300 million going from taxpayers to the ballroom project. Think about the symbolism campaigns against wasteful spending attacks, the excess of elites claims he will be a steward of taxpayer money much more responsibly than any Democrats. And now taxpayers will pay for his ballroom attached to the White House. It's a vanity project. We don't need this. It's ridiculous. What is much harder to debate is that the entire thing is unnecessary. Now I know they love to say, well, we need it for the White House correspondents dinner wouldn't even be big enough for that. We need it for presidential security. No, we don't. What evidence is there of that now? The security related spending is a big part of the case they're making. They're saying this is going to be a super secure facility. That's really what you're paying for. Still optional. We still don't need this ballroom. We still wouldn't incur those security costs were it not for the construction of the ballroom. I know the White House requires security. No one disputes that. But what we're saying is, are the security concerns being used to justify costs that are connected to a vanity project that never should have taken place to begin with? And the answer is obviously yes. I think this is a very simple story. At the end of the day, we were told we wouldn't pay. The documents say we will pay. That's it. That. That's the entire story. We were told it would cost X and it's going to cost multiple times X. And as long as this continues, we need to continue holding Trump accountable for the promises he made. What was the promise on energy and gas prices and what happened? Don't take my word for it. Look it up. What were we promised about the cost and who would bear the cost of the ballroom? Don't take my word for it. Trump's on video explaining it. Evaluate for yourselves whether what was promised is what you're getting. I've done it. And for me, that means I'm not voting for Republicans in November. Most scams do not feel random. Scammers may know your name, your city, a relative, where you work, and suddenly the message you get sounds a lot more believable. And a lot of that information is found online, and it's just sitting there waiting for bad actors to use it against you. This is why our sponsor, Incogni, works to remove all of that information from hundreds of websites and databases that have it. So that scammers have nothing to work with. Incogni automatically sends removal requests to hundreds of sites that have your personal info. They will follow up again and again until it's gone. My favorite feature is custom removals with the unlimited plan. You find your info anywhere. Strange directory, obscure website, not on their master list of databases. You submit it a link in a screenshot and they will work to get it removed for you. Scammers and spammers can't bother you if they can't find you. And I am getting no spam calls anymore. And I've always been using Incogni. I would recommend it to anybody. Go to incogni.com/pacman. Use the code PACMAN for 60% off the annual plan. The link is in the description. One of the weirdest new sort of traditions of the Trump era is that years after the 2020 election, almost six years out from the 2020 election. Now, if you're a Republican who was nominated by Trump for a job in government, you are apparently not allowed or not willing to say something really simple. Okay, listen, listen to what I'm going to say here. Joe Biden won the 2020 election. See how simple that was for me to say. I'll say another thing. Donald Trump won the 2024 election. It's just like a breath of fresh air for me to be able to just say it. They can't do it. When they are asked who won the 2020 election, was it rigged? They go, the courts confirmed Biden's victory or Joe Biden was duly sworn in. Yes, but did Biden win? Well, that's a political question. No, it is a factual statement. And we saw it again during a Senate hearing involving this guy, Hal Duncan. He was nominated by Donald Trump to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. And Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine asked, what should this should sort of be like, what's your name? Who won the 2020 election? Like, these are easy points to get on your test. Did Joe Biden win the election? And listen to the answer. But then it will cut later to Tim Kaine asking who won the 2024 election? And Hal Duncan goes, oh, Trump won.
- [34:45]
Alex Tabett
Hmm.
- [34:46]
David Pakman
Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged? Sorry, and this. So initially, this is Merkley. So, but we're starting with Senator Merkley here. I said, Tim Kaine, I believe that Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election.
- [35:01]
Mike Pence
He was certified, yes. But do you believe the election outcome was rigged?
- [35:05]
David Pakman
Senator, I appreciate the question. As mentioned, I believe that Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election.
- [35:11]
Mike Pence
Duly noted that you're not responding to
- [35:13]
Senator Tim Kaine
the question, was the 2024 president.
- [35:15]
David Pakman
This is now Tim Kaine in election rig. And I'll go back because I stepped on it. Now the question becomes 2024.
- [35:21]
Mike Pence
You're not responding to the question, was
- [35:23]
Senator Tim Kaine
the 2024 presidential election rigged?
- [35:27]
David Pakman
Senator, President Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
- [35:29]
Senator Tim Kaine
Yeah, folks, how about that? So he, he was asked twice, was the 2020 presidential election rigged? And he said President Biden was certified to be the winner. He wouldn't answer the question. Saying President Biden was certified as the winner of that election is like saying Today is Tuesday, June 16th. I mean, it's obviously, it's a fact, but he wouldn't acknowledge that President Biden won that race. Now, there's only one of two reasons, Mr. Duncan, you have either fallen victim to the conspiracy mindset that says that that election was rigged. And if you're a conspiracy theorist, you shouldn't be let anywhere near the position you've been nominated for or, you know, President Biden won the election, but you're afraid of making an insecure president mad by acknowledging that fact. You answered so easily. When I asked you the question about 2024, you didn't fight, you didn't evade, you didn't obscure, you didn't try to end run. You said, President Trump won the election, which he did. He won the popular vote, he won the Electoral College. The answer was just as simple about 2020. The fact that you were unable to give the simple answer about 2020 raises real serious questions. But let me ask you this.
- [36:42]
David Pakman
Well, unable, unwilling. Trump has, through Trump, they've directed all nominees not to. Not to acknowledge that what I think is. So it is a cult. It is a cult. What is most fascinating here is not only that Duncan refuses to answer and we've seen so many other nominees refuse to answer the question, it's that a contradiction appeared very quickly because often when they are only asked about 2020, they go, listen, I don't really step into the political. What I can tell you is Biden ultimately served as president. That's how they get out of it. They go, I don't get into the politics of it. But then as soon as he's asked about 2024, he doesn't go, well, listen, what I can tell you is Donald Trump's victory was certified and he was duly sworn in. They just go, no, yeah, Trump won. That contradiction is the proof that this is more than just, I don't want to get into politics. When they are put in a situation that potentially requires upsetting the Trump narrative and what Trump has told himself and what Trump says, they come up with these lines about, I'm not going to weigh in on questions of Paul, of, of politics and controversy. What I can tell you is he was duly sworn in. I don't get involved in election certifications. But when it's 2024 and when Trump won, all of a sudden they go, yeah, no, Trump won. That's it. Oh, so you are getting involved in the politics of it, are you? This is not about uncertainty. It's not about, well, we lack evidence one way or the other. There's not a constitutional principle where nominees shouldn't weigh in on. It's just about fear. And Tim Kaine points this out very directly. He says something to the effect of, well, you're afraid of making an insecure president mad. And Trump is insecure. He's also vindictive. And what explanation could there be other than that the 2020 election has been litigated endlessly. It's been almost six years and. And despite Trump saying every couple of weeks, you should see the evidence we're about to give you, they've never given us the evidence. And why has it taken so long to find any evidence? There is not a shred of evidence for that claim. Republican governors certified the results. Republican secretaries of state certified the results. Dozens of courts rejected challenges. Trump appointed judges said, there's no merit or you have no standing. They love to say it was all overstanding. No, there were Republican and Trump appointed judges who said, there's simply no merit here. Trump's Attorney general at the time, William Barr, said there's no evidence of fraud on a scale that would have affected the outcome in any way. It's been six years and people in 2026, we're almost, we're days from being halfway through 2026, if you can believe it. People seeking positions in Trump's administration six years into this thing still behave as though acknowledging reality could jeopardize their careers. Now, let's play it out. Trump nominates someone like a Hal Duncan or some other, you know, similar sycophant. Imagine if Hal Duncan just goes, joe Biden won the 2020 election and then they move on. Do we really think that that will get back to Trump and Trump will withdraw the nomination? Because that make makes Trump look so triggered. I don't know. I don't even know that it would really be that bad if Hal Duncan just goes. Biden won. That's it. Ok, let's move on now we've taken the air out of the conversation completely. This is a nominee for a major budget position. I think it's important to mention it's not a random Twitter guy going, biden didn't really win. This is someone being considered for an important role in the federal government and I guess an unofficial requirement. There's the official requirements. The unofficial requirement is never say anything that might be upsetting to Donald Trump. If you're unwilling to state straightforward historical facts because it could anger the president, what happens if there's a policy disagreement once you're in the position? Or here's a realistic scenario, there's economic data that is not what Trump would like to be said. What happens when your professional judgment differs from Trump's political interests? This is not just about acknowledging reality with regard to the election is the point. It's does loyalty to one individual, in this case Trump, become more important than honesty? As a public servant, I would like to be able to Tell you no. Obviously honesty is more important for public servants than, than loyalty to one guy. But we've seen that the pattern suggests loyalty to Trump is indeed the most important thing. The test is no longer can you do the job, it's are you loyal to Trump? Can you tiptoe around the delusions that guide him? Terrifying, terrifying stuff. The midterms are coming and there are Republican voters starting to say F you to Donald Trump. Trump voters turning on Trump, snapping and saying, I can't do this anymore. Here is a, a Trump voter, former Trump voter interviewed on Ms. Now listen to what he had to say. If you could talk to President Trump
- [42:05]
Political Analyst/Commentator
directly right now, what would you tell him?
- [42:08]
David Pakman
Should you want me to really say it on, on air, I say you, I don't mean to be disrespectful to any, any leader, but he's disrespectful to us and he doesn't care. So that's right. The midterms are coming and you have a chance to vote your conscience. Here is Ms. Now with a segment about another disaffected Trump voter.
- [42:33]
Alex Tabett
Four months away from the midterms. Voters are not happy with how things are going. Even the ones who went all in on Donald Trump are. Alex Tabett has been traveling the country talking to people and they keep telling him the same thing. They've had enough. They want what was promised. That roaring economy, the cheaper prices, the focus on America, the focus on them. Instead what they're getting is an aging president obsessed with himself. Frankly. Just listen to three time Trump voter Chris Tackett who he just played at the top or this trucker from North Canton, Ohio who had this say when Alex asked him if Donald Trump cared about what he was going through.
- [43:15]
J.D. Vance
I don't think they care. I don't think they understand. I think it was all smoke and mirrors during the second election. I think, I think Trump is more concerned with his, with getting even with his opponents this time around than he was looking out for the average Joe that supported him. And yeah, I'm just disappointed.
- [43:31]
Alex Tabett
Okay, so that's Chris Tackett again, not hard to find Chris Tackett even though we're did two of them right there. They are everywhere. Donald Trump's overall approval ratings are.
- [43:41]
David Pakman
All right, so there's another Trump voter who's had enough. And then just interestingly, a little side note here is Dave Portnoy from Barstool Sports was a big Trump supporter at one point seemingly disgusted by the Michelle Obama is a man guy at the UFC fight.
- [43:55]
Dave Portnoy
There was one moment. I do think Trump has to denounce and anybody associated with it has to denounce. And that's that crazy, crazy fighter guy. I don't even have his name up here. But he won the fight, he took the microphone and he made a derogatory comment about Michelle Obama. To me, that on the White House lawn. Now you, these are UFC guys, all right? They're crazy, they're idiots. You have Sean Strickland, who's one of the craziest people of all time, to the point you can't even pay attention to what he says, snuck in. But when you have that on the White House lawn on an event you put down, I don't care what you think about the Obamas or anything. That has to be an immediate denounce. Like, yeah, wrong doesn't speak for me. I have no problem with the event. I guess you run that risk because these guys are lunatics. But that was the only thing. If Trump should denounce it, he should say that was totally wrong, the event itself.
- [44:53]
David Pakman
All right, so mild criticism and concern there from Portnoy about something sort of tangential. So what's the story here? What's the political danger? I don't think the danger for Trump is criticism from Democrats. It's criticism from people who voted for him. And that's what we just heard. Three examples of that. Midterms are decided by enthusiasm and turnout. Not so much voters switching parties when supporters are disappointed, it can be a massive early warning sign of electoral problems. And there is this growing frustration among some Trump supporters. And, and they, it's mostly based around personal feuds, revenge and all of this sort of thing that Trump is not governing. And it's, it's Trump going after political enemies or going after Iran in an optional war, or the reflecting pool, the ballroom, attacking people, men and women's sports stuff that is not relevant to people's day to day lived experiences in the economy. And so even though Portnoy, he's not denouncing Trump, but he's saying Trump's at least got to denounce what, what, what this guy said about Moshell. Obama is a man. When Dave Portnoy criticizes, this is someone who was part of Trump's coalition, it's not a traditional opponent of Trump. Even though Portnoy has softened on his support of Trump. And the question Republicans are now going to be facing is do voters feel like they are getting the results that they were promised on prices, the economy, wages, foreign policy? If you cared about Trump as the antiwar president, he started a war. Immigration, if you cared about, well, you're only going after the criminal illegals. Right? Trump's term, not mine. And the, the immigration enforcement has gone way beyond that. Is Trump delivering on his promises and our voters going to say let's reward the party that supports it with more and final thought. I've said this before, I'm going to say it again for everybody who goes, yeah, I don't like a lot of, I'm a Trump voter. I don't like a lot of the stuff Trump's doing. But my Republican elected officials been doing good stuff. They mostly support everything Trump is doing. When you vote to reelect them, you are voting to rubber stamp everything Trump has been doing. So we've got to make sure they understand it's not. Well, I have no problem with, with, you know, Katie Britt, I just have a problem with Trump. Katie Britt votes for everything Trump wants. And so you are rubber stamping Trump when you vote to reelect your senator. Keep that in mind. And we are potentially looking at a brutal defeat. As Robert Reich said when I spoke to him earlier this week, the House seems gone, but the Senate is in play. And there are a number of paths to Democrats taking the Senate, but we do have to vote. There's a reason we do the elections and I'll be talking more about that upcoming. 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 at Join Pacman Dotcom. After the White House put me on an offender's list, an enemies list, Joker Tony decided to write in and said, David Pakman, how do you feel that yourself and your lover Brian Tyler Cohen have been added to the White House list after you made a career and millions off Trump's name, image and algorithm? Well, you know what, Joker Tony, it turns out that Brian and I are not lovers. I know this comes as a shock and I don't mean that there's been a domestic disturbance or dispute. We both exclusively date women and not each other. But I actually feel really good about the fact that the White House put me on a list because when I started this thing, independent political talk was nothing. Nobody was really consuming this sort of content as an alternative to the legacy and corporate stuff. And the space has grown so much. And a lot of us as we were growing, our shows would wonder, are we making an impact? Does this matter to anybody? Is anybody paying attention to what we're doing? And the fact that the White House has put me on the list has, has put Brian on Nasty Guy. Even Brian copying my hairstyle wasn't enough to protect him from being on the list. In all seriousness, it's an incredible confirmation. It's an affirmation of the fact that what we're doing matters. And it's the audience that should really take the credit. Because at the end of the day, this show is nothing without the audience. If there weren't people in the audience for years now, who said, hey, I think this is worth supporting, instead of waiting for someone else to support it, I will support it myself. If it weren't for those people, there would be no list that includes independent media shows. So, you know, Joker, Tony, homophobia aside, they love their homophobia, don't they? I feel really good about it. Really, really good. Reimer also wrote in David, fuck you, loser, asshole.
- [50:35]
Senator Tim Kaine
Gay.
- [50:38]
David Pakman
Why are they so homophobic? I'll never understand it. Why do you care? If I were gay, what difference would it make? Am I right about taxes or am I wrong about taxes? That's really what should matter. All right, let's now get into more substantive stuff on today's Friday Feedback. Remember that you can email info@david pakman.com if you have anything to say to me, good or bad. And then we will also feature comments. Scott Jenkins on Spotify says, unfortunately, Paxton will win Texas. It's a given. So listen, here's my view on this whole Talarico, Texas Senate kind of thing. We are many of us adults and even if we weren't adults, we could still be mature enough to be able to do sort of like on the one hand, on the other hand, kind of thinking. It is true on the one hand that it often is the case that in Texas Senate races, we look at the polling in May and June, in July and we see the Democrat has a lead, the Democrat is up by 2 or whatever, and it ultimately turns out that the Democrat loses. That happens, that that happens. Or we go, the Democrat is within striking distance in the polls and then the Democrat loses. That that happens in Texas. That's true. At the same time, things that happen for a while don't have to happen forever. And it may be the case that the blue Ification of Texas happens by first having some, some races that seem close and then eventually we get one. So when I look, for example, at the betting markets And I see that right now it's Paxton, 58% expect to win, 42% expect that it's Talarico. That is a reaction to what is taking place in the real world. And so it's a message to me that we should get involved in this race and we are going to be involved in it here on the show. And if we assume that the outcome is a predetermined conclusion, then it makes voting not matter anymore. The reason we vote is that we can affect the outcome. Could it end up being another case of we almost got Texas but the Democrat lost? It could. But could we also make it a situation where Democrats win? Yes, we could, and we're going to try to do that. Ce2828 wrote to me on Spotify. David, get on the real White house list, the UFC Freedom250 list, and it will be Pacman versus Shapiro. Nothing beats the taste of victory and it will be historic. Listen, I think Ben Shapiro and I in any kind of physical competition would be pretty well matched from the standpoint of size and from the standpoint of weight class. Okay. When I was with Ben at this Reuters next event, we, we seem pretty similarly sized. So as far as that goes, that would be, that would be an interesting matchup. However, I don't believe my future is in beating the crap out of people or getting the crap beat out of me at least. I don't want that to be my future, let me put it that way. So cage match or UFC fight between me and Ben Shapiro? I wouldn't expect it. I wouldn't expect it. Chad Cham Gamella wrote, I have noticed YouTube has not been showing your videos in my feedback as much as recommended videos lately. Well, you and 10,000 others, Cham Gamela, we are up against some kind of brutal algorithmic disruption on YouTube. I'm not going to bore you by going through all of the details again today, but suffice it to say, what we need to do is retrain the YouTube algorithm. The best two ways to do that if you're watching by but not subscribed, subscribe. It costs nothing and it tells YouTube I want to see this content and I believe other people would want to see it as well. And secondly, after subscribing, hit the little bell icon and make sure that the all notifications is selected. Otherwise YouTube will use an algorithm, nasty algorithm, to determine what of my content to show you. And it might be none of my content. So retrain the algorithm by saying show me all of David's stuff. All Right. Al is there on YouTube weighing in on the Trump administration's view. That screw worm in the United States is Joe Biden's fault. Al Asdair says. So the screw worm, which lives for 21 days, got in during the Biden administration, then they deviously waited until 18 months into the Trump administration to make themselves known. That makes sense. Yes. These are extremely conniving screw worms. They came in under Biden because the borders were open. They attached themselves to a host dog in New Mexico, but only went active when Donald Trump had been president 18 months. Why wouldn't anyone believe that? Matt wrote in on Spotify and says Trump's got 99 doctors and a shrink ain't one. Well, you know what's very interesting about this? Matt's reacting to the news that 22 different medical specialists examined Donald Trump during his recent annual physical. The third in 13 months. His third annual physical in 13 months. And we don't know what specialists they were. I wouldn't rule out that there was a psychiatrist. I mean, there probably should be, but we just don't know because the White House hasn't told us anything. In fact, I would be reassured by there being a psychiatrist. We know something is happening with Trump's brain, emotionally, cognitively, etc. I would be reassured if he was actually getting the expertise that he needs. But no reason to think that there is a psychiatrist involved in Trump's care right now. Bobston Rob wrote on substack, longtime YouTube viewer. Never actually feared they'd come after you. Doubling down to support. Keep up the fight, Rob. I'm flattered. Thank you. The number of people since the White House put me on this list, a list that was initially all Jews. Just a coincidence, right? Right. It is incredible, the outpouring of support. People who now are subscribed on my website and substack as paid subscribers, people who, you know, we've got 6 million people that watch videos every month on YouTube and aren't subscribed. Think of what would happen overnight to the channel if those 6 million people who watch but aren't subscribed decided to subscribe. We can do this thing. We can take control of this thing, and it doesn't really cost anything. So I appreciate everybody. Tens of thousands of new YouTube subscribers coming out of the woodwork really value you, appreciate you. We're going to do everything we can to keep going after. Speaking of keep going, the show doesn't have to end now. We do a bonus show after every show for our website members and Substack subscribers, you can get the bonus show on either website or substack. Go to joinpakman.com or substack davidpakman. Com bonus show after this. You love to see it.