← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
Trump Caves on Weaponization Fund? My Discussion with Norm Eisen, Scott MacFarlane and Doctor Rob Davidson of Paging America.
00:54:02
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome to the Jim Acosta show. And the global rejection of Donald Trump is underway. He is the POTUS who pouts now, sulking after a federal judge told him to get his name off of the Kennedy center. And after multiple artists pulled out of the upcoming America 250 celebration here in Washington, D.C. but there is even more breaking news. Axios is reporting the Trump Weaponization Fund is, quote, dead before we get started. A special thanks to our sponsor, Incogni. Identity theft is real. It's happening and they're fighting back. You will find a link in the post for this program or you can scan the QR code, check it out. It's on screen right there. Use the code, Jim, 55 to check out Incogni. But a lot to discuss with Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Action. He is America's democracy Warrior, one of the attorneys on the Kennedy center case and on the Weaponization Fund case. Norm, this is our Cup Overfloweth. This is, this is a great opportunity to have you on the program.
- [01:08]
B
Thank you, Jim. Anytime I can be on with you is a great opportunity.
- [01:14]
A
Well, it sounds like Trump just decided to turn tail and run here. Axios is saying that the Weaponization Fund is, quote, unquote, dead. That's according to their sources. What do you think of all this?
- [01:27]
B
Well, Jim, the. Hours really when Donald Trump suffered a 12 punch, first losing the Kennedy center case. His name has to come off on Friday afternoon. Then we represent 35 former federal judges, Jim, appointed by both parties who went to court in order to get the judge in Florida to reopen the case. And she ordered an investigation. And that one two punch dominated the headlines together with developments in other sludge fund litigation cases. And I think that there was a shift, Jim. There was a tremor in the force and Donald Trump is now being forced to back down. We'll see if it actually happens on both because on the Kennedy center he said, I'm going to give the Kennedy center to Congress. He doesn't actually have the power to do that under the law. And now we have this incredible news that the weaponization fund is supposedly being dropped. So, you know, that was a subsidy fund for those who fought cops on January 6, insurrectionists and others. So outrageous. And wow, we've got them on the run.
- [03:14]
A
It sounds like it, Norm. It sounds like an early Taco Tuesday. Trump tacoing out on the weaponization Fund. And you're absolutely right. This was a slush fund for January 6th rioters, insurrectionists and criminals who not only got pardons from Donald Trump, but they were gonna get paid for their crimes against democracy and perhaps have some money in the bank in case Donald Trump wanted to call on them again. Norm, what was. And of course, the great work you do at the Contrarian is all part of this, too. But what was the argument you were making with the Weaponization fund? What was the most cogent, concise argument, do you think, to say that this was not right, this should not stand?
- [03:53]
B
The judges made a series of arguments. It's a lengthy, very scholarly brief where we. And I must give credit to Matt Plotkin, former AG Plotkin llp, and also Sussman Godfrey, the legendary firm. Our colleagues, including Justin Nelson in Texas, who worked on this. You know, we asked the court to look at a question that it had raised. Why is $1.776 billion being handed over if there may have been no constitutionally required case or controversy in the first place? Jim, under the Constitution, you can only have a case and only have a case to settle if there's actual adversity. But in effect, Donald Trump was on both sides of this case. So that's one issue. Then there's the second issue, whether the legal requirements to make this payment were met. There was a substantial question about whether this was a collusive arrangement. Under federal law, you have to have certain triggers. Was this a genuine settlement or not? Those are the kinds of questions that we wanted and the judges wanted the court to answer. But this fund has come under attack from multiple directions. But surely having to answer those questions is a part of the discomfort where the court is looking into it. And Donald Trump and his colleagues, according to press reports, we'll see if it's true or tomorrow it's really replaced by another kind of fund. They don't want to answer those questions, Jim.
- [05:52]
A
Correct. And that's the thing. We don't know what Donald Trump. It's like with the straight of Hormuz. It's open one day, it's, you know, that's it. Then the Iranians are in charge of it. And then, you know, he's doing this. You can't really trust anything that he says.
- [06:04]
B
The war has started again.
- [06:07]
A
That's right. They could call this fund something else. I'll believe it when I see it. No question about it, but. And it had become a major political problem for Donald Trump and that the Republicans were steamed with him. And Mike Pence was saying over the weekend, his first vice president, who. Who was being attacked by rioters on January 6, almost, he and his family had essentially said that Trump should drop the whole thing. And so who knows? I doubt he's listening to Mike Pence, but he had put up. You know, what's interesting about all this, Norm, is that you were on kind of a one, two punch here, delivering two, two very serious blows to Donald Trump, Political blows to Donald Trump, legal blows to Donald Trump. The Kennedy center being the other one. He's. He's sulking over that. He's the. I'm calling him the potus who pouts because now he wants to take his toys and go home.
- [06:55]
B
Pout us.
- [06:57]
A
Pout us. That's it. I think that's it.
- [07:02]
B
Well, and it's interesting because within hours of each other, Jim, we secured these two successes. The Kennedy center victory was long in the making. I argued that case on behalf of my wonderful client, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, together with the good folks at the Washington Litigation Group, Nathaniel Zelensky, who argued it with me there. We were saying it's illegal for Donald Trump to slap his name on the Kennedy Center. And if you think about the $1.8 billion fund as US asking the question, was there any legal basis to take $1.8 billion away from the American people? You know, a billion here, a billion there, it starts to add up. There's a very steep cost. And then with the Kennedy center, he took something priceless. There is no amount of money you could have sold the naming rights to the Kennedy center for. Jim. Look at what it costs to name a mere stadium here. It's our nation's premier performing arts venue. Congress has said it can only be named for John F. Kennedy and the memory of John F. Kennedy. So there. It's even a higher value than the 1.8 billion. It's a priceless. And he put his name on it. He took it for himself, Jim.
- [08:34]
A
That's right.
- [08:34]
B
You can't do that. The court said, no, you can't put your name on it. You can't tamper with it. You haven't followed the law for closing the Kennedy Center. And that's mostly what Donald Trump has been ranting about on social media. And he said, I'm giving it back to Congress. So I think Congress should take him up on that and expel his board members, his cronies, and let's have proper governance of the Kennedy Center. It's a concession that he has to follow the dictates of Congress. I think it's an admission, Jim, that he has to follow the law, and I hope he will stop breaking the. The instructions of Congress and give it back to the congressional statutes. In that sense, follow the law.
- [09:28]
A
Well, you're right. I mean, he shouldn't be allowed to turn the Kennedy center into a convention center for crypto bros. And you're absolutely right in that he tried to put a true social. He put a true social post out over the weekend where he was ranting and raving about it. And we could show some of this multiple. And it's multiple page. We can't show the whole thing because it'll break the Internet. But he said, you know, our court system is rigged, no different than our political system is rigged and the people of our country know it. And that's why I got overwhelmingly elected president in record numbers and I will fight, fight, fight. This is all the stuff he went off on the, the judge in the case, Christopher R. Cooper, who is a, an Obama appointee, of course he tried to make the case that because it's an Obama appointee, that's why he lost. But he, but there are Trump appointed judges who, who turn them away all the time. And, you know, it just seems to me, Norm, that this is, this is all part of, and along with all these artists pulling out of America's 250th anniversary celebration here in Washington, there's a bit of a. That's why I describe it as the global rejection of Donald Trump has begun. I mean, I think, and I think, Norm, if and when his name comes off that Kennedy center, that is going to be a massive moment in this country. And what do you think? What's going to go through your mind? Do you want to be on hand to see that?
- [10:47]
B
Join me.
- [10:48]
A
Yes.
- [10:49]
B
Well, I'd like to go up in the cherry picker and, you know, chisel the first letter off myself.
- [10:55]
A
Absolutely.
- [10:57]
B
But that's not in the court's order. I think we'll, you know, we'll see if he appeals or not to delay the inevitable. He's not gonna get a stay. I think on the naming issue. And it will, or the closure, we're on very strong legal grounds because the rules were not followed here, Jim. So he may try to appeal, he may throw up his hands and then they are pulling the plug. Maybe his conceding that he's gonna, quote, give it back to Congress on the Kennedy center was a bit of a, a foretaste of the throwing in the towel if they are on the settlement fund. But, Jim, we're not giving up and we're going to broaden the fight. And I have a third bit of news to share. With you, if I may, please. And that's a common friend of ours, the great opinion journalist Karen Attia. Jeff Bezos, Washington Post forced her out on improper grounds. It was an illegal firing. Jim was in violation of the applicable rules. And we this week I'll be going to trial arbitration hearing with Karen. And we're announcing today we're gonna be fighting because it can't stop with Donald Trump. We have to get to his enablers like the Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post. And we're gonna be getting to the bottom of the story. And Jim, we're gonna be fighting for something that's very precious to you and me, not just Karen, who's such a wonderful journalist, opinion journalist has been so outspoken over the years fighting for causes like Jamal Khashoggi, who she edited, who was brutally murdered by the Saudis. Jim, we're gonna be fighting for the First Amendment because you can't let the likes of Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, improperly fire a Karen Attia. Every journalist is at risk. Of course, you and I have become independent journalists. We work for ourselves. I don't think I'm gonna fire myself,
- [13:29]
A
J. I don't think I'm going to fire myself today.
- [13:32]
B
No. Give yourself a raise or a promotion. Maybe I'll do that. First Amendment care Natia News with you and your viewers.
- [13:41]
A
No, I'm very happy for Karen and I wish her the best. I think she's a terrific journalist and I think she was treated very badly by the Washington Post and Jeff Bezos. And I think, Norm, what is happening is that Trump's enablers are behind the curve. They don't understand what's happening in this country right now. The public has turned against Trump, the courts are turning against Trump, even Republicans are turning against Trump. And the media enablers are not. They are. They're way behind the curve. And the public is going to reject them too, it seems to me. And they are in the process of rejecting them.
- [14:14]
B
That's right, Jim. And while we. We don't know of any personal involvement by Bezos in the improper firing of Karen, we do know it's the Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, his administration. So we've been speaking out here at Democracy Defenders Action and in our other Democracy Defenders, separate organizations against other enablers. We led the way. You and I have talked about this and you led the way, Jim, objecting to the Paramount Warner Brothers merger because that will bring our former home CNN under the wing of the Ellisons. It'll go the way of cbs. Jim, look at this latest shock fight. Talk about journalistic firings.
- [15:05]
A
It's a mess.
- [15:05]
B
Dismantled 60 Minutes, the Crown jewel of the Tiffany network.
- [15:10]
A
I know. And as you remember, when I spoke in Burbank at that Spotlight hearing held by Adam Schiff, I said, this is the breaking news. The news in America is broken.
- [15:21]
B
Yes.
- [15:21]
A
And people might have said, oh, that's hyperbole. That's over the top. And then look where we are. Two months later, they're blowing up 60 minutes. And I'm not, you know, it's, it's Scott Pelly saying it, that, that, yeah, they're murdering 60 Minutes. Yeah.
- [15:36]
B
But Jim, you were so far out in front, you gave that talk. I think it was before we released our letter, which now is 5,000 movie stars and entertainment and TV and documentary industry workers and news workers. There's a separate letter just for the news industry and journalists, hundreds of people signing on to that. And there's a public outcry. The New York Times reported on a town hall which I was very privileged to chair for letter writers, for those who signed the letter with California AG Rob Motta. And he and the AGs are on an antitrust winning streak, Jim. They got a trial victory in the Ticketmaster Live Nation case to stop some of these circumstances that are leading to outrageously high ticket prices. They got a injunction for the nexstar Tegna merger, that mega merger of stations, including those who muzzled Jimmy Kimmel for a while when he spoke out. We pushed back successfully on that. Now Paramount Warners. So I think you are going to see strong AG action. They haven't made up their mind, but I think those signs are positive. They're taking a hard look. So if you're, if you're a Trump regime member, including Trump himself, within government, if you're an enabler outside of government accountability is here and much more is coming. And I think that Friday afternoon will be looked at with that one, two punch. The Kennedy center, the $1.776 billion fund. That's an inflection point. And now, of course, Trump apparently conceding defeat on both of those. Let's move on to the next fights. Myself and my colleagues at our various organizations, over 300 legal matters and cases, Jim, but the Kennedy center and the $1.8 billion fund, two of the biggest.
- [17:57]
A
Two of the biggest, no question about it. And I have waiting in the wings to join us in just a moment here, Scott McFarland, former CBS correspondent, now a chief Washington correspondent at Midas Touch. And Scott, as you know, Norm Very concerned about what's been happening at cbs. And he's going to join the conversation, too. But, Norm, my hat's off to you, sir. The work that you've been doing has been stellar. And thank you, Doubtly, in defense of our democracy.
- [18:24]
B
Thank you. And I'll let you and Scott get to it. I just wanted to stay on for a minute to say hello. I talked to Scott. Scott, I think we talked the day before, I had this one, two punch with winning the Kennedy center case and then getting the judge in Florida to open the investigation of the $1.8 billion fund that was such a devastating part of the apparent retraction of that fund. So. And Scott, we're going to court this week. I had the big announcement, my next landmark case. We have a hearing for Karen Attia and her firing by the Washington Post. Improper, wrongful, illegal. We're gonna prove it. We're gonna get an arbitration verdict and expose what Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, did there. And we're fighting for journalists and the First Amendment and for our Constitution.
- [19:26]
A
Thank goodness. Thank goodness. Norm, great to see you, sir. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Keep fighting the good fight, sir.
- [19:34]
B
Bye, guys.
- [19:35]
A
All right, take care. And there's Scott joining us. And Scott, when I reached out to you earlier today was about the 60 Minute story, which is a massive story. You know this all too well because you, you were at cbs. I was there many years ago when, when Scott Pelley was there. He's still there holding court over 60 minutes when Scott Pelly, apparently he was reported as saying this, according to the New York Times and others, he was in this beating and, and basically said that Barry Weiss is, quote, murdering 60 minutes. Scott, that is huge news.
- [20:10]
C
Yeah.
- [20:10]
D
Let me just pull the curtain back for you here, Jim. I've been in a lot of these meetings at CBS news of the 20, 26 vintage. I was there until the end of March when Barry Weiss or one of the new executives speaks at these meetings. It's, it's possible somebody in one of the rooms or on the zoom is recording the thing. So they got verbatims of what the hell's happening. When you see these reports about what was said in the room, it's quite possible somebody literally has an audio recording. Not saying it's definite. I'm just saying my experience is that's happened in the past.
- [20:42]
C
Yeah.
- [20:42]
D
But it's not just the New York Times saying that. That same quote has come out from the New York Post, from Puck, from Status. There are several reporters saying that Scott Pelly accused the new management of 60 Minutes of trying to murder it. Deliberately trying to murder it. Not negligently murdering it, but doing it by intent. And saying that the new executive producer of 60 Minutes has only slender qualifications for that job and that the new executive producer is. Ended the meeting abruptly after just 15 minutes. That's a terrible sign of what's to come. If you were concerned about what you've seen over the last few days.
- [21:18]
A
Yeah, no question. Oliver Darcy has been reporting on this. And I think Jeremy Barr with the Guardian, he might have broke this one today, if I'm not mistaken. There are a lot of people were reporting almost the same time. But I want to make sure I get everybody, their, their props. But, and, and this is on the heels of, I think, Oliver Darcy the other day, Scott reporting that that Steve Croft, the legendary correspondent who had been with 60 Minutes for many years, was essentially saying the same thing. And of course, Sharon Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, the correspondents who were fired, I think it was last Thursday, along with the executive producer of 60 Minutes. They've only had, I think, four or five in the history of the program. So if one gets fired, I mean, that's a big deal. When you have this many people say, if you have just one person saying it, you could say, oh, well, this is disgruntled employee, blah, blah, blah. When you have this many people saying it with the kind of gravitas that each of these individuals has, that says something. It says to me that there's a. There needs to be a 60 Minute story on 60 Minutes. Essentially.
- [22:18]
D
I had a lot of mentors inside CBS News. I didn't work directly with Scott pelley at all. 60 Minutes, as you recall, Jim is literally outside the building. They're across the street in a different space. They are kept separate, almost like it's church and state. But, like, everybody looked up to Scott whether you worked with him directly or not. I mean, if there was a current Mount Rushmore of national journalists working in the news business today for legacy media, he's on it. I mean, he's an incredible writer, superb interviewer, and somebody with distinctive, unique credibility. So if he's the one doing the pushback, it's not just anybody. It's somebody who's particularly well positioned to try to fight a fight on behalf of whomever. But here's what I can't escape, Jim. This is like juggling the most valuable Faberge egg or throwing it around the yard with your kids. Like you could risk destroying the most valuable thing you've ever held. And 60 Minutes isn't just the most storied television news program in our lifetimes. 60 Minutes helps bankroll a lot of what's going on at the broader organization. If it breaks, I don't know how they economically sustain themselves as a broader news organization.
- [23:29]
A
That's really interesting. You're right, because it is usually in the, what, top five to ten programs in total viewers every week. I remember looking at those, those ratings charts back in the day and 60 Minutes was always up there. And you know, I it and of course we just, we can't ignore what's taking place there right now. This is my characterization. Feel free to add your own. But it seems to me that the Ellisons, along with Barry Weiss, the person they've made the editor of, chief, editor in chief of CBS News, that this is a, this is an ideological project that they're on. This is a political project that they're on. This is not a journalism project that they're on. And you know, there's talk that other programs at CBS may be next, that they may try to go after some of the other flagship broadcasts of the network. And this is, you know, this is what a lot of people were worried about for some time. That this, that this network was going to be turned into basically a propaganda arm of the administration. And if not full, a full blown propaganda arm. A news organization that just pulls its punches when it comes to covering the people in power right now.
- [24:39]
D
Let me give them some benefits of some doubts. Let's assume that this is right minded and well intentioned, that they're trying to chase some type of better angels in how they disseminate the news. Let's just give that assumption. Here's the good news for them. People are going to sample the new 60 Minutes. Because you know, Jim, 60 Minutes airs right after NFL football in the best television window that exists today. They get tons of viewers watching the Bills and the Chiefs and the Bengals play football at 4:25. They're going to sample 60 minutes whether they try to or not. So they got an opportunity here. If they can figure out how to make this work, if they think they've improved the product, they'll find viewers. Viewers won't have to find them. The downside is legacy television and what remains of linear media, whatever remains of it has its currency and its value through its predictability and its well known brand and personalities. And if you start changing out people, you've lost one of your advantages. One of the remaining advantages of legacy linear Media is people know the sound. They know the introduction. They know the faces, they know the voices. You enter some new sounds, face faces and voices. You've taken away the biggest arrow in their quiver.
- [25:51]
A
Yeah. There's no question. And, and, you know, you and I both know this from being veterans of legacy media. On the TV side in particular, you know, viewer habits are. They can be very fixed. And you know that folks at home get used to watching the same. That's what makes 60 Minutes 60 Minutes. Leslie Stahl's been there a long time. Steve Croft was there for a long time, Scott Pelley, and I remember the good old days of Mike Wallace and Harry Reasoner and Ed Bradley, and you probably do, too. But that's why people tuned into this program, because they were, these were like members of their extended family almost. And I would, you would sit down with them every Sunday night and watch them tell these incredible stories that were, you know, crafted by these, these amazing journalists over at cbs. And when I was there, you were absolutely right. They were across the street and there was separation. There was a wall between 60 minutes in the rest of the news division. The other thing we should talk about, because of your years up on Capitol Hill and covering justice issues and so on, Scott, the, the story in Axios that the weaponization fund may be dead. Are you. I'm sure you're seeing this, too. I, I'll believe it when I see it. I guess it. Maybe Trump's already raised the white flag on this, but this is a huge political defeat for him.
- [27:06]
D
Yeah. Just did inquiries to the Department of Justice and White House before coming on with you. Here's what I can tell you unequivocally. It ain't dead. They're not. Axios is either over reporting it or we're oversimplifying what they're saying.
- [27:19]
A
Interesting.
- [27:20]
D
This thing is paused. What the Department of Justice is going to say is that they're going to abide by the court ruling in Virginia over the slush fund. Well, the court really didn't rule much in Virginia. All the court said in Virginia was, we're going to pause this thing till June 12th so we can take a closer look and make sure it's legal or not. Not legal. So the Department of Justice is going to agree not to operate the fund until. Drumroll, please. June 12th. Doesn't mean they can't bring it back. Doesn't mean they won't bring it back. The legal complications will get more severe with time. There's new legal challenges in the District of Columbia in California. There's that whole mess in Florida where a judge wants to investigate if there was collusion and fraud in the Trump IRS lawsuit in the fund. And there'll be new lawsuits that are filed over the coming days. If any one of these sticks to the wall, the fund is dead. So more people are going to sue. They have different arguments to make. Those challenges are coming, but the administration is conceding nothing. But we're going to pause things till June 12. But the politics of this still remain ugly for Trump and all Republicans on Capitol Hill. Jim, I have found just one, I mean, one Republican in Congress who stands by this thing, and that is Ralph Norman, the retiring Republican from South Carolina who trades in conspiracy theories about January 6th. There's nobody else as a surrogate. Nobody likes this thing. I don't think the politics shift. So maybe, Jim, maybe it's Trump and the Department of Justice who resuscitate this thing on November 4th to pay off convicted crooks.
- [28:51]
A
Ah, interesting. So it may not be a full blown taco, could be a taquito, maybe for now, and, and we'll see how it plays out. But I think you're absolutely right. And I always just, whenever I see these, these, oh my gosh, Axios is this, if it's a breaking news headline and everything, it must be real. And of course, you know, knowing Trump the way he is, you know, he may, he may, you know, have a tactical retreat here temporarily because they know that their goose is cooked in its current incarnation. But maybe that you're right, they do bring it back. But the longer they wait on this, Scott, the more the potential is that the courts will catch up to this. And, you know, there could be a judge that will just finally say that this thing is obviously unconstitutional, that you can't, you know, you, the president can't say, I'm suing myself, okay, I settle with myself, now I get money, now I'm appropriating money. Congress has the power of the purse. That is how our government works. It's, I'm sorry, Donald Trump, you don't like this? Maybe like he said, he could run for president of Venezuela or something like that, but it's just not how it works in this country. And my guess is at some point, the longer they delay this, install this and wait it out, there's going to be a court that's going to say, in a much better way of saying it than I just said it, exactly,
- [30:03]
D
that I talked to one of the plaintiff's lawyers who's challenging this thing in court, the lawyer said this fool's nobody. We know it's not going away. We're going to continue full throttle with our legal challenges. I'd expect Senate Democrats this week, Jim, to try to jam up their colleagues with amendment after amendment after amendment vote on this very unpopular fund because they don't think it's dead. It's not dead until it's buried and it ain't buried.
- [30:27]
A
And it's. And it's holding up other business. Correct. It's holding up the reconciliation process. Yeah.
- [30:33]
D
That's why there's a tactical retreat to get the reconciliation bill forward. There's not a tactical retreat because they care what the courts are saying. They're retreating to help get the immigration and the ICE funding approved, which Republicans won't do until this thing goes away, at least for a while.
- [30:48]
A
Okay. So this gets put up on the shelf. They, they put it away for a while, they get the ICE funding through. And you know, that that is, that, that is a bit sinister sounding because we've seen what's been taking place outside Delaney hall in New Jersey. It's been pretty concerning what's been happening there. And I guess there's some reports out now that Tom Homan was having, he paid a visit to the detention facility over the weekend and was apparently had a meal with some of the, again, this is what is being reported and it's probably from administration officials. So who knows how much stock you can put in it. But it seems to me, and I don't know what you're picking up on in your reporting, but it seems to me that Trump, Miller, Homan and others, they don't like the fact that they had to pull back in their mass deportation operation. And they would like to go more full throttle on this. And maybe they'll wait until after the midterms. But, you know, it seems to me they need this funding impasse to end in order to make that happen down the road.
- [31:48]
D
My experience with the Trump administration, especially Trump 2.0, is whether you share their prerogatives or not, they love to have a debate over immigration. They love to have a fight over immigration issues, whether you think they're going too far or violating the law. That's the political ground they like to be on. They don't want to be on political ground over vanity projects, slush funds, putting Trump's name on crap. But they love to have a fight, a Fox News story leading with what's going on at Delaney hall in Newark, because that's political ground. They're accustomed to winning on. Not sure this is going to do the trick, but that's why they're pushing the issue.
- [32:24]
A
At the very least, it juices their base. And I think that's what they're worried about right now with this weaponization fund. I think that's why they're briefly shelving this raising the white flag temporarily, whatever you want to call it, because you're absolutely right. Would much rather be fighting on that immigration terrain, whether it works well with the public. It doesn't pull well with public at all. Public is solidly against what they've been doing. But among Republicans, it's not as unpopular as this weaponization fund, which has been absolutely totally toxic. Well, Scott, great to see you. Thanks for joining on this Monday, a lot of news. I thought we were just going to talk about 60 Minutes.
- [33:01]
D
Can I, can I add one footnote? I don't want to eat into your time, but I could add one footnote about 60 minutes unsolicited, please. There's a secondary tertiary level of damage to these headlines. Do people pull back what they're going to report because they're worried about, you know, having a tough meeting like this with the bosses, too? And this really is an infusion of energy and opportunity for independent journalists. We have no corporate ties, we have no bosses telling us, don't do this, don't do that. We can tell the news the way the news is. But I do worry that somebody may say, you know what, let's avoid that story so we don't get on anybody's radar. That's not the way news needs to be done.
- [33:39]
A
No. And that's what I worry about. And I think Cecilia Vega mentioned that in her statement on what took place over at 60 Minutes as it relates to her firing. I know Sharon Alfonsi feels very much the same way based on what I've read of her statements. You know, there's also, and you know this, Scott, and I'm sure you were concerned about this when you were leaving cbs. I know I was concerned about it when I left cnn. And that is if, if journalists are self censoring, then the public is not getting the news. They're just not getting the news. And that's, that's where Trump and his people kind of, I don't want to say they win, but they have some effect on the news that's being reported in this country because they can at least achieve that. And, you know, I mean, God knows what's not being reported right now.
- [34:26]
D
That's Right. That's right. That validates all of our concerns and why independent audiences are growing because they know we're not suffering that problem.
- [34:35]
A
That's right. No, and as we were saying with DORM earlier, I, I don't plan on firing myself anytime soon. I'm sure you don't plan on firing yourself anytime soon. That's the beauty of being independent. But, and I love the way we all collaborate with one another because together we are stronger when it comes to this fight for the free press, democracy, and the truth in this country. Scott, great to see you. Scott McFarland, thank you, as always.
- [34:58]
D
Thank you, buddy.
- [34:59]
A
Good to see you. Really appreciate it. You know, the other, there was, there were three huge stories on Friday, and I thought to myself, should I come on at 11 o' clock at night? Because, my God, there's a lot going on. Trump's ordered to take his name off the Kennedy Center. Get that damn name off the Kennedy. I can't wait until that name comes off. The second thing was the weaponization fund. More lawyers and judges getting involved in that case. Not looking good for Donald Trump and the weaponization fund. Now, today we're seeing the news that they're saying it could be dead. As Scott McFarlane was saying, you know, take that with a grain of salt. The third thing was his physical examination. He had a, he had a medical exam at Walter Reed on Friday. Let's talk about this with Dr. Rob Davidson of Paging America. There's Dr. Rob. Good to see you, man.
- [35:45]
C
Hey, Jim. How you doing? Come to you from my car. Just, just got done working a weekend in a rural ER in Wisconsin. Just flew home, but I wanted to talk to you. I knew you wanted to chat about this, and I definitely want to make time.
- [35:56]
A
Let's do it. And if you could turn your phone sideways, I don't know, that way, you know, we'll get. There you go. You'll be good.
- [36:03]
C
All right.
- [36:04]
A
Or color there. And it won't look like it's. We're a little off, but, but good to see you. And it's funny that we're doing this because just the other day, as most of the world now knows, you helped me administer my cognitive test the other day, and I just barely passed. Unlike Donald Trump, I just barely found. I did okay there, too. But what do you make of, of this medical exam, the report that they released very late on a Friday night, As I was saying Friday night, if the Biden people had put that out at, at 11 o' clock on a Friday night, they'd be going nuts. Over on Fox. You know, Trump had to post about it. He, he put out a post saying, I scored a perfect 30 out of 30 on the cognitive test. And he says it's, that's considered, quote, extreme intelligence.
- [36:48]
B
Wow.
- [36:49]
A
Now, Dr. Rob, you and I did a whole thing where we said, yeah, yeah, yeah, this is not about intelligence. And he keeps saying this.
- [36:56]
C
Yeah, it has nothing to do with intelligence or iq. It's cognitive function, right? It's basic things. Naming animals, you know, repeating numbers and words and drawing a clock. I mean, people saw it, right? People can find it anywhere they want. Nothing to do with intelligence. You know, you know, you know the news, right? You know how reporting works. I know medicine. I know a little bit about politics. So it seems like a Friday at 11pm dump of, of something that people have been asking about for, you know, three days and that the President wants to talk about, like ad nausea. Seems like that's a pretty significant tell. When that's, when you release it, you just, you maybe don't want the attention on it. There wasn't anything terribly damning in that report. It's just odd, right? It's an annual exam, but it's happening more than annually. So that's a little strange. Unless you have a medical condition they're monitoring, you know, it shouldn't be just routine exams every six months or so. And the whole cognitive test piece, I still just can't understand exactly where they are because it's unclear from the report if they did another cognitive test. They basically said in the report they were reporting on everything over the last year or some period of time, not just that exam. Seemed to say, like, he passed another one, he aced another one, as if just taking it over and over and over is continuing to prove how smart he is. And he keeps lying about what it is. And it still goes back to that same question of why are they administering a cognitive test to an individual unless there are concerns about his cognitive function? And then why are they administering more than one cognitive test unless there were concerns with the first one or the second one, Like, I. It's hard to know. I mean, we know his former doctor, you know, is that Jackson, Robbie Jackson, The Texas Carnivore?
- [38:46]
A
Dr. Ronnie Jackson? That's right, Jackson.
- [38:48]
C
Like, I mean, come on, we couldn't trust that guy. I don't know who this other, this new physician is, you know, the one he has now. I mean, the report outlined some things that don't kind of jive with what we consider to be Pretty routine, you know, recommending aspirin. You know, the guy takes four times the aspirin that possibly could be recommended, but unless you have heart disease at his age, you shouldn't be taking aspirin. The recommendations are that. And so it's very confusing, but I think brings up more questions than it really answers and it leaves us all a bit more in the dark.
- [39:22]
A
That's right, yeah. As for Dr. Ronnie Jackson, I would not let him operate on my dog. So stay away from little duke. Just keep Dr. Ronnie Jackson far away from him. But the other thing, and it goes to what you were just saying a few moments ago, Dr. Rob, is that the Wall Street Journal has a story where they talk to a number of physicians who basically said that the recent physical examination lacks details of the results of tests to assess his cardiovascular health. And so they're just that, that's the, that's what the Wall Street Journal is reporting. They spoke to some doctors who say, hey, wait a minute, there's, there's stuff missing in this report. And then the other thing that you said, I think this is the third or fourth, I think it's the fourth time he's done the cognitive test that we know of. And you just, as you and I were talking about this the other day, how is this not a bigger story that the President of the United States keeps taking cognitive tests? That seems to be, that should really raise alarm bells, it seems to me.
- [40:17]
C
Yeah, I mean, if, if he aced it. Okay, let's say he did okay. You know, I mean, his behavior and you know, on, on true social and when you just see him speaking would suggest, I don't know, you know, a 30 sounds a bit far fetched. But fine, let's assume he did well then like it's, you're done, you're done. Unless there's new information from, again, family or people around him or his doctor that says, oh, something changed. You know, I have loved ones, very close loved ones who had a small stroke. And if something like that happens. Yeah, you probably want to assess if there's concerns with people around them. But if there aren't, and if there isn't actual disease happening, and truly someone aced it, let's say you give them one because, I don't know, he wanted to take a test and show he could ace it. That should be it. It's very, very strange. And again, it just suggests this lack of clarity. And they're like, what aren't they telling us? We should know. It's the President. This Guy in charge of like a war right now, the nuclear codes, like all these crazy tariffs, gas prices, where they are. Like he's doing all this. Is this, is he doing this because he's lost touch with reality or is he just inflicting pain for the sake of inflicting pain? It's hard to say.
- [41:28]
A
It's hard to say. Although I will say I think he's lost touch with reality. I think he lost touch with that a long time ago. But, you know, it just seems to me, and maybe the way to sort of resolve this is for him to do this in front of the cameras the way we did it.
- [41:41]
C
Yeah.
- [41:42]
A
The public could see you and I do this. You administered it, I took it. I had a little hiccup at one point and you know, but, but those, that's the way things go. It was, yeah, it was around this time of day and I had not had a Diet Coke in several hours. And so I think that that's how I'll explain it. But no, but I mean, I think why not have the President, why not have Donald Trump do the cognitive test on camera? You know, do it and do it in front of the cameras over at the White House? Let's see if you really are acing these tests because he keeps talking about it and I don't really believe anything that he says, so I can't believe it. He's acing these tests.
- [42:17]
C
I'm sorry, we know he's lying about a part of the test when he talks about these. It's not complex math, but it's multi step math with multiplication, division of, you know, three digit numbers. I mean, he's done that repeatedly. And you know, I know anyone with an Internet connection can know that, that it's just not true. Like, obviously he deals in lies that are so provable, like daily. Right. This is just one that happens to land right in the lapse of us, of me as a doctor and the rest of us as physicians watching this unfold, to say, why would you lie about something so simple? I mean, is he trying to get people to think it really was a really difficult test and kudos to you for acing it four times. I don't know, but boy, you know, when you can find it so easily, it seems insane that people would keep letting him go and do that.
- [43:07]
A
Yeah, no, and I, and I have my results right here. If I can reach over without knocking everything over in here. I mean, this is it right here. Just, I'll just hold this up to the, to the camera. There are the animals that I had to identify as part of the test. A camel, a rhinoceros, and a lion. I had to draw lines from a 1A to 1.
- [43:25]
C
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [43:26]
A
I mean, this is. This is. You know, I don't mean to make light of it, because there are people who need to take this test, but it is not an IQ test. It is not a test of one's intelligence. It just isn't.
- [43:38]
C
Yeah, yeah. And so, you know, the other things on there, I mean, the bruising on the hands, we have no idea what that's all about.
- [43:45]
A
We don't.
- [43:45]
C
You know, is. Is, you know, the aspirin he's taking? Why is he taking that? He said he just likes his blood thin. But we know he has a higher risk of bleeding, right? A higher risk of bleeding. Unless he's a person with heart disease. If he's a person with heart disease or stroke or mini stroke history, then an 81 milligram aspirin would be recommended at his age, but not, you know, otherwise there should be no reason, let alone four times that. You know, he's on two different cholesterol meds, but his cholesterol numbers are like, are to be envied. You know, if those are his numbers, it's HDL 70. I mean, he's not going anywhere.
- [44:21]
A
And the other thing is, he's falling as he's falling asleep all the time. He barely has a public schedule. And when he's in front of the cameras in public, he falls asleep. And I've heard other folks say, well, what's going on with that? You know, objectively true, right?
- [44:33]
C
It's just objectively, we see it. We see it every day. We. It's. We're not. No one's like, his tds and making stuff up here like this just happens. So tell us why, or does he have sleep apnea? I don't know. That's a reason. People get tired during the day. I mean, from his postings and the times of day, I don't know that he sleeps much at all. And maybe that's part of it. Maybe it's like a little time out from. From the social media during certain hours, like we would do with our kids when they were younger. I don't know. I don't know how to explain it all.
- [45:00]
A
I don't either. Well, Dr. Rob, thank you for pulling over and doing this in a safe way. I'm glad you're not driving down the highway while doing this, but always appreciate it. Thanks a lot.
- [45:11]
C
All right. Great, Jim. Talk to you soon.
- [45:12]
A
All right. Good to see you. Thanks so much. And as I was saying at the top of the show, you know, the global rejection of Donald Trump is now at hand. It's now at hand. It's happening now. A judge has told Donald Trump, get your damn name off of the Kennedy Center. It is the Kennedy Center. It will never be the Trump Kennedy Center. Get your damn name off the Kennedy Center. The other thing that's been happening is artists who aren't exactly, you know, you know, selling out, you know, Madison Square Garden. These are artists that were maybe more popular in the 80s and 90s. Even these artists that they lined up for the America 250 celebration coming up in a couple weeks, even those folks are pulling out. People like Millie Vanilli and the Commodores and, you know, nice people, Martina McBride, I'm sure they're all wonderful artists to this day. They're all dropping out of this America 250 thing. But we have been enjoying the memes and I think, do I, is it, is it too much for me to put this latest one up? They're trying to come up with other acts to perform at. There it is right there, the Village Idiots. And I want to give a shout out. It's apparently at the only esta. Somebody came up with that. But there you see the Village Idiots instead of the Village People, and it's starring Donald trump. Look at J.D. vance looking pretty macho there. He is a macho man. J.D. vance. And I kind of like, I kind of like Mike Johnson as the construction work. But anyway, people are coming up with different memes to say these are the, the performers that they're going to have at the America 250 Festival. But you know, the thing is, is that Donald Trump is now saying he's, he wants to take his toys and go home. He's saying, okay, Congress, I'm going to give you authority over the Kennedy Center. Okay, you artists, if you don't want to perform. If the Village, if I can't get the Village People to perform at the America 250 celebration, or even the Village Idiots in that case, Donald Trump is saying he's going to turn the America250 celebration into, he calls it a MAGA celebration. This is in the hill. Trump has suggested that an event celebrating America's 250th birthday should instead be a Make America Great Again rally after many of the artists who were announced to perform dropped out. I just want to say something about this because I thought about this over the weekend. You know, how long has it been that. That Donald Trump has been saying he's going to make America great again? I just want to say, you know, if you want to celebrate that on America's 250th birthday, first of all, that's repugnant. That's terrible. It's not about you. It's about the country turning 250 years old. But don't you think he's been talking about this, what, the last 10 to 15 years? Don't you think he should have made America great by now? Why is he still saying make America great? I mean, that. That was just a thing that occurred to me over the week. I was. I was driving my car. I was driving, you know, members of my family around. I'm just, you know, pondering all of this, pondering life as I sometimes do. And I'm thinking to myself, to hell with that. In what world does it make any sense for this to be a Make America Great Again rally? Arguably, Donald Trump is. Has not made America great at all and has arguably made it much more divided and polarized and a place where people are just totally exhausted all the time because they're tired of his. His nonsense. But I'm sorry, but, you know, Trump, you've had 10 to 15 years now to make America great. You failed. Go home. And it seems to me now is the time to go home, Donald Trump. Now is the time to pack it up. We're not gonna. We're not gonna keep your name on the Kennedy Center. Apparently, there are judges who have problems with your arch. Your reflecting pool project is not going well. People are flying over it and looking at how it looks and noticing how it looks absolutely terrible. Your weaponization fund appears to be toast. Yes, you are raising the white flag on the weaponization fund. Your thugs and criminals from January 6 are not going to get their payouts. No matter how hard you try, they're not gonna get their money. And so it seems to me the global rejection of Donald Trump is at hand. It is springtime in the rejection. In the worldwide rejection of Donald Trump, where we're seeing the green shoots of the Trump rejection project happening. And I will say, you know, we also have Pete Hegseth. Maybe they'll get Pete Hegseth to perform on the National Mall. We're running out of artists. Does he know any? Did you see? There he is right there. Whenever we mention Pete Hegseth, I'm sorry, can you say that you made America great? If Pete Hegseth is the Defense Secretary. I mean, I'm just. Sorry, but that's. That, to me, right there, that's kind of like one strike and you're out. When Pete Hegseth is the Defense Secretary, you cannot credibly argue that you have made America great in any way, shape or form. If, if our armed forces are led by that individual. I'm sorry, it's just, it's not really working for me. But he has put a lot of village idiots in charge of our government. He has put. He has. He has the village idiots. There's no question about it. But it just seems to me, I mean, can we just do some fireworks? I, you know, when I grew up around here in the D.C. area, we had the Beach Boys on the 4th of July. Can we just ignore Donald Trump, set off some fireworks, get a cool band to play on the National Mall and just. We just, we just, we're just gonna do this ourselves without Donald Trump. If you wanna make America great again, if you Wanna celebrate America's 250th birthday, the best way to do it is to take Donald Trump completely out of the equation, to remove Donald Trump totally from this process. We don't mention. How about this? I got an idea. How about we don't mention Donald Trump on July 4, 2026, for our 250th birthday of the United States of America? That would be a great birthday present. Let's make it a day where we don't say the words Donald Trump. Let's make it a day where we are totally ignoring his bullshit, his shit, posting his nonsense on social media, his contrived attempts to stir up outrageous, his ridiculous things that he says on Fox and everywhere else. Maybe, maybe the Fourth of July. Maybe the best way to celebrate America's 250th birthday is to totally and completely and absolutely ignore the President of the United States who has, I'm sorry, run out of time when it comes to making America great. You didn't do it. You failed. So on this birthday of the United States of America, this 250th birthday, I say we ignore Donald Trump. All right, I want to thank Norm Eisen for coming on the show today. I want to thank Scott McFarland and Dr. Rob Davidson. Thanks to all of you for watching. Appreciate everybody who tunes in day in and day out, supports independent media. It matters when you, like, subscribe, share this program. Anything you can do to make a difference in the world of independent media. You saw three examples today. Three examples today. One, two, three. I could pass a cognitive test. We 1, 2, 3. Me, Norm Eisen, Scott McFarland, and I guess you could say Dr. Rob Davis. I guess maybe it's four, maybe it's four. Four reasons why independent media matters. And it does make a huge difference when you support what we do here in this brand new pioneering frontier of independent journalism. But in the meantime, still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. I'll see you next time.