A (1:30)

Donald Trump thinks he is getting away with it and we are going to show you exactly how this administration is bearing the Epstein files. It's not just heavy redactions. It's documents disappearing, reappearing, photos being pulled and the biggest lack of transparency we've maybe ever seen. And it gets worse. And at turning points. AM Fest MAGA melting down in real time. The MAGA civil war explodes. JD Vance, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Meghan Kelly. It is real friendly fire for them. And then we will go to Trump's weird rally because what's he running for in North Carolina? And the audience started to realize that something is very wrong. Slurring and rambling and bizarre tangents and still claiming to do really well on cognitive tests. Plus a 60 minutes disaster under Bari Weiss, A fully reported, vetted and confirmed investigation into Trump's deportations and torture allegations pulled at the last minute only because somebody didn't like it. Finally, Donald Trump's own economic adviser walks straight into a trap on tariffs and accidentally admits the truth that they have been lying about for months, which is that Americans pay the tariffs. It is all today. We're calling it the flu show. The flu is in my house. I believe I have it right now. What a day. Well, they are trying to ignore the law and bury the Epstein files. Trump thinks he's going to get away with it. I wouldn't be here with the flu like I am today if I was OK letting it happen. Don't worry. It's very, very mild. Fortunately, Baruch Hashem, it's a very mild case. Ladies and gentlemen, perfect score on the flu. Listen, here is what's going on. After what we have seen for the last several months and Friday with the supposed release of the Epstein files, I can understand why Trump and his administration believe that they are going to get away with this. They finally, quote, released the, quote, Epstein files after years of promises about transparency and then walking it back. I guess it wasn't optional in the sense that Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It required disclosure with only very limited and narrow redactions. Victims, the names of minors, people actively under investigation. That's it. And yet what we got is a complete and total farce. Page after page blacked out, documents rendered useless from redactions. And then very quietly, files started disappearing from the Department of Justice website altogether. No explanation, no notice, just gone. That is not transparency. It is evidence, control and mitigation. And, and it gets even worse because while the DOJ was wiping documents and redacting names that legally should not have been redacted, the White House was actively pushing misleading material into the public conversation. The deputy press secretary posted a photo falsely implying that Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson and Diana Ross were pictured with Epstein victims when the image was actually a publicly available fundraiser photo showing Jackson's and Ross's own children. This was not a mistake. I warned everybody two weeks ago. We've got to be really careful with what is actually part of these files and what is real and what is not. Now we just, I, I'm looking for the simplest and plainest possible language to explain what's going on. On the one hand, legally mandated documents are being over, redacted, withheld or removed entirely. That's, that's on the One hand. On the other hand, we have misleading and outright false material being amplified to redirect attention to political opponents. This is strategy. It's not happening out of incompetence, it's happening out of malice. I often say, don't attribute to malice that which could be explained by incompetence. I don't have evidence that this is incompetence in this particular case. Now, notice something else. Trump's name, someone who is not a victim. Trump is not a victim. And Trump, I guess, is not under investigation. From what we've been told, his name is redacted in places where others are not. And meanwhile, figures that Trump wants to point at are left visible. They are photographed, they are waved around in press briefings. Selective disclosure, narrative laundering is what they are doing now. Trump is betting on the same thing he always bets on. Exhaustion, a fire hose of distraction and confusion. He's betting people will argue about personalities instead of process. He's betting nobody's really going to remain focused on this to figure out, wait a second, he signed the law, but then his own DOJ is violating it by not actually being transparent with the files. But the maybe uncomfortable truth is that if the full story is ever going to come out, it's probably going to have to happen through a leak. What I mean by that is, let me put it a different way. If we were ever going to get the full Epstein files through official channels, I think we'd have them right now. And if you look at history, it kind of tells us how this goes. The Pentagon Papers didn't surface because the government changed its mind. NSA surveillance didn't come out because officials suddenly said, hey, we should really embrace honesty and just be upfront about what we're doing. They came out because someone inside decided that the COVID up was worse than the exposure. And I believe at this point that the only way we get the full Epstein files is if someone leaks them. Because right now Trump believes he's buried it all and he thinks it's buried deeply enough that it's going to be, that it's not going to come out. And if the files do stay hidden and the redactions stand and the missing documents are never explained, Trump will end up being right. So we cannot allow that. We can't allow it because of politics. We can't allow it because it's what Donald Trump wants. If this works and they are able to suppress the full files, if a president can legally be, in theory, Trump's been legally forced to release it. And if he can still not do it, then it means that the law is optional, accountability is a mere preference, and we are in real trouble. So I believe that that is the real scandal that is at play here. And we are going to delve into some of the specifics of individual images that were gone and then put back. Sometimes the details do matter. There's no question the details can inform our broader understanding. But the big picture here is Trump is increasingly confident that he's gotten away with this, and we need to make sure that he doesn't. All right. More than a dozen files from the Justice Department's Epstein files appear to have mysteriously vanished, including a photograph showing Donald Trump. One of those was then reinstated. The explanation for its removal didn't make any sense. The explanation for its reinstatement didn't make any sense. None of it makes any sense. Now, the disappearance of some of these images and one in particular that we're going to look at happened really within hours of the supposed disclosure of the files. And initially, there was neither an explanation from the government nor was there even a notification to the public. People were searching around the files on the DOJ's website, and certain ones disappeared. Now, these were initially available. There is a photo of Trump alongside Epstein, Melania and Ghislaine Maxwell, and then a bunch of other ones. So I'm going to give you one example. Here is a zoomed out picture that was initially part of the disclosure. And you see that it is a desk with an open drawer. There are pictures in frames on the desk and there are pictures in and out of frames in the desk drawer. And then when you zoom in to the bottom left of the image, you see that there is a picture here of Donald Trump apparently with four scantily clad women. Then above that, partially obscured, is the picture where you see Trump on the left, then Melania, Jeffrey Epstein's, the tip of his gray hair is visible. And then Ghislaine Maxwell. That is not a very good picture for Donald Trump, who wants to claim he knows nothing about anything and didn't know Epstein and all of it. So that was removed. Kristen Welker asked Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, why was it taken down?

F (10:16)

I want to follow up with you on what you just said. You were referencing the 15 files released Friday they disappeared DOJ's website yesterday, including this photo of what looks like a desk with a drawer open containing photos of Donald Trump. Just to be very clear, to put a fine point on it, why were these files taken down? You're saying it was at the Direction of a judge.

D (10:41)

Well, you. You can see in that photo, there's photographs of women. And so we learned after releasing that photograph that there were concerns about those, about those women and the fact that we had put that photo up.

A (10:52)

So we. Now, the natural question is, based on the redaction criteria, photos of women are not part of the redaction criteria. If there are victims or underage individuals, then. But is that the case? Well, let's see what he says.

D (11:09)

Pulled that photo down. It has nothing to do with President Trump. There are dozens of photos of President Trump already released to the public. Seeing him with Mr. Epstein, he has said that in the 90s and early 2000s, he socialized with him. So the absurdity of us pulling down a photo, a single photo, because President Trump was in it is laughable. And the fact that everybody's trying to act like that's the case is a reflection of their true motivation. But. But the reality is anybody, any victim, any victim's lawyers, any victim rights group can.

A (11:42)

But then the question is, is it because they are victims, reach out to.

D (11:44)

Us and say, hey, Department of Justice, there's. There's a document, there's a photo. There's something within the Epstein files that identifies me. And we will then, of course, pull that off and investigate.

F (11:56)

Are you saying that one or more of the women in one of the photos or several of the photos is a victim or a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein, and that's why you took those files down and will they be put back up?

D (12:12)

No, that's not, that's not what I'm saying.

A (12:14)

Well, then what is the criteria for which that was removed? It's. If there's only a couple explanations here, we took it down despite it not meeting the redaction criteria because we wanted to, or we took it down because it did meet the redaction criteria, in which case, you have to explain to us which of the criteria it met.

D (12:33)

Of course, if we knew that, if we had, if we believe that that photograph contained a survivor, we wouldn't have put it up in the first place without redacting of faces. But notwithstanding what we believe, we don't have perfect information. And so when. When we hear from victims rights groups about this type of photograph, we pull it down and investigate. We're still investigating that photo. The photo will go back up.

A (12:56)

And needless to say, the photo did eventually go back up. The explanation from Blanche really not sounding good. And they are being here less transparent in the full release than they were before. I mean, it's. It's sort of a sick irony that when they finally, quote, complied with the Release act, they are less transparent in their formal release than in the documents that have been put out before. I'll give you an example. Up on the screen on the left is an Epstein document that the DOJ released last year. Okay. This is the version released last year. On the right is the version released Friday. This, this is the same thing. The one released Friday is more redacted than the one that was previously released. So they are being less transparent here than they were when they were not officially and formally under the rule of law and the mandate based on congressionally passed law. They are being less transparent now. Now here is a bonus clip. And this is really ugly stuff. While Todd Blanche was being interviewed by Kristen Welker, she asked again, why was Ghislaine Maxwell moved to a cushier prison just days after you interviewed her? And Blanche's answer leaves a little bit to be desired.

F (14:17)

Warren, we're almost out of time. I do want to ask you about Ghislaine Maxwell, who was of course convicted in 2021 for her role in helping Jeffrey Epstein try traffic his victims. In July, you interviewed her in Florida where she was serving a 20 year sentence in federal prison. Just a week later, Maxwell was moved to a more permissive prison camp in Texas. Why was she moved just days after you interviewed her, Mr. Blanch?

D (14:46)

So that's a Bureau of Prison Security issue that, that I will not talk about.

C (14:51)

Did you.

A (14:51)

Oh, so it has nothing to do with him, right?

F (14:53)

Have anything to do with it? Did you have anything to do with it?

D (14:59)

Let me finish. First of all, I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons. So every decision that they make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to. But just let me, let me talk about the security issue. At the time that I met Ms. Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity towards her and the institution she was in. She was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her Life. So the BoP is not only responsible for putting people in jail and making sure they stay in jail, but also for their safety. And so, so she was moved. She is in federal prison. She was in federal prison before. She's in federal prison now.

B (15:35)

She's doing all right.

A (15:36)

And of course that ignores that she was put in a much cushier situation with more privileges. The timing of it, of course, is extraordinarily suspicious. But the funny part is he goes, listen, that has to do with Bureau of Prisons. Ok, I'm not going to speak to that. Oh, but did you have anything to do with it? Well, I'm ultimately the one responsible for every decision that they make. Ok, so then that's why we're asking you about it. It all stinks to high heaven. It stinks to high heaven. And at this point, to reiterate, I think the only way we get the full files is if somebody leaks them. Let me know what you think. The David Pakman Show Gear store is up and running. Hundreds of items just pouring out. Check it out@store.david pakman.com all right, so we all know Alexa listens to us, recommends products based on our conversations. Metta retargets us based on our browsing and engagement history. Have you wondered what Chat GPT and Claude are up to with your conversations? We feed so much of our information to these AI chat bots. Thoughts, dreams, sensitive questions, business ideas. They take the information, tie it to your identity and they can sell that to third parties and governments. Chat GPT has the former director of the NSA on their board right now. That doesn't feel awesome. It took us a long time to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data. We don't have to make the same mistake with AI. And that's why I've started using Venice AI, our sponsor. Venice is a generative AI platform that is completely private and permissionless. They don't spy on you, Venice. I won't censor the AI. They have a safe mode which you can turn off for both text and image generation. Messages are encrypted. Your conversation history is only stored on your browser. I love the pro plan because I get upgraded features like uploading files, unlimited text prompts. Check it out if you want to use AI without censorship or fear of handing over your most intimate thoughts to a corporation or the government. Go to Venice AI/pacman and use code PACMAN to get 20% off their pro plan. The link is in the description. The David Pakman show remains an audience supported program. David Pakman show memberships make great holiday gifts. Check that this is a gift box when checking out. Also a bunch of the stuff. The hats, the shirts, the coffee mugs. The Obama T shirts on our store also make great gifts. Check it out at store.david pakman.com Turning Point USA held its first AM Fest post, the Assassination of Charlie Kirk over the weekend and it was completely off the rails. Humiliating moments, Freudian slips and slides, the Civil War, infighting, attacks of all different kinds. Why do we on the left care about this? Well, if the right is in complete and total shambles as to what their movement stands for and what it is all about. It's an opportunity for the left. Notice that I'm not saying it means that the left now is. Is able to win or will take the house in 26. It's an opportunity. The left known for squandering opportunities. So there's not a guarantee of anything. Let's look at some of the moments. Nicki Minaj, the entertainer, artist. Well, I guess like singer, musical performer. Nicki Minaj spoke at the event. Reports are that she was paid to appear. She wasn't just appearing out of her own goodness, but people get paid to appear places all the time. She did something stunning, which is while on stage with Charlie Kirk's widow, she referred to J.D. vance as the assassin and then realized, oh, my God, I'm talking to the widow of a man who was assassinated just months ago. She gets awkward. It gets awkward. One of the strangest moments of any public event that I have maybe ever seen.

C (19:54)

And what do you think about for young men? For young men and for young men, don't be new scum. Yes. See, dear young men, you have amazing role models like our handsome, dashing president, and you have amazing role models like the assassin JD Vance, our vice president. And when I say that, oh.

D (20:37)

Oh.

A (20:37)

My God.

C (20:39)

I trust me, there's nothing new under the sun that I have not heard. So you're fine. Yes, we did.

B (20:51)

I love you.

A (20:56)

I don't know that I've ever seen something more awkward other than maybe this clip, which is maybe the best moment of the entire event, where Erica Kirk describes her husband as a grifter and then realizes that that's not the words she was searching for.

C (21:14)

Despite the devastating loss of Charlie Kirk, my incredible husband at uvu, Caleb has persisted with the same grift. Excuse me, Gift, grit. It has been a long day.

A (21:30)

Right?

C (21:30)

Trust me, you're not a grifter, honey.

A (21:32)

No, no, no. No grifters in sight. Can't find a grifter no matter where you look there. Huh? All right, so Vice President J.D. vance spoke. Vice President J.D. vance clearly given a prominent role, and he is being really made the heir apparent to Maga. Erica Kirk has already said she wants J 2028. Here is JD Vance with the incredibly patriotic and inspiring declaration that white people no longer have to apologize for being white anymore.

G (22:06)

In the United States of America, you don't have to apologize for being white anymore.

A (22:13)

Now, does anybody remember Apologia for being white? I struggle to remember that And I wonder whether JD Vance's non white wife liked that one. I guess Susie Wiles in the Vanity Fair piece was right about J.D. vance being a conspiracy theorist. Because here is J.D. explaining his actions after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

G (22:43)

I'm going to tell you something I haven't talked about publicly before. But in the days after Charlie's death, I struggled a great deal. I'm sure many of you did too. I remember watching every video of the assassination, looking for clues, trying to understand what happened. I try to hide my friend and that terrible bullet hitting him. But I would try to look around. I stayed up all night for many nights in a row, researching every conspiracy theory going down every rabbit hole. When my lovely wife Fuchsia told me to come to bed, I told her I owed it to Charlie to try to uncover every stone. And so that's what I tried to do.

A (23:22)

And what did he find, I wonder?

G (23:25)

I remember I was consumed by this fear that Charlie's death wouldn't just deprive a family of their husband or of a good father, but that it would deny our movement of a great unifier of people and a great doer of great deeds. It's the only time I can remember my wife ever telling me that she was really worried about me. She told me it many times. But what saved me was not lying to myself, but accepting the reality of the fight that we're in.

A (23:58)

Yeah. Anyway, so I guess Susie Wiles was right. He is more or less a conspiracy theorist. Now the big news from Turning Points AM Festival is the civil war that is now fully broken out within maga. On one side. Honestly, I don't. I know Ben Shapiro is on one side. I know Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and maybe, maybe Megyn Kelly are on the other side. At minimum, I don't really know exactly where it all shakes out. But here is Ben Shapiro not wasting any time going right after Candace Owens. And remember, the more divided they are, the more the bigger the opportunity for us. Only if we are prepared to take advantage of.

E (24:40)

Because we have a duty to truth. We also have a duty to provide you with evidence of the claims that we make. Emotive accusations, conspiracy theories and just guessing questions that's lazy and stupid and misleading. None of them are a substitute for truth. None of them are a substitute for evidence. So when Candace Owens says, I don't know no, but I know that is retarded and we are all more retarded for having heard it.

A (25:11)

The audience is mostly cheering for whoever was speaking, right? So like when Ben Shapiro got up there and launched some attacks. The audience mostly cheered when the next day other people came up and attacked Ben Shapiro. There was mostly cheering. I think the audience is basically just being led. It seems like they will clap for just about anything at this event here has been attacking Tucker Carlson over his Nick Fuentes interview, which by the way is worthy of criticism, that's for sure.

E (25:34)

That actually get at the truth. If we agree with the guest, that's fine, but we should own it. So, for example, if you host a Hitler apologist, Nazi loving anti American piece of refuse like Nick Fuentes, You know the Nick Fuentes who said that the vice President of the United States is a quote, fat gay race traitor married to a jeet. The person who said that Charlie Kirk was a, quote, idiot. The person who said, and pardon my language here, it's his quote that he, quote, took Turning Point USA and it. And that's why it's filled with gripers. If you have that person on your show and you proceed to glaze him, you ought to own it.

A (26:21)

Delayed applause, but applause nonetheless.

E (26:30)

There is a reason that Charlie Kirk despised Nick Fuentes and indeed even chided Dinesh d' Souza for debating him. He knew that Nick Fuentes is an evil troll and that building him up is an act of moral imbecility. And that is precisely what Tucker Carlson did. He built Nick folks Fuentes up. And he ought to take responsibility for that, just as he ought to take responsibility for glazing pornographer and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate or for mainstreaming fake historian and pseudo Nazi apologist Daryl Cooper as America's best and most honest popular historian.

A (27:00)

All right, so there's Shapiro going after Owens and Shapiro going after Tucker. And another clip, he went after Steve Bannon. So then the next day, in comes Tucker Carlson and, and Tucker is not holding back. He goes after Ben Shapiro to question your motives.

G (27:15)

Actually.

A (27:15)

Why can't you answer the question? Why can't you answer that question? Why do you have to imply that some college kid is like some kind of Hitlerite or something? Because he's asking about an event like what? By the way, it is okay to ask questions. And I thought that was like the whole reason we were against the left. They're not going to force you to get up there and make ritual denunciations.

E (27:41)

Because this isn't my religion, it's politics.

A (27:45)

By the way, your politics do not trump my love for other people. Remember, my brother once said to question. Anyway, so there is Tucker Carlson, I guess, defending his interview of Nick Fuentes here is Megyn Kelly sort of like attacking everybody.

D (28:00)

So some response where it seemed like.

A (28:02)

That call was being co signed by by the new head of CBS News, Barry Weiss. And I wanted to know if you wanted to respond to that as well.

H (28:12)

So it's a similar situation with Barry. None of this is about them calling me out for anything I've said or haven't said or it's certainly not about Erica Kirk as Ben tried to make it sound last night. It's about Israel. Those two are very pro ardent Israel activists, which is fine, but they don't get to dictate how the rest of us feel about Israel or what we do with respect to our friends and our friends opinions on Israel. And I'll tell you, you know, Bari Weiss wants to couch herself as Erica's protector, Erica's defender. She's tweet retweeting the Ben speech saying anybody who doesn't call out conspiracy theorists is a coward. Erica Kirk barely knows Barry Weiss. Barry doesn't know anything about Erica. Barry Weiss has never been to a Turning point event. Do you guys remember her here standing up for what we believe in when Charlie was alive? I don't remember her standing up for our principles. I don't remember her defending Charlie the many times he was called a racist or an anti Semite. I really don't remember that at all. What I do remember is she had Erica Kerr come on one town hall in which Barry Weiss tried to play both super important VIP executive and super fabulous star anchor at her new network, CBS Pro Tip. Barry, that's no way to win friends at your new organization to try to steal all the hosting abilities of the on air talent. So good luck with that and what she did when she had Erica there.

A (29:42)

So Megyn Kelly goes on, the point is they're all attacking each other. Candace Owens then reacting to Ben Shapiro's attacks of her.

E (29:48)

When Candace Owens says I don't know no, but I know that is retarded and we are all more retarded for having heard it.

C (29:58)

Well Ben, when it comes to you and having worked with you, I just know. I just know the tactics that you use to feign popularity in the public. I just know the amount of money that you are willing to spend on advertising to inflate your numbers to make people think that you're popular. So yeah, I don't have to say we don't know. No. When it comes to you, you are such a joke of a little man. Your jealousy against Tucker, your ability to believe that you can keep manipulating the markets. You know, those kids booed you on that stage. The amount of messages I got from Turning Point USA people.

A (30:30)

All right, so Candace Owens going after Ben Shapiro. And then finally, and this is what's maybe the most interesting, Donald Trump Jr. When he spoke, he recognizes this is very bad for them. Whether he wants to be the nominee in 28 or it's JD Vance or whoever. Donald Trump Jr knows this is bad, and so he tries to tamp it down. What binds us together, what matters more than the disagreements is the ability to have that discourse. The real enemy, it's not Steve Bannon or Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro. It's the radical left that murdered Charlie and celebrated it on a daily, daily basis. This is actually astute. And even though I disagree with everything Junior says, it's astute in the sense of he realizes we need to scapegoat to our benefit. And if we get into this, Tucker versus Ben or whatever, we need a different scapegoat. And the scapegoat should be the left. So in a sense, he's kind of smart to do that. Finally, Donald Trump couldn't be bothered to show up. So Don Jr. Put him on speakerphone. Say, hi, Mr. President.

B (31:41)

Hello, everybody. Hello, everybody. Can you guys. Oh, I would. I want to be with you, but I'll be with you soon. And I just want to say that nobody did more for me than Charlie and there's nobody better than Erica.

A (31:58)

Yeah. So anyway, we don't even have to listen to it. Trump couldn't be bothered. He didn't go. And questions at the same time. Turning Point USA maybe bigger than ever. Turning Point USA may be diminishing in significance. The Civil War is on. It is real. The left has to figure out how to take advantage of it. Donald Trump was painfully struggling to speak during a rally that we don't even know why he did in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The audience seemingly realizing, I don't think this guy can do it anymore. First of all, a shockingly small venue. I'm going to play a clip here where you will see as Donald Trump talks in the camera pans around Trump really struggling now to get people to his rallies. Just a sort of like a sparse, just floor seating. And this is just pathetic and pales in comparison to the sorts of venues that Donald Trump was able to speak at previously. He just can't seem to draw a crowd anymore. Now, I want to call your attention to how unwell he looks and sounds here, not energizing the crowd in Fact, the crowd looking and clearly saying, wow, it's like the air has been let out of this guy.

B (33:10)

How about. How about that incident with that horrible monster that killed the young, beautiful girl from Ukraine? Animal. And to think we'll have in trials for years, and you'll get some nice liberal lawyer, and they'll say, oh, well, he had a bad day. Yeah, he had.

A (33:31)

I mean, just. Just completely out of energy, bad day.

B (33:33)

Slither through. We had men playing in women's sports, transgender for everybody, crime at record levels, the worst trade deals ever made. And our country was laughed at from all over the world. But they're not laughing anymore.

A (33:48)

Well, they're crying now, given what's going on in the White House. Now, what's fascinating is that even as Trump was, at moments, barely audible, completely lacking vitality in every way, he bragged numerous times about the really difficult brain injury tests that he took. He even slurred as he was saying how great his brain is working.

B (34:15)

First day in 28 days. These people are sick. That's why I've taken more physicals, because I think you have an obligation to, you know, report. And I hate when they put out false reports.

A (34:26)

So now, remember, we have no reason to believe Trump is getting all of these physicals because he wants to. The question we've been asking is, what is the real reason he's so regularly getting physicals and cognitive tests and mri.

B (34:40)

They put out a report that Donald Trump. So I took a lot of physicals, and I did something no other president's ever done. I took cognitive tests, because I know that. And by the way, not easy. You get to those last questions, those last 10, 15 questions. Yeah, those. Nobody on that stand could answer probably any of them. And I got him. I aced them. And no other president's taken a cock. Could you imagine sleepy Joe taking a cognitive test? I don't think you'd get the. You know, the first question is like, what is this? And they show a lion, a giraffe, a fish, and a hippopotamus.

D (35:20)

Right?

B (35:22)

And they say, which is the giraffe? So that's the only question. But what happens is it then gets harder? I don't think Joe would have gotten the first question right. He would say, right, I want the hippo.

A (35:39)

You know, as. As energetic and spirited as Trump is there, I struggle to believe that it is a great accomplishment to identify a giraffe. This is not trivial. You know, Trump has said it should be or is a crime to report on his health, on his physical and Cognitive decline. Trump then glitches as he talks about his perfect health. And the cloud claps that say, there's.

B (36:05)

Something wrong, but I like to do it, but I gave a perfect. I got it. I did. Perfect health. And they reported his health is perfect. And they interpret that. And the fake news interprets when the doctor says, he's got perfect health, when the doctor said, they go, what does he mean by perfect? There's something wrong with the President. But these people are sick. Now, that's a.

A (36:39)

Now, interestingly, in a rare moment of introspection, Trump says there will be a time when he is no longer at 100%.

B (36:45)

And the fake news interprets when the doctor says he's got perfect health, they go, what does he mean by perfect? There's something wrong with the press. These people are sick. Now, there will be a time when perhaps it won't be 100% true with all of us, right? And when that time comes, I will let you know about it. In fact, you'll probably find out about it just by watching.

A (37:10)

Well, we believe that that's now. That's why we're talking about it. In fact, it's sort of astute that, that he points that out. Maybe the strangest and most cringy moment. And if you're having, you know, your lunch or dinner right now or whatever, if you're digging into a meatball Parmesan right now, I'm going to warn you, this. This one's a little gross. It's Trump talking about Melania's undergarments in maybe the creepiest way I could imagine.

B (37:36)

I had these animals trying to attack me at Mar? A Lago. They went into my wife's closet. And I'll say this, number one is very bad, but it sounds a little strange. They looked at her drawers. You have draw, and then you have draw. They looked at both. And she's a very meticulous person, you know, like these people. Just like. She'd fit into your group very well. She'd be very happy with her. But everything is perfect. Her undergarments only is nice, sometimes referred to as panties are folded, perfect wrapped. They're like so perfect. I said, that's beautiful. You know, it's a part of the world you came from. Everything was perfect. No problem. Fold, fall, fold. I think that she steams them. Make sure, right? We came home. I wasn't there when the raid took place, a raid of a popular president, a former president. She opened the drawers, and it was not that way. They were a mess. It Was all over the place.

A (38:55)

Absolute nightmare fuel in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. All right, well, if you haven't been totally nauseated, you can go back to eating. These rallies are a really bad idea. I just don't think he can do it anymore. CBS's 60 Minutes pulled a fully reported, fully vetted investigative segment which was going to expose how the Trump administration sent migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador while detainees were describing torture, abuse, indefinite confinement. Not after it failed legal review did they pull it. Not after new facts emerged that made the reporting obsolete did they pull it. Not because of an error did they pull it. They pulled it hours before airtime because apparently somebody didn't like it. The segment was going to be called Inside Seekot. It had already been promoted. Teasers were live, press releases were sent. The reporting was done. The interviews were completed. Lawyers cleared it. Standards cleared it. It was ready to go. And then it reached one person, Barry Weiss, the new head of CBS News and under her new leadership. The segment was pulled at the last minute. The public explanation was needs additional reporting. And that explanation immediately fell apart because internal sources said to reporters there was no additional reporting that was needed. Sharon Alfonsi, the 60 Minutes correspondent, wrote to colleagues, this is not an editorial decision. This is a political decision. And she warned that if government refusal to comment becomes grounds to kill a story, then the administration can veto journalism. If any story about the administration can be killed because the administration simply doesn't comment on it, so you don't have their opinion in the piece, then the administration can now eliminate or prevent any reporting it doesn't like simply by saying no comment. And of course, she is correct. The story was not missing context. It wasn't missing facts. It wasn't missing legal review. What it was missing was permission. And Weiss reportedly insisted, we can't air the story without an on the record response from the Trump administration and suggested, let's bring in Stephen Miller to balance out the report. That would not balance the report. That would be capitulating. And the timing is really important here because we recently had CBS, his parent company, paying Donald Trump 16 million to settle that lawsuit that experts said Trump would have lost, but they opted not to even fight it. We now have Barry Weiss taking over CBS News under new ownership. And what's happening here is not subtle. The Trump administration is gaining control over media outlets, including cbs. Preemptive obedience. They didn't have to loudly say, if you air this, there will be consequences. Because they, by not commenting and by having Bari Weiss in there, got her to Say we're not going to run the story now. I think it's worth mentioning the substance of the story because at the end of the day, that's what this is really about. So had the story aired, we would have found that the Investigation done by 60 Minutes saw 75% of the men deported to seekot have no criminal record. Some were asylum seekers, some were sent there through an error. They were shackled, they were paraded for the cameras. They disappeared into one of the most brutal prisons in this hemisphere. Zero due process, no timeline for release. 60 minutes was created to air this type of story and they killed it, not because it was wrong, but because it was inconvenient. And this is the most dangerous kind of media failure. Not screaming propaganda, not the Fox News sort of nonsense. It's just the story's gone. You don't learn about it because they got rid of it because of standards and context and needs more reporting. When a single editor can just show up and flip one switch and the investigation disappears just hours before it was scheduled to air, it's no longer journalism. It's propaganda. It's a kill switch. And if this is the balance that Barry Weiss is now bringing to CBS News, it's not just 60 Minutes that has a problem here. It is all of CBS News and it is surrendering. And that seems to be exactly what they are doing. 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 today we're going to be speaking with Jocelyn Benson, who is the Michigan Secretary of State seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor of Michigan. Really great to have you on today. I appreciate your time.

C (43:51)

Thanks, David. Thanks for having me. Looking forward to the conversation.

A (43:55)

So I think I am as well because Michigan is a really interesting state in that, you know, sometimes this may be a stereotype, sometimes I think that Michigan Democratic voters are more representative of where the average of the party is than maybe what we see on Twitter or Reddit. And I think, you know, prior presidential primaries have kind of borne that out when you saw enthusiasm behind some candidates online. And then the Michigan Democratic Presidential primary happens and it sort of goes, goes maybe a different way than one would expect if you are spending a lot of time online. So with that as a kind of jumping off point in 2024, Trump Vance carried the state at the presidential level by a little under 100-000-votes, meaning that there were voters who were either not compelled to vote for the Democratic ticket, maybe stayed home, maybe voted Trump. Vance, what do you think explains that? What, what didn't go right in the Harris campaign that you understand and would not replicate in your campaign if you were to be the nominee?

C (45:03)

Yeah. Well, thanks again for having me first. I really am looking forward to having really meaty conversations like this one, because I completely agree that Michigan is a microcosm for the country, and it's been like that for a while, not just because of our demographics, the economics, our history. And I'm proud to be running for governor in this state because what you're seeing bubble up for voters now and in 2024, what's the heart of concerns, of struggles, of expectations for leaders, really does translate nationwide. And what we're seeing in Michigan, what I think also winning candidates like Alyssa Slotkin as well, who won in 2024 in Michigan, are talking about, is this crisis of affordability, the escalating cost of just about everything, and at the same time, the stagnancy of wages. Wages in Michigan right now, six out of 10 salaries are $60,000 or less. So you've got stagnant wages, rising costs, and you have citizens who are looking demanding for leaders who will do something about that. And then states like ours provide an opportunity not just for us to see that as a party, what's most important for leaders to address and solve right now, but also in a moment where the federal government is not helping, is only creating chaos on a lot of these things. States can be the last line of defense against these challenges. And state leaders, governors in particular, are the ones who can say, look at everything happening at the federal level. It doesn't have to be that way. This is what we're going to do in Michigan to drive down the cost of health care and ensure your life is a little bit easier. So I think candidates who do that in Michigan win and, and also who are able to build trust with the electorate that indeed they can put the actions behind the promises and get stuff done.

A (46:56)

So let's talk about affordability and prices, which I think is clearly of massive concern right now at the state and federal level. I can say things on my show that as a candidate, it probably would make it so I don't win. Right. And one of those things is prices go up over time. Inflation is almost never negative, and when it is, it's usually because Something has gone wrong in the economy. Prices went up under Joe Biden. Prices have continued to go up under Donald Trump. Now, Donald Trump promised that they would come down. He promised deflation, and we haven't had deflation. And so that is an important thing. But I think it would be interesting, although almost certainly a losing message, for a candidate to say, listen, guys, anybody promising prices will come down. Is Price probably lying to you? We don't really see prices come down unless we have an economic calamity. What I'm going to work on is these particular areas that have become particularly unaffordable, and those areas are. Right, whatever. Can you give me your sense of, I mean, on some level, prices do just go up over time, expecting them to come down. Is it realistic?

C (48:01)

I think it is, actually, because I've been able to. So, yes, I think, I think there are things you can do. And in states like ours, managing a massive state government to actually drive down costs for residents in housing, in health care, in energy costs and a number of other things, food, water, that are actually not just a result of inflation, but also corporate greed, also bad decision making, and also, you know, a time in which government is not showing up for folks and just making things more difficult at the federal level. So the interesting thing is, in Michigan, I oversee two things. I oversee our elections as a Secretary of state as. And I also oversee the Department of Motor Vehicles, the dmv. Right. Like, everyone loves the dmv. There's a sitcom about how great it is. But as the, as the head of the, the DMV in Michigan, I've actually eliminated wait times. We've, we've, we've cut the cost of operating and we've, we've thereby saved money for residents, cut down their costs, and also have taken on efficient inefficiencies that have also saved people time. And so we've been able to demonstrate that in my agency, which interacts with everyone in the state, we can save you time, we can save you money, and we can make your life a little bit easier. And now as I look out among the Health and Human Services, for example, and other types of places, departments that oversee housing and housing development in Michigan, it can cost up to $90,000 to build a home before you even put a brick in the ground because of so much red tape and operational expenses before you start building. State government efficiencies can eliminate a lot of that red tape, thereby driving down the cost of building homes, thereby driving down the cost of housing and making housing more affordable. So There are small things we can do to actually address a lot of the rising costs by making government work better, more efficient. And the advantage I have in this race is that I've actually done that in my agency. I've done that for every resident of the state. And now I want to do it across the board to address rising costs on a number of things that government can actually reduce.

A (49:59)

Yeah, I mean, DMV fees. It's funny because it sounds almost so. Not. Not obscure, but it sounds like such a relatively small thing, but it is actually one that governors and other state officials can. Can actually deal with. I'm curious on housing, because the reports I've read point to. You can find 10 or 12 different areas that are responsible for housing costs being higher. So you look at zoning, you look at building regulations, you look at property taxes. Property taxes. Like you take all these different things, but the biggest one that really makes a difference is you just need way more housing stock, like at the top. A lot of this stuff trickles down from there need to be way more units. Do you agree that that is the primary driver of high housing costs? And if so, how do you get more units built?

C (50:47)

Yeah, well, I agree the problem is not that complicated. We don't build enough housing because Michigan's complicated regulations make it too difficult oftentimes or timely or time consuming to get past the permitting process. And then you add restrictive zoning, you have other outdated codes, property taxes, red tape, all strangle construction. And then we have fewer homes, particularly in communities where nurses are trying to. Hospitals are trying to recruit nurses, schools are trying to recruit teachers. So you have this scenario where it's affecting employment and jobs to have unaffordable housing or essentially no affordable housing in. In communities where people actually want to move to and work. And so as prices go up, families are getting squeezed, communities lose. And we can fix this by actually lowering construction costs and speeding up the building process that enables developers to build quality homes quickly, efficiently. We can cut approval times at the state level for months to weeks. We know other states are already doing this. We can do it here in Michigan. We can fund affordable housing production. We can build everything from starter homes to apartments by working with developers to ease the point of entry. And then in addition to that, what the government, state government can do is invest in the communities where these homes are being built, support the development of libraries, schools, art, Art institutions, and essentially build communities to also in that way, drive more people to the communities, build more homes. And prices then go down while communities grow.

A (52:20)

So let's talk about a couple of other things we have seen in conversations with everything, everybody from mayoral candidates like Zoran Mamdani all the way up to and including sitting governors, different approaches to dealing with pressure from ICE to have a presence in your state, National Guard troop deployments that we have seen in. In some states. What is your view and. And framework as to what the governor can legally do? I know that ideologically we have a lot of ideas about what we would like to do, but what can legally be done by a governor when it comes to ICE and National Guard troops in the state of Michigan?

C (53:04)

You can say no. I mean, it sounds. And I'll step back for a second and say the. The number one job of a governor in this moment is both to drive down rising costs and improve the cost of living in our states, improve the economy, while also standing up to bullies and billionaires who would try to not just wreck our economy, but wreck the safety and security of our communities. And as the chief election officer for the state of Michigan at a time where democracy has been under siege, in this multifaceted effort, led in part by the current president, to undermine democracy, I, as the state's chief democracy official, have had to say no to the threats, to the challenges, to the rhetoric, to the lies, and actually stand up for our people, for our voters, even if it meant people showing up outside my home armed, trying to demand that I overturn election results. What I saw in that moment in the 2020 election is how critical it is that you have state leaders who are unafraid to stand up to bullies, no matter how powerful or wealthy they may be, and simply just push back, say no, you can't do that. Use every tool at our disposal, the law, the courts, political, and I think the platform that we have as state leaders to support other leaders to do the same, so that we are linking arms and pushing back against an overreach of the federal government. And to me, when it comes to standing up to the misuse and abuse of our military against not just US Citizens, but to further a political agenda by this president, it is critical that governors be ready to do that. I come from a military family. I know how so many serve and sign up to serve in order to protect our communities, protect our democracy, protect the fabric of life, to then be used against that is so antithetical to what that service is supposed to be about that I can speak from a place not just with moral courage, but moral authority to the President of the United States and say, not on my Watch. Will you allow the misuse or abuse of our military to come in and abuse the security and safety of our communities and divide us at a time when we need to be coming together? Governors are the ones who have the bully pulpit and the resources to do that right now more than anyone else in this, in this country. And I'll be proud to do that as governor for the state of Michigan, but also work with other governors to do the same so that collectively we can build protection for residents in all of our states and stand up together, which will also be a source of strength.

A (55:34)

But does that include, if force were to be necessary? Because this is not exactly a federal administration where when you say you're not allowed to do that, you're not going to do that, and then they do it anyway, Then what happens?

C (55:43)

Well, Jamie Pritzker has already showed with some pushback and with, you know, you can actually be successful using the courts as well, but also using the other pieces of authority. We have our own police force in, in our states. We not we have state courts, we have state police force. We have other tools at our disposal to be able to leverage against the, the tyrannic overreach of power. And so you have to use all those tools, but also you work together. What we haven't seen, I think, to the extent I'd like to see more of, is governors working together. Let's say if you got every Midwest governor, at least Pritzker, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Shapiro, others standing up, it also creates a source of strength through that coalition building, let's say, among states to make it much harder for any one of us to be utilized in this sort of political warfare, but instead stand together against this overreach, and that is the pushback we need to do. It may not be universally successful at stopping a lot of the overreach, but it is the most effective thing we can do. And it's already been shown to be effective in other states. I think through strength in numbers among many governors working together, you can be even more effective. And that's why, again, governors are the first and last line of defense against this overreach in this moment.

A (57:00)

Last thing I want to ask you about, and I know you've got to run. We've had situations with Republican secretaries of state running for governor and Democratic secretaries of state running for governor. And there is an argument to be made that the person who oversees the election should not be a candidate in the election. Can you talk about that a little bit and explain what, if any, safeguards kind of exist because you do have an interest in the outcome, so to speak.

C (57:23)

Sure. And you know, I was on the ballot in 2022 running for reelection and also serving as Secretary of State at the same time. Running for another office while serving as Secretary of State has actually been a standard practice in both parties. But at the same time, we do need to ensure, and we've done this in Michigan, that we reiterate the, the, the distance between a candidate for office and the actual operation of elections. In Michigan, our elections are actually run by 1500 local authorities at the local level. They're the ones who manage the ballots, tabulate and ensure the machines are working, actually even conduct the audits after the election at the local level. So we're going to continue to emphasize the decentralized nature of our elections, which actually enable fair and free elections at the local level and create that space between anyone running at the statewide level and the operation of elections at the, at the local level. But then also call out that this sort of air of suspicion being created is really more political in nature to sort of align with the misinformation around election security and negates the fact that in Michigan, as in many other states, we have very secure, decentralized elections and a whole lot of transparency so that observers come in and actually observe every aspect of our elections at the local level to ensure and reinforce that every vote counts and only valid votes are being counted and that we can all trust the results of the election to be an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

A (58:48)

That's interesting. So in a sense, you're saying we actually there, we do have the protections in place and the furthering the idea that there's a problem was, is catalyzed by and furthers the narrative of the Republican Party vis a vis certainly the 2020 election and even just broader claims about election insecurity.

C (59:10)

Yeah, it's a political stunt that is directly aligned with the false narratives that Trump used in 2020 when he tried to overturn Michigan's fair and free election elections. Now, inviting his potential interference or other types of shenanigans in 2026 is more of a political strategy than, than rooted in anything valid. I mean, you know, right now in my neighboring state of Ohio, Frank LaRose ran for U.S. senate as a Secretary of State in Ohio, ran for U.S. senate last year, oversaw his own election, is running for, I think, auditor again this year. So you have several examples of secretaries doing this and being able to do all it while the professional bipartisan election administrators do what they've always done, which is run our elections securely and fairly at the local level.

A (59:53)

All right. We are going to be watching this race very closely. We've been speaking with the Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, who is now seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, a race we're going to continue covering. Really appreciate your time today and hearing from you.

C (60:07)

Thanks, David. Thanks for having me. And folks can go to Jocelyn Benson.com if they want to learn also more about our campaign.

A (60:14)

If you like this show, I would love for you to get my substack writing each day. I'll send you a rundown of what's on the show, what's happening, what matters, why it's free, no spam. Substack is also the only place where we own our data. So if we get censored on social media or on any platform, substack is going to be the only way I can tell you what is going on. Sign up now@david pakman.substack.com all right, I love this. We are getting more and more of these almost daily. Actually, this is a devastating moment for the advocates of this government's tariff policy because for years now, the administration has been saying, and once they got into power and put the tariffs in place, they have insisted that it is foreign countries that pay the tariffs. When we tariff China, China pays. When we tariff Mexico, Mexico pays, and the United States wins everything. And that was really the foundational pitch of Trump's tariff argument. We can maybe accept higher prices if we know that China's getting punished. Now, of course, if you watch this show, you know that American companies pay the tariffs and part of those tariffs are passed on to the individual consumers. So you pay the tariffs, I pay the tariffs. But check this out. Watch what happens when Trump's top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, is asked a really simple question, which is if the Supreme Court says that the entire tariff scheme is unconstitutional, what happens? And Hassett goes, whoever cut the check for the tariffs gets a refund. Now, that sentence alone is stunning because Margaret Brennan immediately points out the administration has been saying the countries paid the tariffs, so they get a refund. And this is where the entire thing collapses.

I (62:10)

We really expect the Supreme Court is going to fight with us. And I also think that if they didn't find with us that it's going to be pretty unlikely that they're going to call for widespread refunds because it would be an administrative problem to get those refunds out there. But basically, whoever paid the tariff, like actually cut the check to buy the thing would be the person who would be getting.

A (62:32)

Oh, it's the person who buys the thing who pays for the tariff. Well, that's really interesting because every single one of these people has been saying time China pays the tariffs, we're taking in tariff money from China. So you're saying that whoever bought the thing would get the refund because they're the one who paid for it. Interesting, because that's not what you've been arguing, refund.

C (62:55)

If there were, what doesn't the administration claim it was the country that paid.

F (62:58)

That you're saying the company.

I (63:01)

It would be like. I'm not talking about the incidents. Right. Like so the incidence of the tariff. So in the end, who pays the tariff depends on elasticity. So supply and demand. And we know that China cut the price a lot so that the post tariff price from Chinese goods is about what it was before the tariff. But the people who pay the tariff, if there is a refund, the people who actually paid.

A (63:25)

Listen to this word salad, by the way. He's just all over the place for.

I (63:28)

The good the importer. In most cases they're the ones who'd be the first line of defense for refunding the tariff. But I really, really don't think that's going to happen to be very complicated. And then that person would be responsible for allocating the tariff refund to the appropriate folks.

C (63:43)

That sounds like a mess.

I (63:45)

Yes, it is a mess. And that's why I think the Supreme Court wouldn't do it.

A (63:51)

By the way, that would be a terrible reason for the Supreme Court to decide one way or the other. The practicality of implementation is not a good reason to decide on whether something is or isn't constitutional. In fact, it's a crappy way. It's a terrible way. And I hope the Supreme Court doesn't decide based on that. But look at, look at that. If foreign countries really paid the tariffs, then Kevin Hassett would be able to very easily go, oh yeah, the foreign countries that paid the tariffs would get the refund. Simple. But no, Hassett goes, no, no, the refund would go to who cuts the check. And then they might sub redistribute. And you can hear the panic because he goes into this vague kind of rambling answer that goes nowhere because there's no way out of this. Now. The reality they've been trying to hide is really simple. The foreign countries don't cut the checks. The foreign countries don't pay the tariffs. It's the American importers. The American importers may and have been passing along some portion of that onto the individual consumer. US Companies who do the importing pay the tariff at the port. They pass that on to you and to me through higher prices. That's how tariffs worked. That's how tariffs work. And it is how they have always worked. It's not China, Mexico or Europe or whoever else. So this is an on air kind of confession that their central point on which the entire tariff program is based, which they used to justify the tariff program, he's saying it's not really true because if the foreigners were paying, refunds would go to the foreigners, but they don't. The refunds on the tariffs, if they are indeed unconstitutional, would go to American businesses, which means they know who has been paying the tariffs all along. And that's why these moments continue to happen. They've repeated this lie so many times now that even their own officials get tangled up because they have to go, oh, right, wait, we've been saying it's the foreign countries, but obviously we know that it's the companies. And so when someone asks one follow up question, like Margaret Brennan did there, she wasn't aggressive, she wasn't hostile, the story falls apart. And this is what happens when your economic policy is built on a slogan that doesn't really comport with reality. And now Trump's own guy is proving it on national tv. Last week it was Letnick, and this time it's Kevin Hassett. All right, they are threatening Pam Bondi with prison and they are saying that it would happen if the disclosures don't take place. So let me step back and explain what's going on here. Here. This is not activists yelling on Twitter. This is not online outrage. This is Congress. There is a bipartisan group of lawmakers now openly discussing contempt of Congress proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi. Why? Because she has failed to comply with the Epstein files Transparency Act. Trump signed it. And what that means in plain English is that as we talked about at the top of the show, Congress passed a law saying, hey, DOJ has to release all the Epstein files. Limited redactions. Bondi's DOJ ignored the spirit of the law and they seem to have violated the letter of the law because hundreds of pages were heavily redacted, entire documents were blacked out. At least 16 files were posted, then removed, some reinstated, some not. These aren't paperwork delays. This is deliberate noncompliance. And some lawmakers are saying that's enough. One of one of them is a Democrat, a Democratic member of the House, Ro Khanna the other is a Republican, Thomas Massie. And they are saying we need to hold Bondi accountable through contempt of Congress. If that happens, she could face daily fines and under inherent contempt powers, she could even be jailed until the DOJ complies with the law. That is the part that the administration doesn't want you focusing on, because contempt of Congress isn't symbolic, it is an enforcement mechanism. It's Congress saying you can't ignore the law just because the president doesn't like what you're required to do. And notice how quickly the White House shifted into deflection mode. Bondi's approval rating has collapsed. It is down 47 points in under a year. And that is precisely as the Epstein fiasco has exploded. Legal experts are describing her as a political tool of Trump, not an independent attorney general, obviously. And instead of explaining why the files vanished or why did the redactions exceed what the law allows, their response has been bring it on. If you want to go after Pam Bondi. That is an extraordinary arrogance that I hope backfires Interface and the precedent setting nature of this could be huge because on the one hand, if a president can sign a transparency law passed by the House and Senate into law, and then your attorney general ignores it, selectively redacts parts of it, quietly removes documents, and there are no consequences, it means congressional oversight and the law are meaningless. And that precedent would be important. On the other hand, if there is actually the ability to hold the attorney General accountable, to hold her in contempt and to have consequences for that, that precedent would really matter. So this, a lot of this is about Epstein, and it's about the files, it's about the victims, it's about the perpetrators. That's like the primary thing. This is a second layer, could be a higher or lower layer, depending on how you sort of conceive of it. That is not directly about Epstein. It's just like, is the executive branch above the law? And I hate to say it, in a lot of ways, Donald Trump's executive branch has been above the law. They have operated as such, and they have gotten away with a lot of it. And so you've got a couple of lawmakers, a Democrat, a Republican, saying you've got to comply or you've got to face consequences. And those consequences may include jail. Boy, would I love to see that, if appropriate. Right. We don't just lock people up for no reason. It would be if indeed Pam Bondi is involved in contempt of Congress, I would love to see accountability there. Now on the bonus show today, we are going to talk about the humiliatingly short lived gubernatorial candidacy of Elise Stefanik, who has not only said, all right, I'm not even running for governor anymore, she said, I'm also not going to be running for reelection in the House of Representatives and it has to do with Trump abandoning her. Republican Mitt Romney calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and we will talk about why Denmark is very upset with Donald Trump. All of those and more stories on the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com Everyone deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T Mobile is in US cellular stores. Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits, plan features and taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required. Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.

C (71:34)

Looking to transform your business through better HR and payroll? Meet Paycor, a Paychex company. The powerhouse solution that empowers leaders to drive results. From recruiting and development to payroll and analytics, paycor connects you with the people, data and expertise you need to succeed. Their innovative platform helps you make smarter decisions about your most valuable asset. Your people ready to become a better leader? Visit paycor.com leaders to learn more. That's paycor.com leadership.