Loading summary
Transcript137 lines
- [00:00]
Pharmaceutical Advertiser
I get so many headaches every month.
- [00:02]
Robert Reich
It could be chronic migraine, 15 or
- [00:05]
David Pakman
more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.
- [00:08]
Pharmaceutical Advertiser
Botox Audubotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for Those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [00:53]
David Pakman
Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more. Maga spent a decade attacking Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal. They said it's a giveaway. It's a disaster. It's surrender. And now Trump's administration is admitting that Iran could get access to hundreds of billions of dollars while they admit that a whole bunch of the details haven't even been worked out, even though Donald Trump has already declared victory. Wait until you hear the vice president, J.D. vance, explain what's actually in the agreement. Then a bizarre G7 appearance raises new questions. As Donald Trump is struggling through meetings, he's making confusing comments about Iran, he contradicts his own negotiators. And I will be joined by Robert Reich for a fascinating conversation about authoritarianism, about populism, what Democrats should do, what he believes is going on with Donald Trump and later the reflecting pool after millions of your taxpayer dollars pour in to fix it. The algae is back and it looks just as bad as ever. Oh, and by the way, Trump is now having Gavin Newsom and his wife investigated. Let's record this one. We might as well publish it. I. I said it months ago when the Iran war started and it is coming true. At the end of the day, we are in the best case scenario going to end up after months of what was going to be a three week war with something that will be similar to the Obama Iran nuclear deal, but not as strong and not as good for The United States. Remember that. For nearly a decade, Trump and the MAGA movement had one big argument about Iran and the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 of Barack Obama. The argument was the Obama nuclear deal was a disaster because it was weak and it gave Iran money. That was the word they love to use. Obama paid off Iran. He was funding terrorism. He's sending them pallets of cash, as they like to say. And then Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, when he was president the first time around. And Trump said, I did such a big boy. This is so good. That deal is terrible. We're never going to get into a deal like that again. Obama's deal was a mess. And then Donald Trump bombs Iran in June of 2025, supposedly decimates their nuclear capabilities, which they only started to rebuild because Trump got out of the deal. And then I guess the decimation didn't take because then February 28, Trump goes back into Iran. It was going to be three weeks. We are now in week 16, and Trump is claiming victory. We have a deal. Trump says. Now forget for a second that we don't have a deal. We'll get back to that. It's. It's not two weeks away, but it's a few more days. And I don't want to release the text of what's in it, but it's very good and don't worry. Okay, Put that aside for a second. In comes J.D. vance, and he's asked a very simple question by CBS. The Iranians say they're going to get access to this $300 billion reconstruction fund. Is that true or is that false? And J.D. vance acknowledges that that is indeed true. Walk through some of this. The Iranians are saying that they're going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false?
- [04:42]
J.D. Vance
Well, Ed, that's the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation. I think that one of the things you're going to see, Ed, and people have to be skeptical of this, is that the hardliners in the Iranian system will overemphasize the benefits that Iran gets while underemphasizing all the things that they.
- [05:03]
David Pakman
Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're going to overemphasize. The answer is yes. Now, I don't have a problem with sanctions relief as part of a deal. I didn't have a problem when it was the Obama Iran nuclear deal, and I don't have a problem with it now. The Difference is they had a problem with it when it was Obama, but not when it's Trump. It was 100 billion under Obama and it's 300 billion under Trump. But this, they said that this is funding terrorism when it was part of the Obama Iran nuclear deal. Now, just as a reminder so that we all have the same information that we're working with, Obama didn't pay off Iran any more than Trump is paying off Iran here. What we're talking about is sanctions relief and releasing money that is currently being held. It is Iranian money in a generic sense. Now, you could say it shouldn't be or whatever, but it's similar in the Obama and Trump situations. See how I'm not being a hypocrite? The difference is that none of this was necessary that we've seen under Trump to end up in a similar situation which under Obama, they said was funding terrorism. Now, maybe they have a good explanation of why it's okay this time, but it wasn't OK when Obama did it. Maybe this time there are different safeguards in place. I'm thinking out loud, we have no idea because they won't show us the text of the deal. And maybe there are different conditions. You know, JD Likes to go if they behave, but if they behave was part of the Obama Iran nuclear deal as well. And this is exactly the point. These are the kinds of arguments that Obama supporters made as well. But the MAGA people didn't want to hear them when it was the Obama nuclear deal rather than the Trump Iran deal. Now, the second problem is that nobody seems to have any idea what's in this deal. And as we've learned over time with Donald Trump, if we don't have a signed document where we can see that it's been signed and read what is in it, we essentially should consider that it's imaginary and theoretical. And that's exactly what J.D. vance kind of admits here. Jake Tapper asks J.D. vance, Is it fair to say that, for example, the Iran deal doesn't explicitly require Iran to end the ballistics missile program or stop funding the Houthis or Hamas or Hezbollah? And listen to what J.D. vance says.
- [07:31]
J.D. Vance
Is it fair to say that it's not spelled out that they have to end their ballistic missile program or end their funding of the Houthis and Hamas and Hezbollah, that that's left purposely vague. And then the US Will come later and say, you know, that we expected this and you're not behaving accordingly. I'm just trying to understand how the deal is written. Yes, the MoU, Jake, is about a page and a half. So it is a very general document. But this has been very much part of the conversations that we've had with the Iranians and on a number of issues. We are going to have to figure this stuff out during the technical negotiation phase.
- [08:10]
David Pakman
But what the mou, AKA we're nowhere near done as a set up a
- [08:14]
J.D. Vance
framework whereby the Iranians get the benefits of the bargain by meeting their obligations under the bargain. They know that we, we don't want them to fund terrorist organizations. They know that we don't want them to be a source of instability in the region.
- [08:28]
David Pakman
And of course they know this. And they know that that right there destroys Trump's narrative. Trump's narrative on Sunday, as he was turning 80 years old and going to this mosquito infested, delusion fest UFC fight at the White House, Trump goes, we got a deal. It's over. We're going to sign it in a few days, Friday maybe, but we've got a deal. And JD Vance, as uncharismatic as he is, as unlikable as he is, he's at least bending towards the truth of the matter a little bit more than Trump, which is we have a memorandum of understanding. That's what an MOU is, a memorandum of understanding. It's a memo, it's a note. We have a note that says what we're going to do, which lays out a framework to negotiate a deal. And he says a lot of the stuff isn't even in the mou. He's just like, they know we don't want them funding terror. So not only isn't it part of the deal, because there is no deal. That's not even part of, of the page and a half letter. They just know by osmosis that we don't want them funding terror. This movement spent a decade insisting that every detail of Obama's deal had to be scrutinized and was corrupt and was a handout to the Iranians. And now we're told we have an MoU for a framework that's broad. A bunch of important stuff isn't in there because the Iranians know that we care about that. But we're not putting it in the deal. And the specifics still have to be negotiated. Now maybe that's fine, but that's not what Trump claimed on Sunday, Trump said, we have a done deal. The stock market popped yesterday. Beautiful day for the stock market, by the way. I loved looking at my mutual funds, but it seems to be based on Lies. And it is all just kind of imaginary. Now again, international agreements often begin with broad frameworks. That's not a surprise. But if that is acceptable under Trump, why wasn't it acceptable under Obama? And number two, why does Trump have to lie about it? I would much rather them just go, hey, listen, we've made progress. We now have a date set for negotiations. We have an MOU with some basics, doesn't include everything, just tell us the truth, let us parse it. But instead it's this victory claiming by Trump. While there is every indication that the stuff that was supposedly really bad from Obama's deal is in this thing as well. If the deal allows Iran access to massive sums of money, doesn't require ending ballistic missiles, depend development, doesn't require ending support for terrorist and proxy groups, then why is it better than the Obama deal? It, the answer is it's probably not. I said months ago they are going to end up, best case, with a weaker version of the Obama deal. And that is exactly what it looks like is going to happen. And then JD Vance goes and talks to Sean Hannity and then we kind of get a sense of, boy, this is even worse than we thought. J.D. vance gave a hilariously bad interview to Fox News Sean Hannity, who for reasons I can't really determine, Hannity is sounding more like Mark Levin. Something is up with Hannity's voice, but that's not really the focus of this story. The entire concept of this Trump victory deal came crashing down on live TV and was it was made evident that this is really a surrender, not a victory. First and foremost, J.D. vance, the Vice president, admits that Trump's Iran deal, which is not a deal yet, it's just a letter, doesn't even have the issue of nuclear inspection settled. You can say a lot of things about the Obama Iran nuclear deal. You could say the nuclear inspections weren't significant enough or we couldn't really know whether Iran was sticking to it. All things which are disputed by the way. You could make criticisms, but J.D. vance is going, we don't even know what's going to be in there as far as inspections go. What, so then how is your main claim that this guarantees Iran will never have a nuclear weapon? How can you even make that claim when you don't even know what sort of requirements are going to be part of the deal? Let's talk about any place, anywhere, any time, US Inspectors. That's part of the deal.
- [12:53]
J.D. Vance
Yeah, that's, that's absolutely something that we are negotiating over, Sean. That's One of the final details that's going to be figured out here is if you go back to the original
- [13:01]
David Pakman
Obama JC that is absolutely Sean something that will be negotiated. Oh boy.
- [13:10]
J.D. Vance
There are a couple of big problems with it. Number one by the way is that the Gulf Arabs hated the Obama deal. Why? Because they thought that it empowered the Iranians to be a malign actor. It actually enriched the Iranians while they were misbehaving. This deal the Gulf Arabs love because they know that this is the kind of deal that can fundamentally transform the Middle East. Another problem with that that deal is that the inspections regime was effectively non existent. There was a little bit there but it was basically non existent. This goes back to our fundamental principle here that if they show verifiable commitment and that means a real inspections regime then they can get the benefits of the bargain.
- [13:46]
David Pakman
Wow, that's a lot of hypotheticals there seems like it would be important that there is extensive inspection capability without prior notice because that's what you all said the Obama deal didn't have. Right? Well that is going to be subject to negotiation. What a strong deal. We're all it's already going south in pathetic fashion. Hannity getting to the next issue. Has Iran agreed never to enrich uranium? And Vance goes well there's a lot of technical details over the next couple of months that will be figured out folks. Trump said on Sunday the deal is done. It's just got to be signed on Friday. Then it's well Friday there will be negotiations. And now Vance goes it's going to be a month to two months of
- [14:39]
J.D. Vance
figuring this stuff out fundamentally destroyed their program. But that does set them back a little bit further and that's important of course to the United and they are
- [14:46]
David Pakman
agreeing never to enrich.
- [14:48]
J.D. Vance
They're agreeing right now to eliminate the enriched stockpile.
- [14:52]
David Pakman
By the way that's not even true but I'll get back to that.
- [14:55]
J.D. Vance
And if they don't get to a point where they agree to stop enriching then they don't get the other benefits of the bargain. That's where that's the way this is set up is a lot of the technical details we're going to figure out over the next month, over the next two months. But the basic structure is they can get a lot if they comply with the United States demands and how do
- [15:15]
David Pakman
we enforce the that compliance? J.D. vance says well that's got to be negotiated. Now what's funny is this whole thing of they've they're going to get rid of Their enriched uranium. I don't think they are. There's, there's a practical limitation, which is that a lot of that enriched uranium, Trump calls it nuclear dust, is buried below the rubble that resulted from American bombing of Iran. So there's a practical question as to, like, how do you even get to that enriched uranium? But Trump is already off ramping. I think Trump is. Has been notified. It's almost certainly going to be impossible to get them to give that up for practical or political reasons. And Trump has started to say, well, I don't even really know that we need them to do that. We'll play that clip later. But Vance is going, no, no, no. They've agreed to get rid of the enriched uranium. Trump is already like, I don't even know that we care about that. J.D. vance then says, Trump is a deeply spiritual person. He really is a person of faith, even if he doesn't show it. This is so funny, because Trump is one of the least religious presidents that we've had, which is fine. I don't evaluate Trump's presidency based on whether he is or isn't religious, but we know that Trump was not raised religious. He was never religious. He found religion to run for president. And J.D. vance goes, no, he's very, very deep faith. And it's so different than President Trump in many ways.
- [16:33]
Donald Trump
However, your relationship is phenomenal.
- [16:36]
J.D. Vance
Yeah.
- [16:36]
David Pakman
And even you even attacked him in 2020.
- [16:40]
J.D. Vance
Well, in 2016.
- [16:42]
Donald Trump
2016.
- [16:43]
J.D. Vance
But what, but, but, but what is interesting about President Trump is he doesn't wear it on his sleeve, but he is a person of faith.
- [16:50]
David Pakman
Yeah. Deeply spiritual. He really is.
- [16:52]
J.D. Vance
He does. Like all of us, I think, think about these very deep questions. Where do we come from? Where are we going? And, you know, fundamentally, I think the president, he recognizes that, that some of the people who have been best to him, who have been critical parts of him getting to the presidency now, two times, arguably three times, they were Christians.
- [17:11]
Robert Reich
Yeah.
- [17:11]
David Pakman
Trump is not religious. And Trump did not get the presidency, arguably three times. He lost in 2020. He lost. He lost in the sense that Joe Biden won. Joe Biden won the presidency. Trump lost it. That's it. Finally, J.D. vance weighing in on Barack Obama.
- [17:27]
Donald Trump
Oh, the bonus show.
- [17:28]
David Pakman
Whoops, wrong clip.
- [17:29]
Donald Trump
Obama.
- [17:30]
David Pakman
There it is. And he says, why was the Obama deal so bad, but ours is so liked by the Saudi, by the Gulf states? Obama took a shot and said, I
- [17:42]
Donald Trump
don't think this deal is any better than the deal we had before.
- [17:45]
David Pakman
The JCPOA was dramatically different than what you were Describing here, why can Hannity barely speak, by the way?
- [17:52]
J.D. Vance
And I'd ask the president, the former president, I'd say, Obama, why in the world, if it's the same thing, why is it that the Gulf Arabs hated your deal and they love our deal. They are the ones who are in the region. They know what it means to enrich the worst terrorist regime in the world and they also know what it means to turn over a new leaf.
- [18:13]
David Pakman
And this is all just a complete and total lie. So a couple different things. The Obama deal was better than anything that's being discussed right now. Insofar as it is, it was stronger. We've broken down those details before. The question of the Gulf states hating the Obama deal and loving the Trump deal. Number one, we don't even know what the Trump deal is yet because he still hasn't. There is no deal. We have a letter of understanding which hasn't even been released and the negotiations haven't even started. What is different is that Trump has created such a chaotic and, and negative situation, destructive situation in the Middle east for a lot of these other Gulf states that they are desperate to end the war for economic reasons. And that is a very different thing than we think. The deal is actually stronger. They want an off ramp from the war because it's been such a disaster. Don't confuse desperation with approval. Trump has been so erratic that they're like, we got to end this thing somehow. Put some deal in place. Some deal is better than nothing. It's not we like it better than the Obama deal, it's we like it better than no deal. We have learned over the last 24 hours there is no deal. As of right now, some of the key things that are supposed to be in the deal are still subject to negotiation. And the biggest, most devilish disaster of the Obama deal, that Iran gets sanctions relief in the form of money. Releasing their money is likely to be 3x bigger in the eventual deal that is being negotiated. The United States has surrendered. It's an optional war Trump started and they have surrendered. Embarrassing stuff. A lot of men's clothing forces the same bad tradeoff. If the material feels good and the fit is decent, the price is ridiculous. If the price is reasonable, the quality is usually not there. Our sponsor, Quince has that solved. Quince makes high quality wardrobe staples. They use premium materials and they don't mark them up like the luxury brands. Already a good start. They've got lightweight European linen shirts and shorts, soft 100% Pima cotton tees. They've got comfortable pants. The whole concept is simple, versatile clothing you can wear every day. I got a bunch of their basic Pima cotton tees. They're phenomenal. I can layer them. I can wear them by themselves. They look good. They don't degrade when you wash them. Plus, Quince works directly with ethical factories. They cut out the middlemen. This lets them offer the same materials you'd find with expensive brands, but for 50 to 80% less. So refresh your everyday wardrobe with luxury you will use. Go to quince.com/pacman for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada. Also, that's Q U I n c e.com/pacman for free shipping and 365 day returns. The link is in the Description 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. 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 Donald Trump raising major concerns. He flew to the G7 summit and arrived barely conscious, seemingly unable to speak speak. Shaking hands in one of the strangest ways I've ever seen. Look at Trump here as he greets French President Emmanuel Macron. His voice is shot. He talks about ufc. He shakes hand. It's like a vertical handshake. I've never seen anything like it. But look at Trump's demeanor. He is barely conscious while speaking. Look at his hand. It's a mess. It's rotting. His brain is cracking, crumbling. The worst Trump has ever looked has been in the last 12 hours. What the hell?
- [23:36]
Donald Trump
So I want to congratulate the president. Last night, Cyril Gone won the fight against a great fighter, supposed to be unbeatable, and that was him. Cyril is from France. Did you watch the fight?
- [23:52]
Robert Reich
Yeah.
- [23:53]
David Pakman
Not indirect, but I saw it.
- [23:56]
Donald Trump
That was a great fight. It was a great evening at the White House.
- [23:59]
David Pakman
Something is very wrong. And when they sat down, Trump almost dozed off. As the French president was speaking this, he. He's struck visibly, struggling to remain conscious.
- [24:14]
Robert Reich
First, it will fix the nuclear issue,
- [24:19]
David Pakman
and it's a very important matter for
- [24:21]
J.D. Vance
peace for the whole world.
- [24:23]
Donald Trump
And.
- [24:24]
David Pakman
And it will reopen almost.
- [24:26]
Robert Reich
It will provide peace in Lebanon.
- [24:28]
David Pakman
And so we are ready to take our fair share of the burden and be part of the. The commitment of the international community in order to support this deal. And we will discuss about that together. Trump just grunting a cent. Yeah. Hold on. Do I have it?
- [24:44]
Robert Reich
Well, yeah.
- [24:46]
David Pakman
No, that's too much energy,
- [24:52]
Donald Trump
Ladies and gentlemen.
- [24:54]
David Pakman
That's the right energy. This. That's Trump's energy right here in this image with his eyes, ladies and gentlemen. Okay, he is being graded on a curve. Trump shows up barely conscious and does a bizarre vertical handshake. And Fox News goes, it's incredible that he's even awake and able to walk. Was that the standard for Joe Biden? No. We are grading Trump on a curve now.
- [25:24]
Interviewer
They're talking about something.
- [25:25]
David Pakman
My main observation so far is that
- [25:27]
Interviewer
this is the first time I've seen
- [25:28]
David Pakman
a world leader photo where the other leader, not Donald Trump, gave a thumbs
- [25:32]
Robert Reich
up and the president just kept his
- [25:34]
David Pakman
hands at his sides. The fact that he could even walk,
- [25:37]
Gavin Newsom
Peter, given all he's been through in
- [25:39]
Donald Trump
the last 24 hours, I think really is quite remarkable. He's got to be beyond exhausted.
- [25:43]
David Pakman
Do you realize he sat and slept through a UFC fight? That is completely exhausting. Completely exhausting. In another strange moment, Donald Trump did his bizarre handshake tug of war with the first lady of France, Brigitte Macron. And it's really weird. And as you all know, when Trump has historically tried the handshake games with President Macron, McCrone's ready for it, and it doesn't go well. So Trump seems to go, all right, well, I'm going to try to pull on Brigitte Macron's arm. Dear God. All right, so that what? These are all. We're setting the stage. Trump, vertical handshake, slumped into a chair, barely awake, barely audible. Then we get to the substance, and on the substance, Donald Trump suggests that Winning the White House UFC fight is more important than winning the World Cup.
- [26:55]
Donald Trump
What incredible evenings in the history of the White House. We had an evening of last night with the fighters, and I was very happy. I called last night, very late last night to congratulate you because in the heavyweight division, a French fighter won. I don't know, is that maybe more important than the World Cup? To some people it might.
- [27:15]
David Pakman
To some people, it might be more. More important than the World Cup. It just so happens that the World cup is the most watched sporting event globally, 5 billion viewers. Trump's dilapidated, scammy White House UFC fight does not hold a candle to it. Many of you will notice I'm wearing my Argentinian soccer jersey today. Argentina does open with the first game of the World cup tonight. And for many, for many years now, this is the third World Cup. On game days, I do wear the jersey. For people who are confused, the White. The White House UFC fight, not as interesting, not as exciting. Okay, then let's get into the real stuff. We don't have a deal. Fine. Trump said, we have a deal with Iran. We don't have a deal. We have a letter, a memorandum of understanding. An MoU reporter says, when will it be released? So at least we can see that. Trump goes. I mean, I guess pretty soon. I don't know. The Obama one was bad, though, maybe involved.
- [28:12]
Donald Trump
I mean, he was coming in for that specifically. Mr. President, when will the text to
- [28:19]
David Pakman
of the MOU be released?
- [28:21]
Donald Trump
I think pretty soon, I would say. I mean, I want it to be released because it's a very powerful document. It's not like the Obama document, which was just a terrible document. This is a very powerful document, and I want it to be released. So probably pretty soon. I would say after. Sometime after Friday, because the strait opens completely. It's open now, but it opens completely. We have all the mines knocked out for the most part. We have a lot of lanes right now already. So I think.
- [28:55]
David Pakman
I think sometime Trump wants it to be released. Dude, you could take it out and read it out loud right now. No, no, nothing. He's the President of the United States. I want it to be released. He is obsessed with Barack Obama. He is so jealous of Barack Obama that it is shocking that he has made his entire second term, first term, to a degree and second term, goal not only to wreak revenge upon his political enemies, but to try to undo anything Barack Obama did and stick his name on stuff. Release it. I'd like it to be released. You're in charge. Finally, Donald Trump indicating that there were bribes in the Obama Iran nuclear deal. Well, there was $100 billion in sanctions relief. And by all reports, Donald Trump's version of the deal would include $300 billion of sanctions relief. I guess Trump's bribing them, too.
- [29:52]
Donald Trump
So we had two big moments when they terminated the jcpoa. That was the Obama deal, the Barack Hussein Obama deal. And when I terminated that, it was.
- [30:02]
David Pakman
Imagine being Macron and having to sit there with a straight face during this
- [30:05]
Donald Trump
nonsense airport because it was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7. Well, not a 7, 7, 5 7, I guess. Right? But it was put on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 7, 747, to be honest with you, because it was a lot of cash. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to Iran. And on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was paid. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal, and that didn't work. It never works. And we.
- [30:51]
David Pakman
By that definition of bribe, there's a bribe in Trump's deal as well, an even bigger bribe. These are not serious people. And the American economy and global war and peace is in the hands of these shriveled, pathetic minds, if you can even call them that. But after all this, I guess Trump slept a few hours and then early this morning came back to take questions, raising even more concerns about his mental state. Allegations that Trump is medically unfit to participate in the G7 summit explode after Trump, in a demented rant, threatened to nuke an entire country. Dear God. What is happening at the G7 summit? Is it time finally to remove Grandpa from power? Trump asked, why not release the text of the Iran deal? Come on. We looked at an earlier segment from yesterday when Trump goes, I would love for it to be released. Well, it's your deal. You could release it any time. You're. You're in charge of everything. You could say release it. You could read it out loud to us, like story time. And Trump goes, oh, I'm going to. Well, why not now? And here is Donald Trump's explanation text of the document. Why not? Why not release the.
- [32:13]
Donald Trump
I will. Because a. I'd like to get a formal setting first before we do that, but I have no problem with that. It's good documentation, is what it says. Iran will never have a Nuclear weapon. That's what it says. It won't have one to buy, to develop. They will not have a nuclear weapon. And I would say that's about 99.9% of what I wanted.
- [32:37]
David Pakman
Wait a second. What about regime change? What about ballistics, missiles? What about all those? No, no, no, no, no. That's none of that.
- [32:44]
Donald Trump
We couldn't let that happen. You couldn't let that happen. And they won't have a nuclear weapon. Now, in addition to that, the strait is going to be open toll free, and it's toll free beyond this 8,
- [32:55]
David Pakman
8, 8 Strait of Vermouth toll free lines are open days is not.
- [32:59]
Donald Trump
Somebody said, oh, it's toll free for. No, no, it's toll free period. When it opens permanently, it'll be toll free. I want to congratulate our navy because the naval blockade was unbelievable.
- [33:14]
David Pakman
But we said, you've got to open it and we're going to close it on top of that. And we closed it so strongly. But it shouldn't be closed. It should be open. And it was open until we closed it, but then they said they'd open and they closed, so we closed it on top of that. Crystal clear, sir. Crystal clear. People are wondering, is this guy non compost Mentis. It just doesn't make sense to talk this way. Trump then wildly threatens to nuke Iran. Listen to what he says is Iran
- [33:43]
Donald Trump
will never have a nuclear weapon. And it says it loud and clear. They're not going to develop it, they're not going to buy it, they're not going to do anything with it. And if they do, they suffer unbelievable consequences. Not just a little. Been like, I won't even tell you the consequences. But the consequences are the ultimate consequences
- [34:08]
David Pakman
that I got to be careful. I can't just say I'll nuke them into oblivion. But it would be the biggest consequence. It would be the ultimate consequence. The President of the United States in the middle of supposed negotiations, which I guess we believe are going on, although you can never really be too sure with Trump is saying, if not, I'll nuke you. Dear God, what a situation we are in. Trump says everything other than the nuke part is irrelevant to the deal.
- [34:41]
Donald Trump
Disagreements about one thing, that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never, ever, ever. The rest of it's irrelevant, frankly.
- [34:51]
David Pakman
Why then did the White House play up the importance of so many other reasons to go into Iran in the first place? Why were we given other justifications? This is about getting the Ayatollah out and changing the regime which of course failed. It's the same regime, different person at the top of the regime. This is about eliminating ballistic missiles capabilities, which wasn't done and doesn't even appear to be part of the deal as far as we know right now Trump is insisting that the only important thing is that which he might be able to get in the deal. And to be perfectly frank, I don't even know that it will necessarily be in the deal. Trump is asked, how can we make sure that the Strait of Hormuz is never again closed? And Trump goes, well, by having a strong president. But they closed it while Trump was president. So I guess by that definition he's not strong.
- [35:43]
Donald Trump
Nice looking person. Is he from your country? Is he from your country? Absolutely. No. He's got such a nice way about him. My people, they're so mean.
- [35:51]
Gavin Newsom
Look at him.
- [35:52]
Donald Trump
Handsome guy. Could put him. Be careful.
- [35:54]
David Pakman
No, I can put him.
- [35:55]
Donald Trump
I can put him in a movie right now. Go ahead.
- [35:58]
J.D. Vance
How can we make sure that straightforward
- [36:01]
Donald Trump
is lasting for open for lasting navigation in the future? Have a United States with a strong president. It's the only way you can do it. I guess when you think we have all the agreements you want. The agreements for bad people don't mean anything. Look, we were the ones that blockaded the sheet. They blockaded it and we then said, well, we blockaded it for them so they didn't get any oil. You're going to need to have. And this is true with a lot of things. If you have a strong president of the United States, a lot of good things going to happen.
- [36:36]
David Pakman
Iran will never close the Strait of Hormuz for as long as the United States has a strong president. Well, they closed it and Trump was president. By that very definition, Trump must not be strong. And maybe what, what I believe is the most incredible moment of this entire thing, Trump is now backing away from getting Iran's enriched nuclear material. JD Goes, we're going to get that nuclear material, that enriched uranium. And Trump goes, you know what, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff. He is not going to be able to get the enriched uranium and he is acknowledging that.
- [37:13]
Donald Trump
So the Atomic Energy just reported that it was one of the most devastating bombings that they've ever seen. The whole mountain collapsed on top of it. And frankly, to go get a week, we're going to go get it. But to go get it is a big deal because they say only China and US have the equipment where you can even get. The whole mountain is collapsed on top. We have cameras on it. You could make the case. Why are you even bothering? Because it's not really valuable. It's, you know, it's probably half a million dollars worth. It's not very valuable.
- [37:46]
David Pakman
Guys, I don't think we're getting the enriched uranium. No. Many, no matter how many times J.D. vance says to Sean Hannity that we're going to get it, I understand why people are saying, I don't know that this guy's cognitively fit for the presidency. This is terrifying, terrifying behavior. If you've been paying attention to recent events, you've seen how the line between church and state 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. Identity theft usually does not start with some movie version of how hacking takes place. It's boring details that are easy to find. Your full name, current and former addresses, phone number, date of birth, employment history. If you put a bunch of that stuff together, people can then start to figure out do I know your security answers to security questions? Can I open accounts in your name? This is why our sponsor Incogni exists. Incogni works to remove your personal info from the Internet. Places like people search sites, online directories, commercial databases. Incogni starts by removing your info from hundreds of the most well known ones and will follow up until it's done. And if you google yourself and find your info anywhere outside of this database of hundreds of these sites, you can submit a link to Incogni and they will do what's called a custom removal. All of these processes are independently verified by Deloitte and you can get 60% off an annual plan at incogni.com/pacman with the code Pacman. The link is in the description.
- [40:20]
Interviewer
It's a pleasure to welcome again to the conversation Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of Labor, UC Berkeley professor emeritus and author of a number of interesting books, some of which we have previously spoken about in conversation. As always, I really appreciate your time and the opportunity to chat a little bit.
- [40:39]
Robert Reich
Well, David, I appreciate your time also and thank you for inviting me.
- [40:44]
Interviewer
You know, you wrote a very interesting substack piece on your very interesting substack robert reich.substack.com and I'm going to do my best to paraphrase and recount it. You recounted a conversation someone described to you about a dinner during which the possibility of an early removal of office for Donald Trump was discussed. And the attendees sort of expressed that they think the best chance, which only has about a 30% chance. So it's still a probably no, but it's the best chance would be a sort of game theory esque, going from one person to the next based on the incentives that would appeal to them to try to get to a 25th Amendment removal of Donald Trump. And we'll link to the piece. People should look at it. But it's sort of like, listen, J.D. vance's interest would be he would become the president. And Marco Rubio's interest might be with the Dext cleared for Vance in 28, maybe Rubio gets a shot in 32. It's sort of like how you would go through and convince one person at a time. In the aftermath to you publishing this piece, what sort of feedback have you gotten? Have you gotten the feedback from some that, listen, we've got to focus on what happens when he leaves in January of 29 rather than these sorts of schemes. I mean, give us a sense of what people have said.
- [42:09]
Robert Reich
Well, some people said that they really hope that these political operatives who I had dinner with and who gave me this kind of scheme that they had heard about, they really hope that it's going to come to fruition and fruition as soon as possible. Other people said no way. I mean, this is just pie in the sky. Let's stop even dreaming about this. Let's focus on the midterms and then let's focus after that on winning the next election. There is an undercurrent, obviously, David, of people and they are political operatives or they are people who are intensely interested in politics and who know about the constitution, know the 25th amendment, who think that this is increasingly possible because this man named Donald Trump is, they say, and I hear it more often than I've ever heard it before, out of his mind. I mean, not only is he a malignant narcissist, as we all know, but his sociopathic tendencies, his paranoid tendencies, his sort of kind of over 80 year old losing it tendencies are getting wilder and wilder. And it is in the interests of the nation that the 25th Amendment be invoked. And I'm hearing that from many quarters.
- [43:36]
Interviewer
One of the things that's interesting is it seems as though Donald Trump over the last couple of years, especially the last couple of months, has started to soften a little bit on the Biden cognitive decline story. And it was very interesting just last week to see Donald Trump, Trump sort of say, hey, you know what, that debate really it was, I had a great debate. I don't know how much cognitive decline there really was. When Biden visited me, he actually seemed completely fine. As the stories about Trump have grown, he seems to be taking, and I hate to use the word empathetic with Trump, but a slightly more empathetic approach to Biden I'm interested in.
- [44:19]
Robert Reich
If you excuse me for interrupting you, he is not empathic or empathetic. There is no cell in his body that we might recognize as empathic or empathetic.
- [44:29]
Interviewer
Yes.
- [44:29]
Robert Reich
No. Donald Trump is, I think it's self serving. He's purely what he's doing. It's got into his head. He's 80 years old and he's losing it. And therefore maybe comments about Biden losing it should no longer be particularly operative. I think he is aware of his decline. I don't think he's aware of how much he's declining.
- [44:59]
Interviewer
That's very interesting and I agree that it seems extraordinary, extraordinarily self serving. When people write to me in my audience, the ones who are in their 70s are much more muted about what's happening with Trump. And I wonder, you're obviously a much younger man than Trump, but as someone who is in a, in of his generation, we might say, I'm curious as to what you observe because I hear from, from my audience members who are 72, 74, 76, etc. Who say, listen, none of the things we're seeing really are decline. This is just normal aging. And I wonder to what degree that's something they've concluded maybe based on being in that age range themselves, if the question makes sense.
- [45:44]
Robert Reich
Well, it's an interesting and important question. Let me be very, very candid about this because I am 10 days younger than Donald Trump, which means that in nine days from now I'm going to also be 80 years old. Now, if you are 79, on the verge of 80, if you are commencing your ninth decade on the earth, you don't have as much, let's say pizzazz as you had before. Your mind is not working quite as quickly. Your brain is still, hopefully I Mean, I like to think that my brain is pretty good, but there are a lot of people I know who are my age who are slowing way down in terms of their brain functions. Now, the difference between this normal aging and dementia is real. I mean, dementia is a state of kind of lack of brain function that has to do with plaque in the brain. It has to do with things that are, you know, kind of different kinds of. Alzheimer's, for example, is a form of dementia. I have some friends who have Alzheimer's. I have some friends who are deep into other forms of dementia. But let's be clear. Once you're in the 80 year old plateau, there are a lot of things that can go wrong, not only physically, but also mentally. I would not be comfortable even with me being President of the United States, let alone Donald Trump, who began his presidency in 2016 much younger than he is now. He was already kind of weird and had some mental problems. Clearly now I think they are much more severe.
- [47:36]
Interviewer
To shift gears a little bit, one of the other themes you write about often on your substack is authoritarianism and the anti democratic tendencies of this administration. I don't know if you saw this, but about 10 days ago, the White House put out a list of content creators that they have labeled media offenders. It started with three people and I was one of the people on that list. Thank you. I appreciate it. It really is. I mean, my mom is so proud. I have to tell you it this. When we think about enemies lists and media enemies lists, there's a very ugly history of regimes hostile to democracy that have employed this. Can you talk a little bit about the attitude that would sort of go with a predisposition to say, let's make such a list? In other words, what are the sort of attitudes towards democracy that are probably lurking in there when one makes such a list?
- [48:37]
Robert Reich
Well, to put it very, very clearly, David, anybody who makes such a list has a tendency, if they are in government, not to pay much attention to democracy, not to feel that their major responsibility is to strengthen democracy and, and the institutions of democracy, but rather to be slightly paranoid and to be concerned about their own political survival. I think Donald Trump is an extreme version. I don't think he thinks about democratic institutions or democracy at all. I mean, I don't think it enters into his head. I think all he thinks about quite clearly is wealth and power and how to maintain it, how to enlarge his wealth, how to enlarge his power, and how to get even with people who have in some way obstructed his acquisition of wealth and power.
- [49:36]
Interviewer
What do you think the end game is with some of the conspiracy theories? That of course will never be proven. We're now six years into the 2020 election was stolen. And as recently as last week, the president said we're going to blow your mind with this evidence, which is coming out very soon. And of course, it's been six years. There is no evidence because it wasn't stolen. Joe Biden just won in the same way that I believe Trump just won in 2024. How does it work? When is the idea that at some point Trump will be gone and nobody will ever talk about the 2020 was stolen thing again or what's the off ramp from this?
- [50:12]
Robert Reich
Well, here's my immediate concern, that with the 2026 midterms coming up, Donald Trump sees this blue tsunami. It's not just a blue wave now. I mean, really, it's blue tsunami coming at him at Congress. He is fearful of losing control of Congress, not just the House, but actually there is a severe, a very, very significant possibility he could lose the Senate. How does he respond? Well, his easiest and most knee jerk response to this is to question the voting process, to use the weapon that he has used before. And if you looked at his Meet the Press interview a week, well, it was aired, I guess about a week and a half ago, he said that it's all crooks. You're all crooks, it's all criminal. All the voting that's going on. And he particularly was referencing California. He aims, it seems to me, to call into question Democratic states and voting in Democratic cities. And he is going to do everything he can to not only call into question those votes, but also to make those votes in Democratic cities and Democratic states a question in the 2026 election in terms of certification, just as he did in 2020. This is his playbook.
- [51:46]
Interviewer
What's the best way to get ahead of that? Because I feel like Democrats often are sort of, hey, here's what they're going to try, right? And then so what it's like, well, we'll have lawyers on standby. But is there a way to be more proactive with this?
- [52:01]
Robert Reich
I think there is. I think Democratic governors have got to really be outspoken about their election process. I mean, right now Gavin Newsom is coming under a lot of attack for the how slow the vote count was in California in the primaries in California. Well, Gavin Newsom should be out there saying we were slow. I'll tell you exactly why. Here's what happened and we're going to do everything to make it more efficient. But voting sometimes is slow. And my responsibility as a governor is to make sure democracy works, et cetera. He's got to be taking that initiative, not letting Republicans take the initiative and pointing the finger of blame at California. Same thing with any place else around the country where Democrat and Democratic cities. I think mayors have got to say, we are taking democracy seriously. Don't even imply that there is anything wrong with our voting here. We are going to attack have, we are going to attack you back, Donald Trump, if you, if you even insinuate that there is anything wrong with our voting here.
- [53:10]
Interviewer
What's your sense at this point of, as we think about 2026 and even into 2028, the direction that the Democratic Party should go? Barney Frank, for example, days before passing away, made this appearance with Jake Tapper on cnn, where I'm paraphrasing, but he sort of said, like, don't go too far left on the social stuff. It was, it was obviously much more detailed and complex than that. But that was sort of a message like, don't go overboard with left on social issues going forward. Do you have a sense ideologically of where this party should go?
- [53:47]
Robert Reich
Absolutely. The Democratic Party should be economic populists. I mean, right now, we have more wealth and power at the top of this country than ever before, including the first Gilded Age. It is a, you know, Elon Musk, Donald Trump. The corruption at the top is something that Democrats ought to be complaining about, pointing at. They ought to be saying, the only way we deal with this is to make our economy more Democratic. They ought to be talking about economic democracy. They ought to be talking about getting big money out of American politics. They ought to be talking about making the system work for average working people. I mean, this is not radically new, David, but this is the time for that kind of a plank. This is the time for that kind of a Democratic Party.
- [54:41]
Interviewer
This is more of a strategy question, but to what degree should the proposals be specific? And I'll give you an example of what I mean. I've had so many conversations with elected Democratic members of the House and Senate where they say we've got to tax the rich more. Great. Okay. Raising the income tax rate won't help because they mostly don't earn income. Okay. So next thing is, well, you got to raise the capital gains rate. Fine. That applies when you make a transaction and there are realized gains. And at that point, you tax, they can just borrow. So what do you do?
- [55:14]
Robert Reich
And already, David, you're already, you're, you've already lost 9 of audience. Exactly.
- [55:22]
Interviewer
So what do we do?
- [55:23]
Robert Reich
There's gotta be a wealth tax. Okay, that's what you think, a wealth tax. Absolutely. A wealth tax. That's gotta be part of the Democratic platform. There's also, you've got to raise the minimum wage. You've got to provide people work. All workers need to have some of their pay in the form of wealth benefits. That is, they've got to have some part of the profits of profitable corporations. Profit sharing has got to be part of what the Democrats stand for. Strengthening unions has got to be part of the Democratic platform. You take five or six things that absolutely illustrate clearly economic populism. That is why this is this kind of Elon Musk ification of the economy is dangerous for everyone. It's bad for everyone, including people at the top. I mean, if there's all the wealth and power at the top and all the income at the top, who is gonna be able to afford to buy all of the stuff that the American economy is capable of producing? I mean, it's bad for corporations, bad for CEOs, bad for to have this kind of top heavy economy. This is what Democrats need to be saying over and over again. Social Security is facing a crisis. Well, you raise the cap of income that is subject to Social Security. That's simple for people to understand. That's what Democrats raise.
- [56:53]
Interviewer
The cap on Social Security makes a lot of sense. Here's my question on the wealth tax. And I say this as someone who ideologically and morally is in favor of it. But in my research of it, I've come across a couple of issues. One is in European countries where it's been tried, tax revenue went down and it was ultimately abandoned because people change their behavior in order to avoid the tax. That to me is okay, they tried it and it had the opposite effect because the idea is, let's get more tax revenue. Revenue went down. That's one area of concern. And I'll mention one more and then you can address any or all of them as you wish. The other one is there are situations where if the government gets into, we're going to include collectible art as an example and tax that. Now the government needs to assess the value of fine art and also collect a tax on something that's illiquid. It seems problematic. But tell me where. What am I misunderstanding about it, I guess is the question.
- [57:56]
Robert Reich
Well, your two points are easily responded to. First of all, in Europe you have relatively relative to the United States economy, relatively small states, small economies where people can easily either hide their wealth or they move to another place where the wealth is not taxed. In the United States, we have the biggest, you know, the biggest economy, the biggest political economy in the world. People are not going to, they certainly they're going to want to hide their wealth, but it's much harder. And also in the United States, you can't easily leave the United States. Some people will, but most people don't want to leave the United States to hold onto their wealth. And let me tell you one other thing, David. If they want to leave the United States to hold onto their wealth, goodbye, let them go. We don't want them.
- [58:46]
Interviewer
Even the economic productivity that their business, you know, we hear about the businesses will leave sort of stuff.
- [58:51]
David Pakman
We don't care.
- [58:51]
Robert Reich
Their businesses are not going to leave. I mean, even a state as small as Massachusetts raised its taxes on the people at the very top and it actually worked. Massachusetts got more revenue. People did not leave Massachusetts. California, there's a big, you know, all of the California billionaires, including Sergey Brin, are trying to stop this billionaire tax in California. Well, they're saying that everybody's going to leave California if the billionaire attacks. Why are they so intent on stopping it if it's so easy for them to leave California? The fact is that they don't want to leave California. That's why they are so intent on stopping it.
- [59:36]
Interviewer
Well, I think one thing with the California one that's smart from the standpoint of avoiding that is it's retroactive back to residents prior to when the vote would take place, which is a pretty slick move, you have to say.
- [59:47]
Robert Reich
Well, it's a slick move, but Sergei Brin and all of the rest of the billionaires who are sinking money and just trying to stop it, they knew it was coming. It's not as if this was a surprise to them. We all saw this coming. So I think that there are all of these smokes that people are putting up, these ridiculous arguments. We have a capital gains tax. We measure capital gains. It's easy to measure capital gains. Yes, there are some questions about how you appraise art. Well, that's not the biggest issue here. I mean, the biggest issue, quite frankly, is that billionaires and multi billionaires and Elon Musk, who's a trillionaire, what they do is they borrow against their huge fortunes for their living expenses. So they don't show. They show little or no actual income for a year. And that should not be allowed.
- [60:46]
Interviewer
Last thing I want to ask you about and I'll let you go. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez recently said she thinks one of the maybe most useful political rhetoric tools leading up to this next midterm, and maybe even beyond that, could cross party lines, is not arguing about tax rates, not talking about transports, etc. But it's pointing out all of the places where your tax money, my tax money, everybody's tax money is being spent on stuff that is universally unpopular. The UFC fight that just took place at the White House, for example, the reflecting pool contract where we now the algae is back. I read today the whole thing didn't even work. Or that your tax money, look at what they are spending it on, may be a very economically united so called.
- [61:33]
Robert Reich
I mean we are spending. I mean what Trump wants to do is increase the defense budget, which is already grotesquely huge, to $1.5 trillion. I mean, what about that as a waste? Look what happened. And you know, he's claiming that we have this big victory in Iran. Well, there's no victory in Iran. I mean, in fact, we are worse off than we were before he started bombing Iran. Talk about waste. Talk about what we as a nation could and should be doing with these billions and trillions of dollars that we're spending on the military in addition to all of the gilded gold leaf that Trump is putting all around Washington. I mean, yes, AOC is absolutely right. It's absurd. And then you look at the corruption, the self dealing, the pay to play that's going on in Washington right now and you have another thing that Democrats ought to be talking about in terms of what we as a nation ought to be doing with money instead of allowing this corruption, this corporate welfare, this kind of cozy relationship between corporations and the government to continue. I think the democr. This is the hour for the Democrats. If the Democrats don't take advantage, David, of all of the evidence right now of the intrinsic corruption between wealth and power, we see the waste that that corruption represents and how that takes away from all of us. In other words, do exactly what Peter Magyar did in taking on Viktor Orban, then Democrats are missing the biggest possibility and the most obvious campaign issue the Democrats have had since 1932.
- [63:33]
Interviewer
Let's hope they don't miss it. We're going to be watching very closely. You can follow Robert Reich's writing@robert reich.substack.com I'm a subscriber. I really appreciate your time and your insights. As always, so good to talk to you.
- [63:46]
Robert Reich
Appreciate you. Thank you, David.
- [63:48]
Interviewer
Take care. We'll talk to you soon.
- [63:50]
David Pakman
By the David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member@join pacman.com you'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com tell me whether you believe this. It would be bad enough for Donald Trump to use emergency provisions to repaint the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool when it's a process that's supposed to go through bidding. That would be bad enough. It would be bad enough if a no bid contract was given out for the project. That that would already be like, okay, this is terrible. This is corrupt. This is no good. It would be bad enough if your taxpayer money was given out for the project without a competitive bidding process. That that's all terrible. It's bad enough. It wouldn't need to be any worse for us to say we denounce it. This is deplorable. But now the problem is back. The entire reason this was done, algae blooming in the water, looking like crap, according to Donald Trump, is back. It started last week. Workers were seen cleaning the algae out of the pool. And then over the weekend during Donald Trump's big UFC birthday fight weekend, the algae was already back. Now this started. The project started in April. It was finished last week. It was filthy, it was dirty, it was un American and unpatriotic. According to Donald Trump, an emergency. We've got to give out a what was originally a one point something million dollar contract ended up being like 12 or 13 million dollars. We were going to fix it though. Once it was renovated, it would look beautiful, the country would be respected again and all that crap. The algae is back. Interior Department spokesperson says, oh, this is residual algae. It's old algae that was already in the supply lines. It's not really a problem. Very serious doubts about that because the algae came back last week and was removed.
- [66:01]
Donald Trump
Removed.
- [66:02]
David Pakman
And then it came back over the weekend, it was removed. And reportedly this morning there are videos from this morning of people at the reflecting pool and the algae is back. Here is Doug Burgum saying that this is one of the things we've got. One of the reasons this is so urgent is because of that algae. We got to get the algae out. We're going to pump stuff in from the Potomac. Closed for two years, $35 million two weeks later. There's photos you can see in articles from the Washington Post you can pull up that show.
- [66:32]
Pharmaceutical Advertiser
This thing was.
- [66:32]
David Pakman
It was a full on algae explosion, turned green. You know, after I think him, President Trump is like, no. So we've got the latest technology. Trump said, no, we will not have algae in this thing. We are going to put in technology. We will spend less money, I guess. Even though it ended up being 13 million already and the renovated reflecting pool is now full of algae, I'll remind you, Atlantic Industrial Coatings was paid around $14 million of your money to line the pool the color of American flag blue. It was supposed to cost a million and change and ended up costing nearly 10 times that. Eddie Wood, the owner of Atlantic Industrial Coatings, was asked about what's going on and he said, my company did a great job lining the pool. Turned out perfectly. He said now he may not be wrong in the sense that they just did the lining. That doesn't have to do with the algae. The algae is the problem that supposedly was going to be solved by the entire project and it simply isn't solved by changing the lining. Is this what you voted for? Remember when we were told, oh, Trump's going to run government like a business? Turns out Trump's not that good at running businesses. That's maybe the problem. Trump and his supporters, though, love to argue what we need to bring to government is someone from the private sector with private sector efficiency and private sector instincts and know how. If a private company spent $14 million solving a problem and the problem returned almost immediately, shareholders would be furious. Government projects. You know, it's very popular to slam government projects because there was a cost overrun, there's a lack of accountability. That's swamp stuff. Trump said, we're going to drain the swamp. We're going to fix all of this. And they didn't do it. The pool was originally expected to cost a million and a half. It cost 10 times that amount. And the algae is back. So where's the accountability? Just tell me where the accountability is. It would be great to hold someone accountable for this thing. And you know that if this happened under a Democratic administration, they'd be saying, we need a hearing. Was the person who did this competent? Why was an emergency declaration used to do as a no bid contract? And it's kind of funny because a lot of the Trump administration focuses on esthetics. What do things look like? What's the presentation? What are the optics? Let's add, add gold leaf and all this different crap. This was literally a project about esthetics. It was about, let's make it look better not. Let's improve some government service or provide for people. Just, it looks bad, it's got to look better. They spend $14 million. It briefly improves, I guess, in that the, when they drain the thing, the algae was gone. And then it just reverts back to exactly where we started. And, and it's kind of a metaphorical reality about the Trump administration. A cosmetic fix that doesn't address the underlying problem here, which is actually the algae and a whole bunch of other stuff, not the color of the liner. Are you happy with how your money was spent? Is there a MAGA in my audience who can seriously write in and say, this was a great project? David, they did it and they did it right. If so, I want to hear from you because it's hard to think of something more pathetic. For years, MAGA and Trump complained the Justice Department is being weaponized against political opponents. Joe Biden is weaponizing the Justice Department against his political adversaries and opponents. And of course that wasn't true. But then in comes Trump and he is doing that. And now he is doing that specifically to Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, as well as his wife. Gavin Newsom announced. And according to new reporting, federal investigators are examining Gavin and Jennifer Siebel Newsom's lives with suggestion that what is being looked at is. Is Jennifer Siebel Newsom's nonprofit activities and her tax filings. Gavin Newsom is taking the opportunity to come out swinging against Donald Trump. Remember that they are doing this in a number of ways. Your favorite podcaster, me. Hold on, let me. That's. That's unfair. Your favorite left handed Jewish, Argentinian American podcaster, me, was put on a list by the federal government. You go to whitehouse.gov, you go to their media section. You go to media offenders. I'm on the list. They are targeting me in one way and here they are targeting Gavin Newsom and his wife another way. Here is Newsom directly addressing what is.
- [71:35]
Gavin Newsom
What is happening to Donald Trump, who I know is watching because he watches everything. I have a message for you. You can subpoena my records, you can investigate me, you can harass me, put my name on every and any enemies list you have, but leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta. I'd like to say something to my wife. These times are not normal. They're not ordinary. I love you and I'm sorry he's doing this. You have not earned a single one of the indignities that he's trying to inflict on you and our children and to Donald Trump. This country, this country does not belong to you. It does not belong to your cronies. And we're going to fight your lawlessness, and we're going to continue to remind the people of this country of your corruption, that same corruption our founders warned us against. As we move to celebrate our 250th anniversary.
- [72:38]
David Pakman
You know, whether you like Gavin Newsom is not relevant. Whether you like me is not relevant. When you analyze me being put on a government list, my being put on a government list investigating political figures that you don't like, that's bad enough. And that's one thing going after spouses and family members. And Gavin Newsom, I think, correctly, is framing this as part of a broader pattern. He says Trump is targeting people who criticize him, and now it's going beyond that into the wives of people who criticize him. And Newsom says federal agents have been contacting former employees, family, friends, people connected to his orbit in different ways. They're demanding records. They're abusing the grand jury process. These are allegations that. That he is making. And Newsom's argument is relatively simple. They are not investigating a crime. They are searching for one. Now, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, investigate it. I don't care about party. You know, with the Epstein stuff, there's all these people who go, david, you should be careful about demanding transparency because Bill Clinton could be implicated. I don't think he is, but okay, if he's implicated, then there should be consequences. See how different that is? Oh, but what if it pulls in Democrats? So pull them in. If people have committed crimes, they should be investigated. But you don't just get to do fishing expeditions on people you don't like and try to see what you can dig up. By the way, even if you find nothing, you make their lives miserable just through the process of an investigation. Nobody should be above the law. Gavin Newsom shouldn't be above the if. If News Gum's a nasty guy, the way Trump says he shouldn't be above the law. Jennifer Siebel Newsom shouldn't be above the law. Trump shouldn't be above the law. Nobody should. But that's why these situations matter, because we as the public, who are ultimately funding all of this investigatory work through our taxpayer dollars, we deserve to know whether an investigation started because there was a evidence or whether a political target was selected. And then they go, let's start digging around. And if we don't find anything, the digging itself is Enough to create a problem. If you dig up someone's backyard, even if you don't find anything, you've still dug up their backyard. And that's something that now they have to deal with. Now Gavin Newsom is arguing it's the latter, that they put a target on them and then started digging around. Let's take a listen.
- [75:19]
Gavin Newsom
Donald Trump is selling the presidency. He's running the largest cash heist in American political history. Trading foreign tariff relief for approval of his golf courses, day trading behind the Resolute desk, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in personal profit. And he's doing it openly. He's doing it on camera. He did it last night on the White House lawn. He's doing it through cryptocurrencies. He's doing it through the receipt of a $400 million private jet from a foreign government that he plans to keep when he leaves office, through his son's ventures in countries where his own administration is simultaneously making policy. His personal fortune has skyrocketed by $4 billion since making his return to office. This is the behavior of a regime, not a republic. The White House has become a marketplace, a marketplace for sneakers and coins and watches, cologne, guitars, Bibles and phones. Influence for sale. Access for sale.
- [76:27]
David Pakman
Now, of course, Gavin Newsom is making a political argument here. I think the most significant part of this story is the precedent. Remember what was promised by Donald Trump, Joe Biden's weaponization of the government. I'm going to end that. There's not going to be any more political weaponization. The government being used against the opponents of the people in power. We're going to stop that. We're going to drain the swamp. But we've seen critics of Trump, former officials, prosecutors, governors, perceived enemies, podcasters and independent media, people like me. Everybody is being put on some list and targeted in some way. Now, if there is legitimate evidence against Gavin Newsom or Jennifer Siebel Newsom, okay, maybe investigators found something and they're going to produce serious findings of wrongdoing, or maybe they won't. But if the standard is investigations should be based on evidence and not politics, then there should be transparency about why this is even going on. And there is no such thing transparency. When government investigations start looking like revenge operations, everybody should be furious because your taxpayer dollars are being used to fund that. Gavin Newsom is making a bet. He's making a bet that they're not going to find anything and that voters are going to see this not as the enforcement of the law, but as Donald Trump expanding his enemies list yet again and finding new ways to, to make people's lives difficult for the only, the only reason why being they don't buy into Trump's political bullshit. Because at the end of the day, that's exactly what this is. We don't buy it. So now Gavin Newsom and his wife are being investigated. We're on a list, lawsuits, all sorts of weaponization of government is not forget about continuing under Trump. Trump started it. There was none of it happening under Joe Biden. It's happening now. Taxpayers. What are you going to do about it? Well, step one is we vote in November. Now, on the bonus show today, we will talk about the Eric Trump UFC DM rigged fight scandal. Bunch of people wrote to me about this, including friends, people unsure whether it's for real. We'll talk about it. There is a challenger with the same name as US Senator Dan Sullivan who is ineligible to run because of his name, according to an official. We'll talk about that. And also we will talk about the SpaceX IPO and the first trillionaire billionaires and trillionaires, Elon Musk. All of that and more on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com.