Loading summary
Transcript156 lines
- [00:01]
David Pakman
We are looking at what happens when a political movement gets backed into a corner and decides that the answer is absolute and total loyalty, no matter how extreme things get. We'll start with Trump and allies now defending behavior that in any normal political environment would be completely indefensible. And then we will go to the further escalation by the unleashing of a criminal probe against Jay Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, because Donald Trump didn't get the interest rates that he wants, which is a stunning abuse of power. But Powell refuses to be intimidated. We're also going to break down the cell phone video taken by the involved ICE officer who killed Renee Good, which is blowing apart the administration's version of events. And then a totally surreal moment where Donald Trump wanders off during a high states White House meeting to look out the window and and gaze towards an imaginary White House ballroom which may or may not ever come to fruition. Kristi Noem collapses on cnn. Fox host Peter Doocy gets dismantled on live TV by our friend Jake Auchincloss. And much more. A show about desperation, loyalty tests and what happens when reality is opt. I was thinking over the weekend how in normal politics, in a normal political environment, there is a breaking point at some point. And what I mean by that is that something will happen that is so extreme and so obviously wrong that allies start to hesitate, loyalists start to question whether this is something we can still defend. You start hearing hedging, you hear we need to change the subject or we need more information. And at the very least, you see people stop defending every single thing that an administration does. It's hopefully politics where there is at least a tether to reality. That is not what we are watching right now. What we are seeing now, and I believe we will lay this out in today's show, is behavior so egregious that the only way to survive it politically is to defend it even more aggressively than before. What I mean by that is today's circumstances and what is happening nearly every single day is so beyond indefensible that you can't come in with nuance or caution. You have to come in with total loyalty and a more aggressive defense of what's going on because it is not about policy anymore. It's, it is only about belonging to the cult. Take for example, the discussion that has happened after the kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela. In any sane political environment, the entire idea of was it legitimate or not, was it legal or not, was it constitutional, was it ok? That would be a nonstarter in a normal political environment, a sitting US President kidnapping, abducting a foreign head of state would trigger immediate condemnation, constitutional concerns, international backlash. Even the hawks would say, this is not something that we can do. But here in the United States under Trump, the concerns are waved away. Or the supporters of Trump say, damn right, we kidnapped him, and we'll do it to Colombia and Cuba, and we'll take Greenland and we'll bomb Mexico. Because if you express any concern at all, you're seen as weak or unpatriotic, or you're secretly on the side of Maduro, even if you just question the legality of what's going on. So the conversation is not really about whether any of this stuff is legal or moral. It's, are you loyal enough to aggressively defend the things that this administration is doing? Same thing with the killing of Renee Goode by an ICE officer. We'll have the cell phone video a little bit later today. In a normal system, the response would be obvious. Even if I support the broader goals of ice, which. Which I don't. But I'm saying there is a world that is more sane, where even the defenders of the deportation regime would go, I support the deportation regime, but this was an unarmed American citizen who posed the no threat, and even says in the video, I'm not angry with you, or we'll. We'll get the exact line from her. And then she was shot and killed by an officer holding his gun with one hand and a cell phone recording with the other hand. In a normal system, we would say, this doesn't seem right. Of course, we investigate. We acknowledge the gravity of what has taken place here. We admit that deadly force demands extraordinary justification, and it doesn't seem like we had it. But instead, what do we hear? Instant defense and total certainty. Trump says it's the fault of the radical left, why she got shot. No investigation needed. The officer had to do it. He. He was disrespected. Trump said, that's the newest one. And anyone questioning any of this, any of this is not loyal to the regime. Anyone pointing to the video and saying, the video doesn't correspond with the story of this administration. You're either lying or you don't care about the officers or you don't care about immigrant crime or whatever. And when journalists start to push back, they show footage. They just ask, like, basic questions. The response isn't, oh, yeah, you know what? That's interesting. We should reflect on that. The response is, how dare you question this? And that is the tell. Once a movement Reaches a point where if you question anything, it is borderline a crime. Or in some cases, I mean, some of these protesters are being thrown around and detained and in some cases arrested merely for expressing opinions. We are no longer dealing with politics and substance. You're just dealing with a cult and an authoritarian cult that behaves erratically when it is under pressure. They're not going to moderate, they're not going to self correct. They will only radicalize. And every single new scandal becomes a test. Every atrocity that you defend is a loyalty check. At the end of the day, the worse the behavior, the stronger the defense has to be. Not because it makes sense, but because backing down would mean admitting something unbearable to the regime, which is the leader may not be infallible. Infallible, infallible, infallible. That is why we keep hearing things like, you can't criticize this. We can't wait for evidence. We need to prevent the state of Minnesota from even doing a full investigation. And that is how the defenses become increasingly unhinged, because you need to ignore all of the data in order to defend a lot of this stuff. You're trying to communicate, I will defend anything. I'm loyal, I'm in. And notice how the defenses aren't even coherent. One day it's, you know, the economy is booming, the next day it's, we need immediate interest rate cuts and Jerome Powell needs to be investigated criminally because he's not doing it. We'll get to that a little bit later. So we need to understand the moment in which we find ourselves. Consistency doesn't matter. Only allegiance matters. And this is what it looks like when a movement is up against the ropes. They know their behavior is alienating normal voters. They, they know they look extreme and they know that they can't defend any of what they're doing on the merits. So they don't try anymore. They double down, they get really loud, they get really mean, they get more absolute. And if you are in the cult, the greatest sin isn't being wrong. It's failing to fully defend the leader, who in this case happens to be Donald Trump. So that's where we find ourselves. To some degree, this explains the behavior that we are seeing as doubling down and doubling down and doubling down is really the only way forward. And now they're looking at Jay Powell criminally. Let's talk about that next. Donald Trump didn't get the interest weights that he wanted from Jerome Powell. And so now he has pushed the Department of Justice to open a criminal probe and Officially, the investigation is about the $2.5 billion renovation of the headquarters of the central bank and also what Jay Powell said during congressional testimony about it. But as we learn the details, we learn about an investigation approved in November by Jeanine Pirro, a time when Donald Trump was publicly spatting with Jerome Powell over the desperately low interest rates that he wanted and believed he deserved. And Jerome Powell understands what this is really about. It is a personal grievance from Trump, which Powell is now going to get punished for. Powell is not scared, he's not backing down. And he put out a rare statement. Take a listen to this.
- [09:22]
Jerome Powell
Good evening. On Friday, the Department of justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned, in part, a multi year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. I have deep respect for the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy. No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and, and ongoing pressure.
- [10:01]
David Pakman
Right.
- [10:01]
Jerome Powell
This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress's oversight role. The Fed, through testimony and other public disclosures, made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.
- [10:33]
David Pakman
Right.
- [10:33]
Jerome Powell
This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment.
- [11:01]
David Pakman
All right, so bottom line, what Powell is saying is what this is really about. What this is really about is that Trump wants really low interest rates and Powell has set them based on economic indicators, not on Donald Trump's demands. Now, I think it's important here to level set that. Trump wants the Fed to slash interest rates because cheap money can boost or appear to boost the economy in the short term. When you lower rates, it means stock prices usually go up. Trump wants that so he can go look at this beautiful stock market. Credit cards, car loans and mortgages get cheaper because the interest rates on those tend to follow the Federal funds rate. Businesses can borrow more easily and maybe are going to borrow even when they otherwise wouldn't, just because it's so cheap. And the economy can look like it is humming along. Now, politically, that's great for a president. It creates the appearance of strength. Very low interest rates are almost like giving someone a steroid boom. But then there's the comedown effect later, and that is the Fed needs to keep that tool in its pocket, being able to lower interest rates when we are in a recession or a financial crash or unemployment is rising quickly. So think about the 2008 financial crisis or during the COVID era. In a healthy economy, interest rates are normally higher because the Fed needs to leave itself room to cut them later if something goes wrong. Now, this is what's fascinating. On the one hand, Trump says this is the best economy ever. You know, it's the best in a decade. It's the best he's ever seen. The best anyway. But at the same time, he's saying, drop interest rates like a rock, which you would normally only do if the economy weren't doing so well. There's no match there. And ultimately Jerome Powell has refused to be bullied. Now, even people like right wing TV host Maria Bartiromo kind of recognize that this is a political investigation. There's really nothing here. Here she was this morning speaking with Republican Senator Roger Marshall, and Marshall kind of goes, oh, I think Trump's kind of just trolling with the investigation. Oh, is that right?
- [13:12]
Maria Bartiromo
Is there really a reason for an investigation? Because, you know, a lot of people are looking at this and saying, well, wait a second, we know President Trump does not like Jay Powell, and we know that he's calling him stupid and that he hasn't cut rates fast enough. So is this political? Or did Jay Powell break the, the law and mislead or lie to the Senate Banking Committee? And you say, well, Maria will let.
- [13:36]
David Pakman
The, that the system play through here. I think there's other issues that we should be focused on. I think this is the President throwing out one more.
- [13:44]
Peter Doocy
Maybe he's even almost trolling here as well.
- [13:46]
David Pakman
We got bigger issues to go after than this one, though.
- [13:50]
Maria Bartiromo
Is there really a.
- [13:52]
David Pakman
She knows it. She knows that this is merely a political investigation and this is a personal grievance and she's friends with Trump and she's got to kind of tap dance around this pretty carefully. And Roger Marshall does something else, which is quite frankly dangerous, which is any time Donald Trump's behavior gets extreme, he minimizes it. And he goes, well, it's Almost like a form of trolling, really. That's really all that it is. Peter Navarro, on again, off again economic adviser to Trump. I don't even know if he's formally working for Trump at this point in time. He says, you know what, it does look here like there is real wrongdoing by Powell. And Maria Bartiromo, you can tell, is.
- [14:31]
Peter Navarro
Not really buying with respect to Chairman Powell. First of all, the Fed is politicized. Chairman Powell is the worst Fed chair since Arthur Burns, and he is the poster child for politicizing the Fed. The only reason why he's still there is because he papered over the fiscal year responsibility of Joe Biden and got America into an inflation crisis that President Trump is in the process of curing. So.
- [14:58]
David Pakman
Oh, so we are still in an inflation crisis. Interesting, because Trump insists there is no more inflation.
- [15:03]
Peter Navarro
Spare me on that. But if you actually look at what, what he's being investigated for, I mean, look, they got. It looks like there's like luxury elevators and dining rooms. He claims that the thing was never renovated before, when in fact it was. And it's just, let's see what the investigation says. And the funny part, like just Powell gets up there and says it's politicized and it's the tariffs that's the problem. Why the costs went. Come on, Jay. Come on, Jay, just, just do your job. Since you got there, you've made three major blunders that have cost this economy a trillion dollars easily. So let's see what happens with this investigation. The only question is, Maria, we know he made false statements. The only question is whether he was aware and did it with malice. And think about that. If he was ignorant about it, that tells you how ignorant he is when he runs Fed policy.
- [16:01]
Maria Bartiromo
So you say we know that he made false statements. What was the false statements? Do you know specifically what the false statements.
- [16:08]
Peter Navarro
Yeah, sure. Yeah, you can run through, run through the list. First of all, I said there's never been any major renovation there. There has been claim that there is no luxury stuff in there. You got to elevate it.
- [16:21]
David Pakman
And of course, what you count as a renovation, what counts as luxury, I mean, this is all just, it's basically semantics at the end of the day. But what's really funny is that Navarro says he is making mistakes. The mistake, I guess Powell has made is, is ignoring Donald Trump's feelings about what interest rates should be and deciding with the Fed governors what interest rates should be. So this is yet another weaponization of the doj. We'll see if Trump gets away with it. But even Maria Bartiromo is skeptical, and that should tell you something. The core issue in political journalism isn't access to facts, it's really framing. Different outlets can start from the same underlying facts and still produce very different narratives. Ground News is built to make those differences explicit. Our sponsor, Ground News, aggregates coverage of a single story from across the political spectrum and presents it visually. You can see ideological lean, ownership, reliability of each outlet at a glance. The feature I use the most is the side by side headline view. Seeing multiple outlets describe the same event differently makes the framing choices very obvious. What's emphasized, what's downplayed, what's the context, what's left out. Ground News also offers a blind spot feed that lets you highlight stories that are receiving little attention from one side of the spectrum. That helps expose possible gaps that disagreement alone won't reveal. You can also personalize your feed by topic. You can make it easier to track the issues you personally care about without unnecessary noise. Go to Ground News slash pacman to get 40% off the ground News Vantage plan. You can also gift a subscription to a friend. The link is in the description the David Pakman show has been and remains primarily an audience supported program. I so appreciate the support of everybody who has signed up recently or ever. Our newest members are Sarah golden and Timothy Martin. Appreciate both of you. We do an extra show every day for our members. We also provide audio, commercial, free audio and video feeds of the show and so many other great things. I invite you to sign up@join pacman.com and next Tuesday marking 365 days of Trump's second term. January 20th we are doing a one day membership special to really set up this next year of critical midterm elections. It's going to be a huge membership discount. I would love for you to participate. All you need to do is get on my newsletter which you can sign up for on my website or just email me. Say David, get me on that newsletter info@david pakman.com Tuesday morning. You'll get an email telling you exactly, and I mean in exquisite and precise details exactly how to take advantage of this membership discount offer. Hoping to make it the biggest single day membership drive that we have ever done. We now have the cell phone video of the shooting of Renee Goode. Now you might say, David, do you mean the the body cam video? No, I don't. I mean the cell phone video. The accused officer was holding his gun in one hand and his cell phone in another hand. Alpha News was the first to release this video. I will tell you, you don't see anybody get shot in the video. Just like as a reverse trigger warning nobody. You don't see anybody get shot in the video. But this is one of the most incriminating videos that I have seen. The video does not answer every question, but it does destroy the confidence with which Trump and others have claimed. This is a clear instance of self defense. It's a 40 second, a 47 second video recorded by the ICE agent who pulled the trigger three times. And it is not, you know, we have the benefit that it is not grainy security camera footage. This is the shooter's own phone held in his hand, pointed at the woman he killed. And what you see is not what the government told you happened. So I'm going to play the video and then we will discuss some key elements of it. Right now, the officer has approached the vehicle from the right. And you see that Renee Goode was speaking to someone out her window and then turns and sees this officer coming around the car.
- [21:01]
Maria Bartiromo
That's fine, dude.
- [21:02]
Josh Shapiro
I'm not medical.
- [21:04]
David Pakman
You hear her say, that's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you. And as you see, the officer has now come around to the left side of her vehicle.
- [21:16]
Maria Bartiromo
We don't change.
- [21:17]
David Pakman
Show your face. I'm not mad at you. She said as the officer is now behind her maroon Honda Pilot. Getting a look at her license plate plates every morning.
- [21:27]
Maria Bartiromo
Just so you know, it'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That's fine, U.S. citizen, please.
- [21:36]
David Pakman
The officer has now circled all the way around her car and is back on the right side of the vehicle.
- [21:41]
Maria Bartiromo
You want to come at us? I said, go get yourself some lunch, big boy.
- [21:44]
Donald Trump
Go ahead.
- [21:47]
David Pakman
A different officer has now approached the vehicle from the left and is saying, get out of the car. There you see Renee Good. Back the vehicle up. She will now shift it into drive.
- [22:01]
Josh Shapiro
Oh.
- [22:04]
David Pakman
And as you can see there, or not see, she attempts to drive off towards the right with her front wheels turned right. And the officer holding the camera as she drives away shoots into the vehicle. And we now know took the life of Renee Good. A couple of important things here. When Renee Goode says, that's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you. It's an important moment. You know, legally, that's an important moment. It undercuts the claim that this was clearly a chaotic, violent confrontation spiraling out of control. I mean, there's no screaming from her, there's no threats. There's no sudden aggression. She goes, that's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you. It's almost surreal that it escalates into this guy shooting her three times. The agent records the license plate. Good's wife is apparently reportedly the other woman you see there filming. She mocks him. She's annoyed. She says, go get some lunch, big boy. Certainly not praising the individual, but it should not be a deadly situation. Other agents arrive, they surround the vehicle. They start shouting commands. The situation starts to escalate because law enforcement escalated it. And at that point, Goode's wife yells, drive, baby, drive. That's what the government and Trump want you to fixate on. The car moves forward. The agent yells, whoa. The camera jerks upward, and you hear those three shots fired in rapid succession. What the video doesn't show, of course, is the car striking the agent. And we have other video we played last week from behind the vehicle, where you see that the vehicle does not appear to strike the agent. There's no evidence that the guy is about to get run over or anything like it. And then right after the shots, as the the car speeds away and crashes, there's a voice believed to be the agents, who says, effing bitch. Effing bitch. That is the language of rage to me. This is why the video has not resolved the controversy. It has made it worse. Now, I'm going to try to be clear that the people who think the officer did nothing wrong, they do believe the video is exculpatory. They say, you know, she clearly hits the gas, and it's reasonable that the officer thought he was going to get run over, even if he wasn't. Even if the front wheels were turned, he was too close to see that the wheels were turned. And therefore, okay, I mean, like the argument they're making is the car is a weapon the agent feared for his life. And that's the entire story as I see the video. It certainly complicates that narrative. The other things that I think are important to remember are that there are potentially a number of violations of the potentially limited training that this officer received. A standard law enforcement training discourages approaching vehicles from the front, and it discourages firing at moving cars, not just because it's dangerous for the officer, but because if you kill the driver or even shoot them, it guarantees that the car is going to go out of control. That's exactly what happened. After being shot, Good's car kept moving and crashed into a pole, number two. Holding the cell phone with one hand and the gun with the other my understanding is that officers do receive some training in shooting one handed, but that the entirety of the way that the officer approached this is not protocol or the way that they are supposed to do it. And of course, forensic reconstruction suggests that the agent was not in the vehicle's path when he fired. And if true, that matters hugely because deadly force is only justified if there is an immediate and unavoidable threat. And it seems very much that that was not the case. Officials are trying to contextualize all of this by saying, listen, this guy, he was kind of traumatized. There was an earlier incident where he was dragged by a vehicle and injured and that trauma made him more sensitive to the threat of cars. Trauma doesn't rewrite the law. And if he was so traumatized that he would interpret a vehicle that was not going to hit him as a vehicle that would hit him, that suggests he should not have been allowed back on the job due to his trauma. He was too traumatized to be on the job. The trauma doesn't give you permission to kill first and ask questions later. So this is not a press release that we have or a spokesperson. This is the video. You hear the woman say, I'm not mad at you. You see the police escalated, you hear the three shots fired in seconds. And once you see that, the claim of clear cut self defense is much more difficult to accept. Will the officer be charged? We just don't know yet. This is one of those moments that would be unbelievable if it were not on video. Donald Trump is sitting down for what is supposed to be a high stakes White House meeting with nearly two dozen oil executives. Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips. It's about Venezuela. Billions of dollars, control of oil export, a volatile country that the United States just carried out a military operation in. And suddenly Trump just gets up and walks away. He stops mid thought, turns around, walks to the door behind him and stares through the windows in the door. Imagine if Joe Biden ever did something like this. Take a look.
- [27:31]
Donald Trump
Well, I got to look at this myself.
- [27:41]
David Pakman
Wow.
- [27:43]
Donald Trump
What a.
- [27:44]
Peter Navarro
What a view.
- [27:45]
Donald Trump
This is the door to the ball.
- [27:49]
David Pakman
And look at the faces of the people that work for Trump. Uncomfortable smiles. Susie. I believe that. Susie Wiles on the right, looking straight down at one point in disbelief at what Trump is doing. Marco Rubio sitting there like, what is daddy up to? I don't understand this. Trump gets up. Not because anything important is going on. There's no urgent situation. He's looking at dirt, he's looking at rubble and construction. Equipment. And the camera catches the whole thing. The executive seated at the table, J.D. vance, is sitting there. Marco Rubio sitting there. Trump is gazing out like he forgot why he was even in the room to begin with. Now, apparently, Trump had just started talking about his personal ballroom project, which he's obsessed with, but it may or may not be going anywhere. And he says, I got to look at it myself. It's a meeting during which he was supposed to be convincing oil executives to pour at least $100 billion into Venezuela, a country whose oil infrastructure is collapsing and where many American oil companies have been burned before. And Trump has now destabilized the country, and he wants their help rebuilding it. And they don't seem that keen on it. And Trump just gets up and kind of just walks away and looks out the window. That's the context and the backdrop for this video. This is not Trump being Trump. It's not an isolated senior moment. This is a pattern. We've seen it now over and over. Meetings drift, answers don't connect. Sentences trail off. Here Trump is walking away to look out the window. Sometimes he falls asleep. Sometimes he says, we got to go through this much faster because he doesn't have the attention span nor the stamina. And in another clip from the same stretch, Trump is talking about Greenland. And he says with a straight face, just because you landed a boat there 500 years ago, as did Denmark, that doesn't mean you own the land. Which is, of course, funny, because that's exactly the justification that people like Trump and others give for why the United States is the United States.
- [29:55]
Donald Trump
And, you know, they've been very nice to me. I'm a big fan. But, you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land.
- [30:04]
David Pakman
Right. When Denmark landed a boat in Greenland 500 years ago, they don't own the land. But when the Pilgrims landed a boat in the unite what is now the United States hundreds of years ago, that does mean that they, and thus we now own the land. That's a really weird thing. Now, of course, it's all funny until you remember this is the sitting president making territorial arguments while threatening international conflict and then wandering off to look out the window. This guy is not. Well, this is a guy who is seriously in decline. And there's an awkwardness to it. There's an absurdity to it, but it's also very revealing. You've got a president negotiating energy policy and foreign intervention and massive corporate investment, and his attention is Pulled away by a construction project that isn't even going anywhere with his name all over it. And it is not metaphorical that he's distracted. He was literally distracted by it and walked away. Humiliating and embarrassing. And his deputies are doing just as poorly. Kristi Noem is the Secretary of Homeland Security. She appeared on a number of shows, including on CNN with Jake Tapper. Jake Tapper said, what was Renee Goode doing when she was moving her car and she was shot dead by the ICE officer? Kristi Noem doesn't like that question. She believes that no one should question anything that is happening while Donald Trump is president.
- [31:43]
Maria Bartiromo
Law enforcement operations throughout the previous moments and hours before the question.
- [31:49]
Jake Tapper
The question is, what was she doing when she was moving her car?
- [31:53]
Maria Bartiromo
The question that's the question is we, is why are we arguing with a president who's working to keep people safe? Why are we arguing with law enforcement operations that have gone?
- [32:01]
David Pakman
Trump says he's keeping people safe. That is a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants on in.
- [32:06]
Maria Bartiromo
This country for years. And we're working to collect murderers and rapists and drug traffickers and fraudsters off the streets of Minnesota. And we don't have local law enforcement and local elected officials that are partnering with us to help do that work. Overwhelmingly, the people in this country said they wanted America to be safe. Again, that they didn't want.
- [32:26]
David Pakman
And of course, you can ask most people, do you want America to be safe? And most people would go, yeah, I mean, what sure sounds good. But then the question is, well, how are we going to get to that and are we going to make it safe at all? Is any of what Trump's doing really making the country safe? And are we going to do it legally, Are we going to do it morally? But Kristi Noem's position is never argue with Trump, just accept it. Now, this one is pretty Kafka esque. This is from another interview that Kristi Noem did on cnn, this one with Dana Bash where Noem goes, we can't trust the government anymore. And Dana Bash points out, you're the government. And Kristi goes, yeah, that's what I'm saying.
- [33:03]
Maria Bartiromo
Remember a time when Republicans were very careful about and worried about the government, particularly unelected people? We can't trust the government anymore. Having access to personal data. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. You are the government. Yes. That's what I'm saying is that the American people now are saying that we have had our personal information shared and out there now that the public has access to It. Elon Musk is part of the administration that is helping us identify where we can find savings and what we can do. And he has gone, gone through the processes to make sure that he has the authority the president has granted him. I am today by the work that he is doing, by identifying waste, fraud, and abuse.
- [33:42]
David Pakman
So understand the contrast. Kristi Noem previously said, we can't trust the government. We can't. But you're the government. Yeah, but, like, it's different now because it's outsiders in the government like Elon Musk. This is back when Elon Musk was involved. But then she goes, just trust Trump. Trump said he's doing it to keep us safe. Just don't. Don't question Donald Trump. Never argue with Donald Trump. But, Christie, you told us not that long ago you can't trust the government. No, we can't. But because it's us, we can. Got it? The question of what is divisive versus what is unifying has come up. Back to our new interview with Jake Tapper and Kristi Noem. Tapper points out Kristi Noem referred to Renee Goode as a domestic terrorist after the shooting. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. And in fact, it seems clear that she was not a domestic terrorist. Christine Ohm is asked about that. Here's how she addresses it.
- [34:37]
Jake Tapper
You've also been criticized for your comments. The shooting, we should note, was Wednesday at 10:37am Eastern. Just over two hours later, the Department of Homeland Security put out a statement definitively asserting what had happened, defending the ICE agent, accusing Renee Good of domestic terrorism. That's a characterization that, that you reiterated in a press conference half an hour later. Now, Republican Senator Thom Tillis said, quote, it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed. Generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever. The shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation. Why did you not wait for an investigation before making your comments?
- [35:20]
Maria Bartiromo
Everything that I've said has been proven to be factual and the truth. This administration wants to operate in transparency. I have the responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security to know this information as soon as possible. Had just been in Minneapolis the day before, had already had conversations with officers on the ground and supervisors and knew the facts and decided that the department and the people of this country deserve to know the truth of the situation of what had unfolded.
- [35:47]
Jake Tapper
Admittedly, Minneapolis, with all Due respect, Secretary, the first thing you said was, quote, what happened was our ICE officers were out in an enforcement action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. That's not what happened. We all saw what happened.
- [36:08]
Maria Bartiromo
It absolutely is what happened. Those officers had been out on enforcement action. A vehicle had been stuck. They, they had come to help get that vehicle out. That's when this individual started blocking traffic for minutes and minutes.
- [36:20]
Jake Tapper
You said that the woman attacked them and surrounded them and attempted to run them over and ram the vehicle, blocked.
- [36:27]
Maria Bartiromo
The road for a long time and was yelling at them and impeding notice.
- [36:31]
David Pakman
How block the road for minutes became a long time. Anyway, these, these people are disgusting. I guess Christine Ohm is right. You certainly can't trust this group government. And Jake Tapper actually doing some journalism here where he says, we're going to look at video of what happened on January 6 and look at the story we are told there. This is actually good stuff.
- [36:55]
Jake Tapper
I want to ask a question about the rules of how law enforcement is allowed to engage when feeling threatened, per your assertions, because I want to show some video to you right now and ask what is the appropriate response for the police officers in this situation?
- [37:12]
David Pakman
And Note, this is 1-6-Riot video.
- [37:27]
Jake Tapper
Those are law enforcement officers being physically attacked. By this standard, would any of those officers being justified in shooting and killing the people causing them physical harm?
- [37:37]
Maria Bartiromo
Every single situation is going to rely on the situation those officers are on, that they know that when people are putting hands on them, when they are using weapons against them, when they are physically harming them, that they have the authority to arrest those individuals.
- [37:52]
Jake Tapper
The president hardened every single one of.
- [37:54]
Maria Bartiromo
Those people and make sure that they're getting justice for their actions going forward.
- [37:59]
Jake Tapper
President Trump pardoned every single one of.
- [38:00]
Maria Bartiromo
Those and every single one of these investigators allegations comes in the full context of the situation on the ground. And that's one thing that President Trump has been so focused on, is making sure that when we're out there, we don't.
- [38:11]
David Pakman
Speaker 1 she is repulsive. She is repulsive and disgusting in every way that you can imagine. And good for Jake Tapper for pulling that out. Now, here's a bonus. Tom Homan, who runs in some generic sense, Trump's whole deportation thing. He was asked by Kristen Welker in a different interview, you know, Christine Ohm said that Renee Goode Was a domestic terrorist, was that right? And check out Homan's answer.
- [38:36]
Maria Bartiromo
Stay on this question, which is about the way in which the woman who was shot and killed is being labeled as a domestic terrorism terrorist. Just to be clear, is anyone who protests ICE a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the administration?
- [38:52]
Tom Homan
I can't say that, you know, it's a case by case basis. But you know, if you look up definition of terrorism, is there violence, is there a threat of violence based on ideology that wants to change the way the government does what we do? Look at the definition of terrorism.
- [39:06]
Maria Bartiromo
Was Secretary Noem correct to label her a domestic terrorist?
- [39:10]
Tom Homan
Mr. Homan, look, we don't know what I don't know, Secretary Noem knows. What I know I can tell you is what they did is illegal. And if you look up his definition, definition of terrorism, it certainly could fall within that definition. If you look at definition.
- [39:24]
Maria Bartiromo
But you don't have evidence, pardon me, you don't have evidence that she's a domestic terrorist.
- [39:29]
Tom Homan
I don't know what secretary has that I don't. I'm not going to judge what the secretary says. But if you look up the definition of terrorism, it certainly can fall within that. But I think we all got to.
- [39:38]
David Pakman
Agree, obviously the question is which specific actions of Renee Good could fall under domestic terrorism? Is it simply being in the road for a few minutes? This we, we have to do away with any false notions that these are people you can talk any kind of sense into or who, who are going to be even remotely honest with us in any way. And the question now is can there be a full investigation of the shooting and if it is determined that the evidence points to wrongdoing by the officer, is there going to be a fair process for indicting, charging and bringing to justice in whatever way that needs to happen? I am not confident that that is going to happen. I'm curious you, do you think that we are going to get a proper investigation here? Let me know in the comments or at info@david pakman.com during these colder months it's great to have something warm right out of the oven to have at home. Our sponsor Wild Grain is the bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and fresh pastas. Already in about 25 minutes. Everything's made with simple ingredients, slow fermentation process, no shortcuts. The boxes are fully customizable including gluten free vegan and the new protein box. I've been loving the Wild Grain sourdough bread and the pretzel buns. Both are excellent. The sourdough is made with wild grains. Own starter takes days to develop with a light open crumb and crisp golden crust and a subtle tang that you want. The pretzel buns have a soft, airy interior and that traditional Bavarian style crust makes them great for sandwiches or burgers. I love having fresh bread on the table. It changes the feel of the whole meal. And wild grain makes it super easy. You just put it in the oven. Get $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life at wildgrain.com/pacman it's great to welcome back to the program Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who recently announced that he is indeed running for reelection in the state of Pennsylvania. Governor, appreciate your time. Good to see you.
- [41:51]
Josh Shapiro
It's great to be back with you. Thank you.
- [41:53]
David Pakman
You know, we are at a time where governors are now suddenly in the center of incredible and significant decisions that have to be made with regard to some of these incidents that we have been seeing. We saw some in Oregon, but earlier this week we saw the killing of this unarmed 37 year old woman, Renee Goode in Minneapolis. And one of the things that's happening, as we saw from hearing from Governor Tim Walz, is that governors as administrators of states are really in an important position not only with regard to questions of, as Governor Walz said, do we mobilize the National Guard potentially against federal ICE troops? What about investigating what took place where the FBI is now reportedly preventing state authorities from doing a full and thorough investigation? I mean, let me just put that scenario to you. What sorts of conversations are you having as governor of Pennsylvania about if, if you were to be in such a situation, how do you make sure that justice is served in these situations?
- [43:02]
Josh Shapiro
Yeah, you know, you asked great questions and maybe if I could take it in two parts, I think, first the preparation part and second, I think we should take a minute and talk about Minnesota and what's transpiring there, if that's okay. I'll kind of break that question up into first. Look, you know, we, we prepare all the time for emergencies and whether it's an emergency because of a natural disaster, an emergency of, God forbid, a shooting or a terrorist incident. And I've got a terrific team that is constantly preparing and I'm engaged in those tabletop exercises. I think what's unique about now is we're literally doing tabletop exercises about what happens if the federal government sends in troops against our will.
- [43:49]
David Pakman
Right.
- [43:49]
Josh Shapiro
And I mean, think about that for a minute that's what governors are being forced to grapple with. That's what we're working through. And obviously, I'm not going to get into the specifics of our plans. I can assure the good people of Pennsylvania that we have plans and that we are prepared and we hope it doesn't come to that. But we know what we're doing here. And I think what you're seeing play out in Minnesota with the horrific loss of life. And I mourn for her spouse and for her children, and I just mourn for the entire community that's having to deal with this trauma. I think what is clear is that as a result of federal action, they eviscerated the trust that has existed in those communities, the kind of trust that exists between law enforcement here in Pennsylvania and the communities that they police. And I think what's also true about what's happening in Minnesota, and I say this is the former chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, former Attorney General of Pennsylvania, is that by refusing to participate in the after action report in the investigation that is so crucially needed in that community, what they're doing is they're undermining trust. And I believe they're undermining the rule of law. Look, I've had to deal with investigations where law enforcement officials have pulled a trigger and either injured someone in the community or killed someone in the community. These are brutally difficult investigations. But the most important thing you have to do is follow all of the facts and coordinate law enforcement in sharing those facts, the federal, state and local level. And you've got to apply the law. You've got to apply the rule of law without fear and without favor.
- [45:36]
David Pakman
So you work, Governor, on one thing you said there, which I think is interesting to, to delve more deeply on, if we can. JD Vance said that there's just flat out absolute immunity here. You, as you say, you've worked on cases that are analogous to this in certain ways, although not exactly like this. Does that statement stand up legally in your experience?
- [45:57]
Josh Shapiro
No. J.D. vance is absolutely and completely full of shit. And J.D. vance is just afraid of his boss and he's a total weakling and sycophant. And so he goes out and just says this stuff because he thinks it pleases Donald Trump. No one's above the law, not any law enforcement official or member of the community. And JD Vance isn't above the law. And so look, I think what's important here is that there be a thorough investigation and if this law enforcement official should be charged because that's what the evidence calls for. Then they should be charged. And you should not be using the federal government to block access to this information. You have to have a thorough investigation. That is how you bring trust to a community. And David, I want to say this. I've had these investigations. They're incredibly difficult. And sometimes a law enforcement official is charged and sometimes they're not. What I guarantee you is in any scenario, someone is disappointed. But what the hope is, if you're doing this work honestly and with integrity, the hope is that people at least respect the process and respect that it came to a just outcome, even if they disagree with it by the federal government and JD Vance gaslighting the community, they're further eroding that trust. They're making it more difficult for this community to get answers and to heal. And I think that's a very dangerous thing for our communities.
- [47:23]
David Pakman
What's the jurisdictional battle that takes place in a situate situation like this where if, as we think ahead, we know that if this were to take a federal path that involves Pam Bondi, who does not seem like an unbiased arbiter, and that potentially also at the very far end of the path involves the pardon power of the presidency. On the other hand, if this were to go down state lines, it's a completely different scenario where at the end, at the end of the, of the rainbow, there is no pardon pot of gold from the President of the United States. What are the sort of arguments here jurisdictionally? Sure.
- [48:00]
Josh Shapiro
And look, I'm obviously not an expert on Minnesota law. I can tell you that here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I would presume it would follow a similar track in Minnesota. It would be up to the local prosecutor or potentially the state attorney general to follow through on this, to conduct the investigation. And typically, when you're leading the investigation, as I did as Attorney General, the first thing you do is bring law enforcement together from every level to share information, to make sure you've got everything on the table. You look at every angle of every piece of evidence, and then you take that evidence and you apply the law. In this case, it would be Minnesota law that would be the applicable law, and then that prosecutor would make a determination as to whether or not to charge. And so in this case, I would presume that Minnesota state authorities would retain that jurisdiction and would go forward in analyzing the evidence. It is made more difficult when the federal government isn't cooperating here. And J.D. vance made clear that they're not going to cooperate. And I think that that creates not only a problem in getting to the answers of what happened in this case, it creates more distrust in communities, not just in Minnesota, I would argue, but all across America, because people are watching this case. People here in Pennsylvania are watching this case and looking for answers. And this is the job of a prosecutor now to dig into it and get those answers. And the federal government is making it much harder.
- [49:34]
David Pakman
I want to talk a little bit about what's happening in Pennsylvania and your campaign. Pennsylvania is a very interesting state for a lot of reason. Have large cities, you have suburban areas. As you get out further and further west, the state starts looking more like other parts of the country that are very different from. From Philadelphia. Is there something that is palpably different now in 2026 in terms of the concerns for voters than what they were in 2024? So, like, I know that affordability is still a concern, but that's not a new concern in 2026. Is there anything that has changed as far as you understand the concerns of your residents?
- [50:12]
Josh Shapiro
I mean, look, I think Pennsylvania is a microcosm of America. We. We really are the ultimate swing state. That may be one of the few things that Democrats and Republicans still agree on. Right. I mean, and, and so I think when you look at Pennsylvania, you get a lot of answers for the rest of the country. I think what, what I've been struck by, and I. Look, you know me, I travel all across this commonwealth, rural, urban, suburban communities, spent a lot of time out in areas that, quite frankly, voted for Donald Trump or didn't vote for me maybe the first time around, because I'm a governor for all Pennsylvanians. What I'm hearing, yes, on issues like you point out, affordability is an important issue. There are a number of important issues that continue to rise to the top of people's minds. People are incredibly worried about the chaos and the cruelty and the. The corruption that's coming out of. Of D.C. i think that overlays a lot of this. There's a whole lot of people, though, that are also feeling that their vote last time, maybe for President Trump, was maybe the wrong vote, that it's led to higher prices, that it's led to more chaos in their communities. It's led to a level of instability, not just around the globe, but that they're feeling here at home. Our farmers, many of whom voted for me and many of whom voted for Donald Trump, are getting absolutely screwed by these tariffs. They're losing market share. Our small businesses that dot our main streets are really struggling. We're seeing more and more building trades, people who are absolutely wonderful. They're the backbone of our economy. Losing jobs in the energy sector because Donald Trump cut off a whole bunch of those clean energy, you know, investments that were being made here in Pennsylvania. So what I'm seeing is a lot of buyers remorse, a lot of people saying, you know what, this is not what I signed up for. And I'm trying to speak to them and meet them where they are and, you know, not cast judgment on why they voted the way they did last time, but show them a better way, show them a more positive and hopeful future and show them that what we're doing here in Pennsylvania by actually bringing people together is working on the issue.
- [52:21]
David Pakman
Of health insurance and health care premiums. I've told my audience as a self employed person, I buy a plan through a marketplace and it went up 25% from 2020, 25 to 2026. Same coverage, just 25% more expensive. Right. I'm not in the bucket of the people who got hit the worst. There are people whose premiums have doubled or even tripled in some cases. And I've read some of the stories of folks in Pennsylvania that, that are experiencing that. What can the governor and the state do about that issue, which flows down from what's happening federally? If, if people are in that position where their premiums have just doubled or tripled, what, what is it even possible for you to do?
- [53:03]
Josh Shapiro
Yeah, we're seeing the average Pennsylvanian who gets their health care through the Affordable Care Act. We're seeing their premiums double, going from about 180 bucks to about 100, about 360 bucks. And we're just seeing really a tragic amount of people drop their health insurance as the calendar went from 2025 to 2026 and folks had to re up for the new year because of these rising prices. This is really, really concerning. You know, look, I, I said at the time when Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania, you know, acted really as the deciding vote to pass that budget bill in D.C. and viscerate and gut Medicaid and then not come back and expand the Affordable Care act subsidies or extend, I should say, the Affordable Care act subsidies. I said that the state government would not be able to fill that gap, that this is a crisis of Donald Trump and congressional Republicans doing. States don't have the dollars to be able to make this up. And so it is so tragic for me to see more and more Pennsylvanians lose their health insurance, whether because of Medicaid cuts or because of an unwillingness by Trump and the Republicans in D.C. to extend these Affordable Care act subsidies, states can't make up the difference. And more and more Americans are being hurt because the policies coming out of.
- [54:28]
David Pakman
D.C. so is, can you make up any of the gap or is it quite literally you have to lobby for, for the federal government to make a change to the vote that, that to the decision that's been made?
- [54:39]
Josh Shapiro
I mean, the federal government cut billions of dollars out of state budgets, and states don't have the ability to make up that delta to make up that difference. And so what you're seeing is the cruelty of these policies in DC now actually coming sadly to fruition. And let's not forget, why did they cut health care for millions of Americans to give a tax cut to people who frankly didn't need it? And so I think that is demonstrating yet again that Donald Trump and J.D. vance are screwing over the very people that helped put them in a position of power, whether it's our farmers because of our tariffs or whether it's because of a whole lot of Pennsylvanians who voted for Trump who are now losing access to health care because of his policies of giving a tax cut to those who are at the highest income brackets.
- [55:30]
David Pakman
Governor, last thing I want to ask you about, thinking more generally about the Democratic Party. There are a lot of complaints right now about what many voters see as kind of outdated and staid leadership in the party nationally and even within states, as we think about 2026 and also 2028. Do you like the Democratic bench right now? Do you think there are a lot of people that would make good presidential nominees in 2028, for example, or for fulfilling other office? Do you think it is time for there to be a sort of leadership transition in the party? How are you feeling about it in general?
- [56:06]
Josh Shapiro
Well, look, I think we've got some extraordinary leaders in the Democratic Party. Know, folks that I, I talk to all the time, I look to for, you know, inspiration and people who I think are leading their states and, and their communities quite well. I would just suggest, though, we don't have the luxury right now of thinking about 2028. We got to focus on these midterms. This is an opportunity for all of us to come together and win the U.S. house of Representatives. Hold on to more than 30. We have more than 30 governor's races across the country, and we know how pivotal governors are. I think this is a moment where we've got to get stuff done for the people in our respective states and show people the government can be a force for good in their lives to beat back some of that cynicism, to stop the cruelty coming out of D.C. and so I and many others are laser focused on these midterms and focusing on that. I know that there's a broader conversation about, hey, what the Democratic Party get wrong in the last presidential election. I'm going to leave that to others. I got to focus every day on doing my job, on getting stuff done every single day for my community. And to me, the best politics are good policies, good outcomes for people and that's what we're focused on. So to answer your question directly, I'm laser focused on these midterms. It is unbelievably important for all of us around the country to be doing the same. We don't have the luxury of being able to think too far down the road, number one. And number two, I am inspired by the leaders we have in the Democratic Party. We have a number of people, by the way, folks who get talked about in the media every day and some folks who are kind of below the radar who are just running their communities, running their cities, their towns, their states really, really well and effectively. And I think they're inspiring and I'm excited for more and more of them to get notice as we go forward here.
- [57:57]
David Pakman
So it sounds like you're saying you are confident in the current democratic leadership in D.C. at least as far as this coming election cycle.
- [58:05]
Josh Shapiro
I'm confident. You, you asked me a different question. You asked me about the leaders in, in the Democratic Party and this is.
- [58:12]
David Pakman
A follow up now I think.
- [58:13]
Josh Shapiro
Okay, look, I mean, I think we've got to win the US House of Representatives and we've got a real shot to be able to do that. And here in Pennsylvania we've got four competitive congressional races.
- [58:25]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [58:25]
Josh Shapiro
And if you think about all the redistricting stuff that's going on around the country, I'm not an expert on this but you know, the math could kind of math out on that. Right. It could end up that they all sort of cancel each other out. You're more of an expert on that than I. So please, if I'm getting the numbers wrong, let me know. And so then it's going to come down to just good old fashioned elections in tough swing districts. Yeah, we got four of them here in Pennsylvania and that is going to be, I believe, the determining factor in these midterms. That's why I am focused on that and I'm focused on running these races locally here in Pennsylvania. I Don't take my cues from Washington, D.C. i take my cues from Washington County, Pennsylvania and places all across our commonwealth. And that's what I'm going to continue to do.
- [59:08]
David Pakman
We've been speaking with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, now running for reelection. Governor, always appreciate your time. Thank you.
- [59:15]
Josh Shapiro
Great to be with you. Thank you.
- [59:17]
David Pakman
The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member. @join pacman.com you'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com Donald Trump spoke to reporters just hours ago on Air Force One. He did it flanked by his completely subservient cult follower like press Secretary Caroline Levitt, who would smile or look serious depending on what sort of editorializing she wanted to do of the questions that were asked. And I've got to tell you, I don't think Trump can really do this anymore. I don't know if it's that he's out of energy, he's out of attention span, he's declining, he's tired, he's uninterested, he's bored. I don't know what it is. It's probably some combination of all of these things. Trump was asked, do you believe deadly force was necessary in the altercation between the ICE officer and the now deceased Renee Good? And Trump says, well, it was very disrespectful of law enforcement, what she was doing.
- [60:29]
Maria Bartiromo
You believe that deadly force is necessary after watching all the footage of the days of past? What's your assessment there?
- [60:35]
Donald Trump
It was highly disrespectful of law enforcement. The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement. You saw that they were, were harassing that were following for days and for hours. And I think frankly they're professional agitators and I'd like to find out, and we are going to find out who's paying for it with their brand new signs and all the different things. But these are professional agitators and law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff. That woman and what her friend and what their other friends were doing to law enforcement, not just ice, Right.
- [61:17]
David Pakman
Is being disrespectful to law enforcement behavior that justifies getting killed. Because notice how now that all the video is out, the video from behind the video from the officer's cell phone, it's much harder to say she was about to run him over. She was angry, she was erratic, she was furious. She said, I'm not mad at you, dude. And then she turns the wheels and goes to drive away, at which point she got shot. And so Trump is now. Well, it's very disrespectful. Very disrespectful. And I don't know where in the law it says that that is an appropriate circumstance. Disrespect to kill a woman seems weird. Some are saying it's actually impeachable for Trump to even suggest such a thing. The administration has talked about absolute immunity. The officer has absolute immunity. Trump was asked, what do you mean by that? And Trump goes, well, the woman was very violent.
- [62:17]
Donald Trump
You really need title, as they say.
- [62:18]
Maria Bartiromo
In the Rosa Minneapolis, your administration has advocated for absolute immunity for the ICE officer who shot Renee.
- [62:26]
Josh Shapiro
Good.
- [62:28]
Maria Bartiromo
How do you define absolute immunity?
- [62:30]
Josh Shapiro
What does that mean?
- [62:31]
Donald Trump
Everyone seen it, and the woman was very violent.
- [62:34]
David Pakman
She's noticed that there was nothing in any of the videos suggesting that this was a violent woman.
- [62:39]
Donald Trump
You know, very radical person, very sad what happened. Her friend was very radical. You know, go drive immunity.
- [62:47]
Maria Bartiromo
How would you define that?
- [62:48]
David Pakman
Get out of here. Drive away. Maybe it was bad advice. You know, like you could say her, her. I guess this is. Was her. Her wife who was saying, drive, baby, drive. Maybe it was bad advice, but it's radical. It's a rat. It's a radical thing to say.
- [63:04]
Donald Trump
Well, I'm going to let the people define it, but immunity, you know what immunity notices means as well as I do. Can't be treating law enforcement that way, whether it's ICE or Border Patrol or our police and men and women. You can't. You can't do that.
- [63:20]
David Pakman
All right, so Trump clearly no idea what happened and a moral compass that is like, spinning around like crazy, like it would at the North Pole. Trump then asked about his plan to get oil companies in to rebuild Venezuela and extract the oil. And one of the funny things that's going on is a lot of these companies don't really want anything to do with it because they know it's going to be a total quagmire. And so Trump now has to reverse the game and go, I might keep some of these companies out. What he really means is some of these companies don't seem stupid enough to get involved in this quagmire.
- [63:59]
Maria Bartiromo
How many oil companies make commitments to the United States after your meeting on Friday, sir, which has Exxon.
- [64:05]
Donald Trump
I don't want to say no, I didn't like Exxon. Response. You know, we have so many that want it. I'd probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn't like their response.
- [64:15]
David Pakman
Yeah, well, you know, it's not clear Exxon wants anything to do with it. This is the. You don't want it. Well, I'm not letting you have it. It's a very, you know, it's like a poop in the sandbox when it's time to go home kind of thing. The thing you would expect from a toddler. Trump asked if the House and Senate passed the extensions to the Affordable Care act subsidies, would you still veto it?
- [64:34]
Maria Bartiromo
Mr. President, the House has a re. Extension of the ACA is in the Senate. If it passed the Senate, would you veto it or about.
- [64:42]
Donald Trump
I might, Yeah.
- [64:45]
David Pakman
I might, yeah. Even if the House and Senate agreed on a way to extend these subsidies and save people from the crushing premium increases under which they are now being destroyed in 2026 because you did nothing about it and you don't give a dip, would you veto it? I might, yeah. Yeah. That's a. That's something I might. I might do. Trump asked, have you made a tangible offer to buy Greenland? Have you made an actual offer to Denmark to buy.
- [65:16]
Donald Trump
I consider that one quarter of a war.
- [65:18]
Maria Bartiromo
When was the last time you made a tangible offer to Greenland yet?
- [65:21]
Josh Shapiro
Have you made an actual offer to Denmark?
- [65:23]
Donald Trump
I haven't done that, but Greenland should make the deal, because Greenland does not want to see Russia or China take over. They don't go there. It's very far away from Greenland and Greenland. Basically, their defense is two dog sleds. Do you know this? You know what their defense is? Two dog sleds. In the meantime, you have Russian destroyers and submarines and China destroyers and submarines all over the place. We're not going to let that happen. If it affects NATO and then it affects them, but, you know, they need us much more than we need them. I will tell you.
- [65:57]
David Pakman
There you go. Yeah, whatever. I mean, maybe I will. And it's far from Denmark to Greenland, and therefore, I mean, like, maybe I'll buy it. Maybe I'll take it. I don't know. Okay. Then Trump dumps an authoritarian classic about stealing Greenland. If we don't take it, Russia might take it, China might take it. That is an authoritarian classic. If I don't steal it, someone else would.
- [66:21]
Donald Trump
Anyway, that's a war that should have never happened with Ukraine.
- [66:25]
Maria Bartiromo
The UK and Germany are discussing plans for a joint NATO mission to protect Arctic security in Greenland. Does that change your calculus at all?
- [66:35]
Donald Trump
No, look, we're talking about acquiring, not leasing, not having a short term. We're talking about acquiring. And, and if we don't do it, Russia or China will, and that's not going to happen when I'm president.
- [66:49]
Maria Bartiromo
Are you going to increase the amount of military bases on Greenland in the meantime?
- [66:52]
Donald Trump
We have bases.
- [66:53]
David Pakman
So this is an authoritarian classic justifying what you are going to do, because if you didn't, someone else would do it anyway and wouldn't it be better if it was us? And then finally, Trump says if credit card companies don't agree to cap interest rates at 10%, then they will be in violation of the law. The only problem is there is no such law.
- [67:17]
Donald Trump
With no help from the Fed, because we have a total stiff.
- [67:23]
Maria Bartiromo
Announcement on the credit. The cap on credit card interest rate.
- [67:26]
Donald Trump
Yeah.
- [67:27]
David Pakman
Friday.
- [67:28]
Maria Bartiromo
What happens if the credit card companies don't comply by the January date?
- [67:32]
Donald Trump
Well, then they, then they're in violation of the law. Very severe things. No, I want a cap on credit card interest rates because, you know, some of them are 28, almost 30%. And that people don't know they're paying 30%. The people out there, you know, they're working and they have no idea that they're paying 30%.
- [67:53]
David Pakman
All right, so anyway, this is an issue. Credit card rates are definitely an issue. But Trump just goes too far. Oh, they'll be in violation of the law. What law? There is no such law. Guys, I don't think Trump knows what's going on anymore. I don't think he can do it. And in some weird way, I think losing the house in November might end up being a blessing for this guy because then he doesn't really have to do anything anymore, which he doesn't want to anyway. It's a sad thing, but I think getting the. Having the keys taken away, which partially one key would be taken away if they lose the house, I think it might be, for Trump, a blessing in disguise. This one really makes me proud because it's our friend Jake Auchincloss. Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss appeared with Peter Doocy on Fox News. They were arguing about the killing of Renee Goode by this ICE officer in Minneapolis. I'm going to present it without much of an intro because Aachen Kloss does a really, just an excellent job of dismantling Peter Doochy. Excuse me, Doocy.
- [68:51]
Jake Auchincloss
So you are putting all the onus on the ICE officer. What about on Renee?
- [68:56]
Donald Trump
Good.
- [68:56]
Jake Auchincloss
She's behind the wheel of a vehicle. I've been pulled over by a Car. I assume that by a cop. Rather, I assume that if I start to drive forward, I might. That that that's against the law and they might take action to stop me. Is that completely off base? This is entirely the fault of the ICE officer. I put put more plainly, to be clear.
- [69:19]
Peter Doocy
So, Peter, what you're saying is just so I can understand what you are saying is if you get pulled over on the side of a highway, for example, and you know, the officer grabs your door and attempts to pries it open and is filming you with another officer on the other side of the car, and your car moves forward away from the officers, you think your family would be okay if you then got shot in the face three times?
- [69:41]
David Pakman
Of course, no.
- [69:43]
Jake Auchincloss
But I would think that I'm disobeying a law enforcement officer who's giving me an order while they pull me over for something. I think the point here, the question is, isn't there a better way for progressives who are upset with ICE policy to protest than getting up in their grill, possibly from behind the wheel of a car? Would you agree that that is not the best way?
- [70:04]
Peter Doocy
Again, Peter, you're victim blaming here, not victim blaming.
- [70:07]
Jake Auchincloss
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
- [70:09]
Peter Doocy
No law enforcement officer, no.
- [70:10]
Jake Auchincloss
No Congress, no law enforcement. Nobody's a victim.
- [70:13]
Peter Doocy
Should be doxing.
- [70:14]
Jake Auchincloss
Nobody is victim blaming. About two minutes ago, I heard Director.
- [70:19]
Peter Doocy
Lyon say that the civilian was at fault for being involved in that operation.
- [70:22]
David Pakman
They're literally blaming the victim. That's exactly what they're doing. She's a domestic terrorist radical. Her wife gave her the wrong information and was agitating, and she was about to run someone over. She deserved that. She's the she. She is the one who is at fault here, even though she is the one who is the victim.
- [70:38]
Peter Doocy
To be clear here, you have a badge, you have a gun. You are wearing a mask. You are accountable for everything that happens or fails to happen in that operation. No law enforcement officer should be accosted or harassed or assaulted, and there should be penalties of law for so doing. And no US Citizen should be afraid of their own government. And that is what ICE has created. They have stopped being an arm of the law, and they have started being an instrument.
- [71:00]
David Pakman
Look at Deucey's ridiculous smirk there. And Jake just was pounding and pounding and pounding. Him here is once again him setting expectations, which is, if you're the one paid to have the gun and keep the peace, supposedly you need to be held to certain standards. That's not crazy.
- [71:19]
Jake Auchincloss
She did not make every effort possible. To avoid the ICE officer who is standing in front of the car. Are you saying that a car cannot be.
- [71:30]
David Pakman
Remember that standing in front of the car is not what the officer is supposed to be doing.
- [71:34]
Jake Auchincloss
This is a weapon.
- [71:36]
Peter Doocy
Of course a car can be used as a weapon. What I am saying is when you have a badge and a gun and you are interacting with a US Citizen who has committed no crime, the burnout, the onus of responsibility is on you to exercise good judgment and to use that weapon only as an absolute last resort. And nobody watching that video will buy the argument from that ICE agent that he had no other resort other than to shoot her in the face.
- [72:03]
David Pakman
It is impossible to come away from the video evidence and say the officer really had no choice. It was a last resort situation and hopefully that is something that is kept in mind as the investigation carries forward. Now on the Bonus show today, producer Pat is back. We'll be talking about Vivek Ramaswamy stepping away from social media. We will talk about how little training ICE Academy is now providing to new recruits and the scandal over Senator Mark Kelly's retirement pay. All of that and more on the Bonus Show. You can sign up instantly at Join Pacman Dotcom and I will also remind you that you can get on my newsletter and Then on the 20th of this month you'll be notified how to avail yourself of our biggest membership discount of the year. Just get on my newsletter. You can email info at davidpakman. Com if you'd like to be added to it.