The content discusses significant political developments, including Republican senators pushing back against Donald Trump's nominees, concerns over the Pentagon's integration of Elon Musk's AI, and the impending impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, alongside observations on Donald Trump's public speaking habits and policy pronouncements.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Republicans are starting to tell Donald
Trump no, at least some of them. Two
Republican senators are going to block
every single Trump nominee to the
Federal Reserve because of his
politicized probe into Jerome Powell.
Then we're going to talk about maybe one
of the most disturbing things you'll see
today, which is Trump's top defense
official melting down on stage and then
announcing that Elon Musk's Grock AI
will be inside the Pentagon network.
Could this possibly be a good idea?
Caroline Levit resurfaces with maybe her
worst and most humiliating public
appearance yet. Admits far more than she
probably intended to, including threats,
smears, and chilling rhetoric. We're
also going to look at the slurping. If
you don't know what this is about, it's
disturbing. Make sure you're not eating
during that segment. And finally,
Democratic lawmakers are finally going
to move forward to try to impeach
Christy Gnome after disaster after
disaster involving the Department of
Homeland Security. All of that and so
All right, what a show today. Before I
forget, if you live in Lisbon, Portugal,
either because that's where you're from
or you've moved there, including from
the United States or from some other
place, I've got some stuff coming up in
Lisbon. I would love to connect with
some of the folks in the audience who
are there. So, shoot me an email info@davidpacman.com.
info@davidpacman.com.
That's Lisbon, Portugal. All right. Uh
there are some Republicans starting to
tell Donald Trump, "No, we have two
Republican senators who are now going to
block Donald Trump's nominees to the
Federal Reserve because the Justice
Department, as I told you yesterday,
launched this criminal investigation
targeting the Fed chairman, Jerome
Powell. They are calling it exactly what
it is, coercion." First up is Tom
Tillis, who by the way is not running
for reelection, so he's in a position
where he can do this. Tillis announced
he is now going to oppose every single
Trump nominee to the Federal Reserve
until that DOJ investigation into Jerome
Powell is resolved. Uh we then are also
hearing Oh, but I should mention, by the
way, Tillis is on the Senate Banking
Committee. They control whether Fed
nominees even get out of the gate. So,
this is not a symbolic thing. This is a
guy with actual power to screw up
Trump's plans for remaking the Federal
Reserve in his own image or whatever.
All right. Next, Lisa Marowski. She said
she personally spoke with Jerome Powell
and described this uh DOJ investigation
as nothing more than an attempt at
coercion. Those are her words. That's a
Republican senator. She said Tom
Tillis's blockade is something she's
going to get behind. She said that they
are right to attempt to freeze every Fed
nomination until this is resolved. So
what is it that is going on here? As I
told you yesterday, Donald Trump's
Justice Department is investigating the
sitting Fed Reserve chair, the guy who's
responsible for interest rates in
addition to working in concert with the
other Fed go governors. And Republican
senators are acknowledging what I said
yesterday, which is this is Trump trying
to intimidate the Fed. This is Trump
saying, "I didn't get the interest rates
I wanted, so now I'm going to try to
make your life a living hell." Of
course, the Fed is supposed to be
independent. The Fed is not supposed to
be swayed by the personal wishes and
desires and wet dreams of the president
of the United States. Now, where it gets
interesting is that the banking
committee chaired by Tom Tillis has 13
Republicans and 11 Democrats. If Tillis
holds his ground and Democrats vote no,
Trump's picks will hit a 12 to2
deadlock. If it's party lines plus
Tillis's vote going with the Democrats,
that doesn't automatically kill the
nominations, but it would make the
process extremely difficult and also
politically explosive where you could
end up with Republicans saying, "Listen,
we need Tillis's vote, and we're not
going to have Tillis' vote if and until
the DOJ probe is resolved." So you could
end up with the other 12 uh Republicans
on the Senate Banking Committee going to
the president and saying, "You got to
order this investigation to be stopped
or ended." Now, according to policy
analysts, getting around the deadlock if
they don't simply go to Trump and say,
"End the probe," would require uh some
procedural gymnastics, including maybe
blowing past the filibuster. So, it
doesn't appear that without Tom Tillis's
uh vote in the Senate Banking Committee,
Trump can steamroll this. And um Mowski
has a track record here. She voted with
Democrats against one of Trump's
nominees last year. And so, this is not
just talk. There are even right-wing
policy groups and media outlets saying
what the DOJ is doing is
counterproductive because in the end it
may prevent Donald Trump from getting
any of his Fed nominees sworn in which
is a polite way of saying this is
completely backfired. Trump doesn't know
what he's doing. Trump wants leverage
over the Fed, but he's doing something
that is going to take that leverage
away. He has united Democrats against
his nominees and he is causing some
Republicans to peel off. And so this is
not a left-wingled rebellion. This is
Republicans now uh creating a real
problem for Donald Trump. The resistance
is coming from his own party. And these
are the sorts of cracks that can lead to
things breaking. Now, as I told you
yesterday, Jerome Powell does not seem
to be backing down. Since I reported on
this on yesterday's show, we learned
that Jerome Powell has hired an
extremely aggressive law firm whose name
escapes me right now. And I should have
looked it up. In fact, let me see if I
can find it. Jerome Powell hires law
firm. What is the law firm? Um,
he has hired Williams and Con Connelly
and that is an extremely aggressive firm
that knows how to deal with exactly
these sorts of investigations. You don't
hire them if your plan is to roll over
is the point that I am inarticulately uh
trying to make here. So, we are going to
see how this develops. And then again, I
I this is so important to remind people
of every single time. You don't
typically see the dumping of interest
rates, the decline in interest rates
that Trump is demanding. If the economy
is good, Trump is simultaneously telling
us, "This is a phenomenal economy.
Everything is humming along beautifully,
but I want the Fed to cut interest rates
in the way that they typically only do
during massive economic calamities. So,
they can't both be true. Unless, I
guess, you were Donald Trump. Powell
does not appear to be backing down. top
Trump tool Pete Haggse, the Secretary of
Defense, reunited in a beautiful love
affair with Elon Musk, and denounced, if
you can believe this, that Grock AI, the
ex uh um artificial intelligence LLM,
um is going to be allowed inside the
Pentagon. Does this sound like a good
idea to anybody? Forget about uh uh
accuracy. Forget about the politics of
it. Do we want Elon's AI run by, you
know, random 20 year olds that he's put
in charge of it inside the sensitive
network of the Pentagon? We will get to
that in a moment. Here is Pete Hegsth
still going with this whole no fat
people, no dudes in dresses. We are
really revising how the Pentagon is
going to work.
>> First is we're reviving the warrior ethos.
ethos.
We want to get rid of the distractions
and the debris. No more DEI.
>> No more climate change worship and
social justice and political
correctness. We're done with that. We're
unleashing the war fighter to be ready,
trained, disciplined, accountable, and
lethal. When you allow them to do that,
they're incredibly good at their job, as
the world has seen as as a uh indicted
criminal in Venezuela found out about a
week ago.
>> Yeah. You know, I I would never use
phrases like this because it's just it's
just not me. But I got about a dozen
emails from people in the audience
characterizing this video the exact same
way, which is that Heg Seth is a little
Now, I would never say that. I
think that those terms are unproductive.
It's unbecoming of a program like this,
but I'm just mentioning to you many in
the audience wrote to me and said that.
Now, I want to do a little, this is not
a thought experiment. This is a
practical question. Think very carefully
here. does this approach we are going to
get rid of our dudes and dresses and no
more DEI and all of this stuff. If you
are living in Milwaukee or De Moine or
Oklahoma City or Fort Lauderdale and you
are struggling to feed your family,
struggling to make rent, struggling to
afford replacing a flat tire on your car
and you hear that Trump has proposed
increasing the military budget from 960
billion to 1.5 trillion. And the guy in
charge of a lot of this is Pete Hexth,
who goes, "We're gonna get dudes in
dresses out of the military." And we're,
do you hear that they are working for
you? Does it sound like your stress
about not being able to replace that
spare tire or having to choose between
paying your now doubled health care
premiums and food is a choice that now
is not going to be one because Trump is
going to fix it for you? Does it sound
like they are bringing solutions to
those problems? When you hear this, I
think the answer is very obviously no.
Pete Hegsth indicating that there
haven't been a lot of boats sunk lately
because they can't find any boats to
sink. They got them all, I guess, is the implication.
implication.
>> Waters, we will target your drug boats
and we will sink them.
There haven't been many boats sunk recently
recently
because we can't find boats to sink.
Because no one wants to get in a narco
boat, which is the whole point. Stop
sending your drugs to our country and
And it's not just you. his delivery and
his whole demeanor on stage is very very
strange. Now then we get to the really
big toxic disgusting horrifying
announcement that has been made which is
that Elon Musk is now once again being
greeted as a hero after a little period
of time during which things were a
little rough between uh uh the Trump
administration and Elon Musk. And Pete
Hegsth announces the AI chatbot Grock,
controlled by the former Twitter, now X,
will be joining the AI engine operating
inside the US Pentagon. This seems like
a very, very bad idea.
>> Thank you.
Appreciate. Thank you very much. Today
we're excited to announce the next
frontier AI model company to join Gen AI.mill
AI.mill
and that is Grock from X AI which will
go live later this month. Very soon we
will have the world's leading AI models
on every unclassified and classified
network. Uh what
>> throughout our department long overdue
and we will not employ AI models that
won't allow you to fight wars. We will
judge AI models on this standard alone.
Factually accurate, mission relevant,
without ideological constraints that
limit lawful military applications.
Department of War AI will not be woke.
It will work for us.
>> It will not generate images of dudes in dresses.
dresses.
>> We're building war ready weapons and
systems, not chat bots, for an Ivy
League faculty lounge.
>> Yeah. One of the things Grock does and
does regularly is it will make non-consensual
non-consensual
artificial intelligence created nude and
sexually explicit images of people in
the public eye. That is exactly what we
need inside the Pentagon. This seems
like a disastrous idea. They did give
Elon Musk a chance to speak and he said,
"We want to make Starfleet Academy real.
We want to make Star Trek real." and the
always articulate and uh dynamic Elon
Musk bringing his gravitas to this.
>> And I I'll tell you a little bit just about
about
the purpose of SpaceX. It's like we want
to make Star Trek real.
Okay. We want to make Starfleet Academy real
real
so that it's not always science fiction,
but one day the science fiction turns to
science fact.
And we have spaceships going through
space, big spaceships
with people going to other planets,
going to the moon, and ultimately going
beyond our star system to other star
systems where we may meet aliens, >> right?
>> right?
>> Or discover long dead alien
civilizations. I don't know. But we want
to go and we want to see what's
happening and we want to have epic
futuristic spaceships with lots of
people in them traveling to places we've
never been to before.
>> It's really it's really really cool. Now
listen, I'm the first to say I think
space exploration is a valuable use of
money and resources and we learn so much
about ourselves and develop technologies
and I'm I'm all for it. It's the
combination of Elon being so involved in
both the administration
and also in the technology that is being
allowed in. And meanwhile, as people are
struggling, he was meant to find the
waste, fraud, and abuse and get rid of
it. Turns out they couldn't really find
it. Still not a single person charged
with any of the fraud that supposedly
took place. And then he is being given
the hero's welcome to talk about uh
making Starfleet Academy real. So, my
skepticism is not about the worthiness
of space exploration. My skepticism is
about putting Elon Musk in charge of any
of this stuff. We're going to take a
break. After the break, Caroline Levit
has resurfaced. It's not so good. I'll
tell you that.
One challenge in covering politics today
is that even when outlets are reporting
the same facts, they often are framing
the stories really differently. And our
sponsor, Ground News, is a website and
app that makes those differences easy to
see. What Ground News does is gather
coverage of the same story from across
the political spectrum and shows you
where the reporting is coming from. You
can see which outlets lean left, right,
or center. And you can also see how
reliable they are and who owns them.
What I find most useful is the
sidebyside headline comparison. You're
looking at the same underlying facts,
but it's clear how different outlets
will emphasize one angle or a narrative
or another. Ground News gives you a
transparent way to understand bias
without being told what to think. They
also offer a blind spot feed which will
highlight stories under reportported by
one side of the political spectrum and
that helps surface items that I might
otherwise otherwise miss or not even
hear about. You can also personalize
your feed by interest and that makes it
easier to follow issues you personally
to get 40% off the ground news vantage
plan and you can also gift a
subscription to a friend. The link is in
the description. The David Pacman Show
continues to be made possible primarily
by our audience through the membership
program. We do an extra show for our
members. We provide commercial free
audio and video feeds of the show. And I
want to say a big thank you to our two
newest members, Charles Robersonson and
Greg Norse. Appreciate both of you.
Invite you to sign up at joinpacman.com.
And a week from today, next Tuesday, we
will be doing a one-day membership
drive. 365 days into Donald Trump's
first year of his second term. It'll be
the biggest discount of the year. If you
want to partake, just get on my
newsletter. Two ways to do it. Email info@davidpacman.com
info@davidpacman.com
and say, "Hey, David, get me on that
newsletter." Or you can sign yourself up
Caroline Levit resurfaced Donald Trump's
White House press secretary. She
appeared on Fox News and then she spoke
directly to reporters in what is called
a scrum. When she appeared on Fox News,
she said maybe one of the most
disgusting and dishonest things she has
ever said, and that takes a lot because
she lies every single time she speaks to
the media. She referred to the deceased
37year-old Renee Good killed by the ICE
officer as a deranged lunatic and says
there's lots of evidence that she struck
the ICE officer with her vehicle. That
is not what any of the video suggests,
but let's listen to what she had to say
>> about this case from the very beginning.
And they have had to change their story
and their narrative because at first you
heard Democrats, including the mayor of
Minneapolis, saying that the car never
struck the officer and the lethal force
was unjustified. Now, of course, there
is plentiful video evidence to show that
the officer was struck by the car, that
this deranged lunatic woman was trying
to ram him over with her vehicle and was
using that vehicle as a weapon, which
justifies domestic terrorism. And
unfortunately, we are seeing these
instances play out in American
communities across the country where you
have these organized paid antagonists
who are part of these groups that are
actively uh unlawfully justif uh uh
impeding uh lawful law enforcement
operations. They are harassing in
targeting ICE agents trying to make it
impossible again for their them to carry
out their duties. That's what was
happening in this case. That officer
used his training. I understand that
he's been on the force and he's been
protecting American communities for many
many years. He's an experienced uh and
brave individual who unfortunately had
to make a very tough decision and was
put in that position by these paid
agitators uh who have been doing this
all over the country.
>> Of course, no evidence that any of that
took place. And when she says there is
plentiful video evidence that Renee Good
struck the officer with her car, does
she mean there is no evidence?
whatsoever. And this is the problem.
When you get into this web of lies, when
you jump the gun and you get out ahead
of your skis and you call the officer a
hero and Renee Good a domestic terrorist
and all this stuff, you can't back off
of it. They end up in a situation where
they cannot constitutionally, and I
don't mean like capital C like the
Constitution in terms of their makeup,
what makes them them. They are unable to
just come out and say, "We got out ahead
of the facts a little bit." And it turns
out that it's different. They can't do
it. They won't do it. Um, we now have uh
Okay, I have a lot of these clips here
to go through. She was then asked about
whether Donald Trump believes the
actions of the ICE officer were
justified. And she says, "Of course his
actions were justified." Of course they
were. In terms of what happened last
Wednesday and the officer who was
involved in the shooting, does the
president stand fully behind that
officer, that agent, does the president
believe his actions were justified?
>> Absolutely. And I think the more
evidence that comes out shows the
officer was justified and President
Trump was right about this all along.
And who was wrong? The Democrat party
and the mainstream media who despicably
have been lying about this officer and
about this case from the very beginning.
and they have had to change their story
and their narrative because at first you
heard Democrats including the mayor of
Minneapolis saying that the car never
struck the officer and the lethal force
was unjustified. Now, of course, there
is plentiful video evidence to show that
the officer was struck by the car.
>> All right, so now we get into the part
that that we looked at before. Um,
listen, I uh I don't expect
Let me put it this way. I don't expect a
wholesome and complete robust
investigation of the incident because
federal authorities are already blocking
state authorities from carrying that
out. And I don't expect that we will
ever hear this administration simply
say, "Hey, we were wrong about this."
If, and this is a huge if, and at this
point not a particularly not a
particularly likely one, uh if indeed we
see some authority decide we are going
to charge the ICE officer and if the
evidence is not so good in terms of the
ICE officer's actions, in other words,
if this starts to go south for the
perspective of the administration, I
assume that they will do what they never
actually do, which is to back away and
go, "Listen, we're not putting our thumb
on the scale one way or the other.
They're they're going to just kind of
back off and they will never say we were
wrong about it. Now remember, if there
were to be charges and they are federal,
Trump can just pardon the guy. And so
that's another sort of framework that's
important to keep in mind with regard to
if the with the importance of this being
a state investigation. I'm with Tim
Walls, the governor of Minnesota, who
said he doesn't believe there is going
to be a complete investigation because
that is being blocked right now by
federal authorities. I think he is
completely right. Finally, Caroline
Levit asked, "Does the This is now
switching gears during this Fox
interview. This is about the
investigation of Jerome Powell. Does the
uh uh president believe in the
independence of the Federal Reserve?"
And listen very carefully to Caroline
Levit's answer. Uh final question on the
independence of the Fed. There are some
concerned um at this moment uh based on
the new actions by the Feds to open a
probe into the Federal Reserve Chair
Jerome Powell. President Trump has made
it very clear how he feels about uh the
Federal Reserve chair and his actions
while chairing the Fed. Um can you
assure independents of the Federal
Reserve and and where will this be going
next? This probe? Well, look, as for the
criminal probe, you'll have to ask the
Department of Justice about that. They
are in charge. I do know one thing is
for sure. Jerome Powell has proven he's
not very good at his job.
>> And of course, not being good at your
job is not a crime and it would not
justify a completely partisan
investigation of Jerome Powell. But this
is Trump world that we are living in.
Caroline Levit may be the most dishonest
press secretary, but also arguably
effective because she has no scruples or
limits to the lies that she is willing
to tell. It was a little different when
she was in a scrum with reporters. Let's
talk about that. Caroline Levit went out
there and participated in a scrum with
reporters outside of the White House and
she says that this is an administration
that is steadfastly, wholeheartedly and
in a committed way standing behind the
the American people. No, the officers of
ICE. That is that's who needs the
support of this administration the most
right now. According to Caroline Le
>> homeland security, but our national
security and this administration will
continue to stand wholeheartedly by the
brave men and women of ICE, including
that officer in Minneapolis, who was
absolutely justified in using
self-defense against a a lunatic who was
part of a group, an organized group, to
interject and to impede on law
enforcement operations. And
>> yeah, how about standing behind the
American people? How about declaring
that opinions and speech are not valid
reasons to be roughed up, uh, pepperballed,
pepperballed,
sprayed, and even killed by federal
officers? Wouldn't that maybe be the
more appropriate and courageous position
to take? Caroline Levit was asked about
Christine Gnome who is about to get
impeached. The Secretary of Homeland
Security and not surprisingly Caroline
Levit goes she is doing such a great job.
job.
>> Secretary Christine Gnome has been front
and center in response to this ICE
video. Is the president satisfied with
her efforts there?
>> By the way, the context is that there
are a lot of reports that Trump is about
to fire
>> and all of her media interviews.
>> Yes, 100%. Uh, President Trump and I
actually spoke about this last night and
how Secretary Gnome is doing a
phenomenal job um, not just securing the
border, which she and the president did
together in record time, but also in
defense of the brave men and women of
ICE who put on a law enforcement uh,
uniform every single day to protect our
communities and to protect all of you
and every American regardless if they
are Democrat or Republican. Uh, ICE is
doing a very important job to remove
illegal alien criminals from our
communities. And I think it's very
striking that all weekend long you had
agitators and violent American citizens
out in the streets of Minneapolis
protesting. Protesting what exactly?
Apparently, they are protesting the
removal of heinous murderers and rapists
and criminals from a city that I can
guarantee you when you look at the list
of the illegal criminals that ICE is
removing from our communities every day, not
not
>> you know, I have still not heard from a
single leftist who says individuals who
have been credibly accused or have
committed crimes, not just being here
illegally, which is of course a civil
infra infraction. I have not heard
anybody on the left in my circles, which
I I admit include a lot of the common
sense leftists. I've not heard anybody
die on the hill of those folks should
just simply be allowed to stay in the
United States. What people are
protesting and what we are activating
against are the number one potentially
unconstitutional methods that are being
applied here, the doortodoor stuff and
all of these other things. And also the
fact that we were told one thing by this
administration at the start of this
entire process and they are just going
they're going to Home Depot and just uh
uh uh wrapping up workers people just
looking for to to work and earn a day's
a day's wage. They are not doing what
even they said they were going to do.
And yes, it does seem that there are
constitutional and legal violations here
of all sorts as well. Now in terms of
Trump having full confidence in
Christine Gnome, well we will see. It
seems that she is about to get impeached
and also there are rumors that Donald
Trump is about to fire her. Caroline
Levit asked uh about the uh Democratic
response and she said the following
about who really wants to protect
pedophiles. Now I just want to remind
you they still have not released the
full Epstein file. the left. And I think
that it just shows you where the
modern-day Democrat party stands today
in protecting illegal alien pedophiles
and rapists and murderers over
law-abiding American citizens and our
brave men and women uh who serve in law enforcement.
enforcement.
>> All right. And then she dumps a thinly
veiled threat here, a very thinly veiled
threat with regard to Greenland and
says, you know, it's in Greenland's
interests to be part of the United
States. Nice little country you've got
here. Would really be a shame if
something were to happen to it.
>> Does the president have a deadline or a timeline?
timeline?
>> Uh, no. He has not set a timeline, but
it's definitely a priority for him.
>> She she's asking about Greenland, and I
think the president was very clear last
night. He said that he wants to see the
United States acquire Greenland because
he feels that if we do not, then it will
eventually be acquired or even perhaps
hostily taken over by either China uh or Russia.
Russia.
>> Someone else is going to steal it, so
we're going to steal it ourselves first,
>> which is not a good thing for the United
States or for Europe or for Greenland as
well. Let's not forget it would not just
be in the best interest of the United
States, but perhaps it would be in the
best interest of Greenland as well to be
parted part of the United States.
>> Greenland doesn't even know it, but they
would be much better off as part of the
United States. Finally, Levit says that
air strikes on Iran are on the table.
More bombs from the anti-war president,
the rightful winner of the FIFA peace prize.
prize.
>> Strikes off the table in Iran. And does
he believe there's a potential path to
end the protest there without military action?
action?
>> Well, I think one thing President Trump
is is very good at is always keeping all
of his options on the table and air
strikes would be one of the many many
options that are on the table uh for the
commander-in-chief. Diplomacy is always
the first option for the president. He's
told all of you last night that what
you're hearing publicly from the Iranian
regime is quite differently from the
messages the administration is receiving
privately. And I think the president has
an interest in exploring those messages.
However, with that said, um the
president has shown he's unafraid to use
military options if and when he deems
necessary and nobody knows that better
than Iran.
>> And of course, the peace president seems
to be deeming it necessary a lot of the
time. Caroline Levit, she really just
can't help herself anymore. Donald Trump
has been known for sniffing when he
speaks for a long time, but now he's
slurping. Donald Trump has a new symptom
and it's raising a lot of red flags.
Now, let me explain. For a long time,
people have noticed that Donald Trump
sniffs strangely when speaking. We even
made a compilation of this from one of
Donald Trump's recent speeches. Remember this?
this?
All right. And I apologize if people are
eating. That is very very disgusting
stuff. So Trump has been known for that
sniffing noise for a very long time. He
is now doing something new. Trump is
slurping instead of sniffing. Now you
hear it at the start of this video. Take
a listen that.
that.
And there are a lot of examples of this.
We go, for example, to Trump's recent
interview with Sean Hannity. Take a
listen to this. This is this is and
again I I this is disgusting stuff
>> into our country. Nobody did anything
about it.
>> You hear that? And we have another one.
>> But the cartels are running and they're
killing 250 300,000 people in our
>> There you go. We've got another one
>> to live in the home every day. People
are knocking on their door every hour.
And uh it's it's just a great honor to
be involved with it. The ICE and Border
Patrol and all of the people have been
so good. Tom Hol and Christine Nome.
>> You hear it?
>> Trillions of dollars, but we're going to
be there till we
>> Another slurp there and one more for you.
>> All right. So, what is this about? A lot
of you have written to me about this.
There are two hypotheses here. Okay. The
first is this is a breathing issue.
Before Trump struggled to breathe, but
he still could through his nose, but it
was loud. Now, as maybe he has
diminishing strength for these breaths
through the nose, he's taking these
extra breaths through his mouth. And if
there's any saliva in there, it makes
noise. And it could be that. But there's
another aspect to this that a lot of
medical professionals have started to
weigh in on. Uh the thought is that what
is taking place is that Donald Trump is
losing his passive swallow reflex. This
is a natural reflex. Most of us aren't
controlling when we blink. I now that I
mentioned it, I'm thinking very much
about my blinking. But normally we
aren't thinking about that. We normally
don't even control like when we are
breathing and and now that I'm saying
it, I realize that between phrases, I
will sometimes take a breath as I did
right there. But it's normally something
that just happens naturally. Similarly,
the swallow reflex, that passive swallow
reflex while you're sleeping, while you
are just hanging out, you don't even
notice. Now, I noticed I just swallowed
because I mentioned it and I'm paying
attention to it. But the point here is
if you start to lose that reflex, saliva
starts to build up in your mouth. You've
got to either swallow it or suck it back
in. If you are in the middle of a speech
or being interviewed, maybe as you start
to think about it, it becomes hard to
swallow. So, you
suck in when you would normally just be
breathing. Now, you could say, "All
right, so he's sucking saliva. I don't
get it. What's the What's the reason
that this is notable? The reason it's
notable is again as we have a total lack
of transparency about what's going on
with Donald Trump's possible cognitive
decline, neurological conditions, etc.
That loss or diminishing of the passive
swallow reflex, is associated with a
whole bunch of neurological conditions,
including many that are progressive
diseases that get worse over time. The
sniffing has become slurping. And you
can find now there's on social media
copious medical professionals who are
explaining exactly what Trump is doing
with the slurping there. Man, that is a
I apologize. That is a disgusting sound.
um there what what he is doing with that
and the relevance given the concerns
about Trump with regard to cognitive
decline, Alzheimer's, dementia and other
conditions whether he has had a stroke.
So this is again we are left to
speculate because there is a complete
and total lack of transparency. If they
were just honest about what was going
they spent two months describing an MRI
to us that Trump never got because he
had a cat scan. Think of that for a
moment. Slurping Trump. What do you make
of it? Leave a comment. Let me know. in info@davidpacman.com.
Scams and identity theft rarely start
with a hacked password. They usually
start when your personal information is
easy to find online. Your address, phone
number, relatives, employment history.
That information lives on countless data
broker sites on the internet, accessible
to almost anyone unless you actively
remove it. Our sponsor, Incogn, is a
service that handles that for you.
Incogn doesn't just focus on one
category of sites. It works to take down
your personal data wherever it appears
online, reducing the raw material
scammers use to impersonate you or
target your family. Incogn will
automatically handle removals across
hundreds of known sites. But the most
powerful feature is custom removals,
which is included with the unlimited
plan. If you find your info anywhere,
even an obscure directory, a business
database, something new, you paste the
link into incogn, their team will work
to get it removed. That level of
coverage really matters. Even a single
exposed profile can lead to fraud,
harassment, identity theft. Incogn's
removal process is independently
verified by Deote, and you can get 60%
off when you go to incogn.com/pacman
and use the code pacman. Today we
welcome to the program for the first
time Governor Janet Mills, Governor of
Maine, also now running in the
Democratic primary to represent the
state in the US Senate. Uh, Governor,
really appreciate your time today.
Thanks for being here.
>> Thank you, David. I want to to first
talk a little bit about this viral
moment you had when you went to this
governor's meeting at the White House
and you got into an exchange with
President Trump which sort of ended as
far as we saw on camera with Trump
saying that he's going to see you in court.
court.
>> Um can you talk to us a little bit about
the aftermath of that and if when you
know I'm curious about what when these
things happen is there any followup?
farther. Did do you ever hear again from
the president of the United States?
>> Oh, well gosh, yeah. He tweeted and
blasted me all over social media and
insisting that I bend to his will. There
was some nastier language than that. But
um oh yeah, he came up one morning when
he was in a foul mood and blasted me
again. And I thought I just ignored it
because I don't get engaged with the
president of United States on United
States on tweet and social media. what
you know don't my mother always said
don't get into a pissing match with a
skunk right but um you know that
exchange was really strange it was
jaw-dropping for me because when the
president of the United States no matter
what the issue is when he says to you I
we are the federal law and you go no I
mean I'm I'm an American citizen and I'm
a lawyer and I read the constitution you
are not the law the constitution says
that you have to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, not invented,
created, or amended by tweet or
executive order or press release. You're
not the law. So, it was jaw-dropping to
me. And when I said, well, he said, are
you going to follow my executive order?
I said, I'm going to comply with state
and federal law. When he said, I am the
law, I said what any what any American
citizen would say. I'll see you in
court. And so a little while after that,
he told his Department of Agriculture to
stop funding main schools, which meant
176 170,000 school kids would go without
the school lunch program. I thought,
well, that doesn't make any sense. So,
we went to court and a Republican uh
appointed judge uh jud federal judge
appointed by a Republican president um
gave us a ruling that said, "No, you
can't do that. you can't stop funding
school lunch programs because you
disagree with state policy on
transgender athletes. Didn't make any
sense. So, we took them to court and we
won. What a what a situation. I mean, it
does seem as though this is an
administration that sees federal funding
as like a personal compliance tool where
it's just a tool to be wielded based on
personal grievances and preferences at
the end of the day. Do you think that
there needs to be some kind of uh formal
check on the ability of the president to
do that put put in place because it
seems extraordinarily dangerous.
>> It is dangerous and we're seeing that
every day. Unchecked uh weaponization of
the Department of Justice and the FBI uh
and the courts not standing up to him
and the US Senate not standing up to
him. And that was that's what bothers me
most right now that the Senate and the
Congress have given up their authority.
They're seeding to him the authority to
the will to issue taxes and tariffs and
uh whipssaw the economy which is
dangerous to everybody. It's it's
hurting our people, hurting our economy,
the authority to just undermine health
care, undercut undercut women's rights
to reproductive health care, those kinds
of things. and then to just sort of take
a military action in another country,
Venezuela, and take out the leader and
and not explain why you're there, why
you're there, and what your plan is to
to run another country. That's insane.
And I've called upon Susan Collins to
hold hearings. You know, she's the chair
of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
the all powerful Senate Appropriations
Committee. So, hold hearings. Find out
what the game plan is. Find out how they
plan to run another country. Even the
oil companies said we don't we're not
going to invest there. It's too risky.
So what's the plan? you know, taking
these dramatic and risky actions without
consulting Congress as he should have,
without consulting the American people
about a dangerous action and in and
sending ICE agents into American cities
and harming harming people in these
cities, giving them quotas to to make
arrests, handing them a dark outfit and
a gun and a mask and setting them to
setting them loose on the American
people is unchecked power and the
Congress has to stand up to this.
>> I want to now talk about the Senate as
you brought it up. You are in the middle
of this Democratic Senate primary.
There's some interesting data in the
polling including that there's a pretty
significant generational divide between
you and your your sort of chief primary
opponent, Graham Platner. Uh we've
invited your opponent on the program. He
has not yet accepted as of this moment,
but of course we're glad to hear from
him as well. I'm curious on some of the
policies that he proposes. the $25
minimum wage as an example or cancelling
all student debt. What is your What do
you think about some of these ideas?
Maybe those two specifically.
>> Well, listen, I think actions speak
louder than words. I've been in a
position to write legislation, to
negotiate legislation, to get stuff
done. It's not fancy words that matter.
It's deeds. It's results getting
results. And so, you know, in the area
of minimum wage, for instance, I've been
there and drafted minimum wage
legislation for farm workers, for
instance, and been there on prevailing
wage legislation for working people
getting giving them prevailing wages on
construction, publicly funded
construction jobs and things like that.
I've had to make decisions and when
you're in public office, you do have to
make decisions and not just utter
platitudes or talk policy in the, you
know, general sense without backing it
up with action. So I think um you know
regardless of age you look at what
somebody's done what have they
accomplished how have their acts
portrayed their deeds portrayed their
philosophy and their positions and I
think my acts as governor for instance
um delivering progress for main people
on health care on day one I expanded
Medicaid health care to a 100,000 people
I expanded school lunch programs There's
free school lunch to all public school kids.
kids.
We created free community college for
all recent high school grads. Very
popular with younger people. I've
invested hundreds of millions of dollars
in housing. Look, I have grandsons who
are in their early 20s and getting
married or planning to get married,
start a family, good jobs they have, but
they can't afford a house in Maine. And
so I want to help that generation, too.
Child care. We've we've created another
6,000 plus child care slots in me
through my actions and we we keep moving
along uh that line making progress.
>> But Governor, I I apologize on those two
things I mentioned. Is it that I'm
trying to read between the lines? Is it
that you don't support a $25 minimum
wage or that you think it's an
unrealistic thing to promise?
>> Look, I think it's worthy of debate and
I plan to go to the Senate to talk about
what the minimum wage should be. It darn
well shouldn't be 725. That's insane.
And many states still go by the federal
minimum wage, including, I think, New
Hampshire. That's insane. Our minimum
wage today is like $1510. It just went
up. We have a graduated uh minimum wage
uh increase. And maybe that should be on
the federal level, too. Maybe it should
be geared to the U CPI or something, you
know, geared to a an objective criteria.
So, you don't have to go back to
Congress every few years or every 20
years for crying out loud and say what
is what should it be today? What is the
price of living? But we also have to
bring prices down. I truly think that
affordability is not just a talking
point in a campaign. It's a it's a moral
imperative. That includes the cost of
health care, the cost of car repairs,
the cost of groceries. And this
president has done nothing but damage uh
the economy and bring up the price of
goods. when he campaigned over a little
over a year ago saying he was going to
bring down prices and not have any
foreign foreign wars or foreign uh
military actions. Well, that's BS as we
know now. So, I'm going to fight in the
US Senate to bring down prices, bring
down the cost of health care and get rid
of those crazy whipsawing tariffs that,
you know, uncontrollable tariffs that
are affecting the cost of housing. When
it comes to housing, I've looked at your
housing grant, which would be basically
$15,000 to first-time buyers. Your
primary opponent, Platner, wants to ban
corporate landlords entirely. I'm
curious as to what you think about that
and and a market-based solution. And
just as a little bit of context for
this, couple months ago, we had the
governor of Colorado on the show
>> and I asked him about the fact that I
forget the exact percentage, but there's
a surprisingly high percentage of
apartment rental units in Colorado that
are owned by private equity. And he
really didn't want to criticize that in
any way. He just kind of said, "Ah, you
know, there's different landlords of all
kinds." And my audience, which I think
is a fair representation of where the
Democratic primary vote is right now,
was really repelled by that answer from
from Governor Polus. And so I'm
interested in in hearing from you,
especially since you're in a Democratic
primary for the time being. The $15,000
grant is really a market-based solution,
which is okay if that's what what one
supports. Banning corporate landlords is
like a systemic solution about who can
own property. How did you where are you
on this issue? I guess
>> well I haven't heard his specific
proposal on banning corporate landlords. >> Okay,
>> Okay,
>> that's new to me. Uh and nor has he ever
presented that to the legislature. And
I've worked with the main legislature,
members of both parties for years now
>> to create solutions to the housing
problem. One interesting thing we've
done, for instance, was to put money
towards mobile home parks, which is 1/8
of our housing in Maine. Mobile home
parks. And the people who live in them,
many of them have lived there for
decades and decades. And when these
corporate interests come in from out of
state and want to buy up a mobile home
park and turn it into condoized housing
units or something different, I've been
there to protect the people in those
mobile home parks and and help them buy
their own park with some ingenuity, with
some creative financing, and with some
state money. We've done that three
times. So that's the kind of creative
thinking I do working with the
legislature to solve or address the
housing uh problem. It's not just
landlord tenant. It's keeping the the
big equity firms out of our mobile home
parks too and turning our properties
into um you know
mini malls and co fancy condos for rich people.
people.
>> So would you be up for keeping them out
with legislation?
>> No. I for and another thing we've done
is to encourage first home buyers and
this is a key need for young people in
Maine. So we upped the tax on the real
estate transfers because so many people
are coming to Maine and buying houses
for over a million dollars. So we
increase the tax on those sales of over
a million dollars and put that into a
home fund that helps renters get out of
renting an apartment and and get to buy
their own home. And that's the kind of
creative progress we've been making in Maine.
Maine.
>> So, more market-based solutions that are
positioning people to be able to make
these choices on their own, it sounds like.
like.
>> Sure. And we we put money towards
encouraging um lower interest rates from
mortgage mortgages and um obviously we
put money into shelters and temporary
housing as well and uh encouraging
businesses in Maine to provide interim
housing and transitional housing with
some state funding as well. There's a
it's a multifaceted um problem. You
can't just address it by saying we're
gonna get rid ofations or something, but
it's a lot of lot of uh avenues to
address this and we have some great
people working on housing in Maine.
>> Uh Governor, you've pledged if elected
to the Senate that you would serve only
only one term. Talk to me about that decision.
decision. >> Sure.
>> Sure.
Um, one thing going back on
corporations, obviously I'm not taking
corporate packs, so there aren't any
corporate landlords or something that
that are supporting my campaign. Um, not
taking any corporate packs. The age, you
know, I know how old I am and the people
that may know how old I am and they know
my background. They know what I can get
done. They know I will get done things
on day one in the US Senate. That's
important to remember and that's why I
said I I'm not going I'm not going into
this thinking I got to have a career
ladder to climb or build a resume. Been
there, done that. Okay? I just want to
get stuff done for the main people. And
that's why I'm running for one term and
one term only because I'm not going to
be down there on day two picking up the
phone and dialing for dollars. Okay? I
don't want to be down there running for
reelection six years from now when I'm
Bernie Sanders age. Frankly, I just want
to be there and start making progress
immediately. And I've got the background
and the commitment and courage to do
that. And that's why I'm running for one
term only. We have a younger bench
coming up. We have some great people who
are in the legislature, who are leaders
in the legislature, who are running for
governor and other things, and I'm
looking forward to their progress as
well and and helping mentor them, too.
We've been speaking with Maine Governor
Janet Mills, currently running in the
Democratic primary to represent the
state in the Senate. Governor, I really
appreciate your time. This is a very
important race and we're going to be
watching it closely. Thank you so much.
>> It is indeed an important important race
because I think the taking control of
the Senate goes through Maine and I'm
the person who can unseat Susan Collins,
help turn the Senate blue, and stand up
to Donald Trump. I'm the only one in
this race who's actually done that and
I'll do it again in the US Senate.
>> The David Pacman Show is an audience
supported program and the best most
direct way to support the show is by
becoming a member at joinpacman.com.
You'll get the daily bonus show, the
daily commercial free show, and plenty
of other great membership perks. Get the
full experience by signing up at joinpacman.com.
joinpacman.com.
This is what it looks like when the
president is unwell. You will notice
real contrasts to prior presidents, both
Democrats and Republicans. This near
psychotic break took place on social
media. It included messages posted
overnight and very early this morning.
Let's get right into it because there is
a lot of consequence here. Donald Trump
starting quote, "The actual numbers that
we would have to pay back if for any
reason the Supreme Court were to rule
against the USA on tariffs would be many
hundreds of billions of dollars. And
that doesn't include the amount of
payback that countries and companies
would require for the investments they
are making on building plants,
factories, and equipment for the purpose
of being able to avoid the payment of
tariffs." Blah blah blah. I won't even
read the entire thing to you, but what
the president here is arguing is that it
would be really complicated to fix his
total screw up of blanket tariffs on
everything and everyone. And so the
Supreme Court should just forget about
what the law is. Forget about
interpreting the Constitution and the
presidential powers and just say
everything Trump did is fine because at
the end of the day, it would be really
inconvenient to have to change anything
and give the tariff money back. Not a
very convincing argument for keeping
tariffs if they are otherwise
unconstitutional or exceed the power of
the presidency. Not a great argument,
but maybe it's the best one that Donald
Trump has. Trump continuing in another
post. Effective immediately, any country
doing business with the Islamic Republic
of Iran will pay a tariff of 25% on any
and all business being done with the
United States of America. This order is
final and conclusive. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. What I love
about this is even with executive
orders, Trump seems to think that an
executive order is a law. An executive
order is sort of a note from the boss
which tells someone to do something and
what you're asking them to do might be
legal legal or it might not be. It might
be doable or it might not be. But this
is not even an executive order. This is
just a post to truth social. And Trump
seems to think that by saying this order
is final and conclusive, it just makes
it so. Now, of course, Donald Trump has
a mechanism for putting a 25% tariff on
uh anybody, I guess, doing business with
Iran. We could discuss the politics of
whether that's good idea, who that who
that really hurts. If the Supreme Court
is sort of looking at the
constitutionality of it, but the idea
that the line the order is final and
conclusive, it's sort of like if I am
here and I go, I declare
And then I think that that has any
value. Listen, I said I declared it. I I
don't know what else I could really do.
Childish. Childish in every way. Then,
and Trump is just racking up the L's
here on the topic of congestion pricing
in Manhattan. Donald Trump says, quote,
"Congestion pricing in Manhattan is a
disaster for New York. It's got to be
ended immediately. It's never worked
before and it will never work now. I
love New York and hate to see it being
destroyed so rapidly with such obviously
foolish policy. You know, I um I kind of
like the congestion pricing, I have to
tell you. But but David, it's more
expensive to drive into lower Manhattan.
Yeah, I know. And so fewer people are
doing it. It It's so funny. Most of the
time that I'm in lower Manhattan, I've
taken the subway because it is actually
faster and more convenient. However, uh
if I need to be down there and having
the car is more convenient, I think it's
like seven bucks or something like that.
And because the congestion pricing has
dissuaded a lot of people from driving
their cars into that area just the other
day, I parked near the uh the stock
exchange area, which is part it's it's
part of the um congestion pricing area.
There was no traffic. It was a time
where in the past there would be a ton
of traffic. I just drove right to the
garage that I needed. I needed to bring
some stuff and that I I think that it's
been a great success both because I'm
personally benefiting from the
convenience of fewer cars when I need to
be down there with a car. Uh but also
from a pollution standpoint, it is
keeping a bunch of cars out of lower
Manhattan. By what nature, by what uh
metric Trump says it has failed, I don't
really know. Okay. Trump then unleashing
on Biden. It just every single one of
these posts, Trump is just wrong about
everything he's saying. Quote, "Under
sleepy Joe Biden and the radical left
Democrats, the average American
household's monthly utility bills went
up massively over 30%. I never want
Americans to pay higher electricity
bills because of data centers.
Therefore, my administration is working
with major American technology companies
to secure their commitment to the
American people, and we will have much
to announce in the coming weeks." Okay.
And then he goes and he mentions a bunch
of different companies. Couple thoughts
on this. Number one, electricity is up
under Trump more than 10%. And so the
idea that rising utility rates were only
a problem under Biden, it's happening
under Trump as well. But maybe more
importantly, a lot of people have jumped
on this whole data center, electricity
use, um AI, water use, and and all of
this different stuff. These things are
concerns, but you also need to think
about them in context. Like just as an
example, the AI water use one. I just
read a very good study, mostly debunking
it. Like yes, there is some water use
associated with AI, but it's quite
modest really, particularly compared to
all of the other uh sources of of water
use. And it's like Trump just hears a
little kernel of something and then is
like, I don't know, that sounds pretty
good. And then finally, just hours ago,
Donald Trump unleashing on Minnesota
where he says, quote, "Do the people of
Minnesota really want to live in a
community in which there are thousands
of already convicted murderers, drug
dealers, and addicts, rapists, violent
released and escaped prisoners,
dangerous people from foreign mental
institutions and insane asylums, and
other deadly criminals too dangerous to
even mention. All the patriots of ICE
want to do is remove them from your
neighborhood and send them back to the
prisons and me mental institutions from
where they came. Most in foreign
countries who illegally entered the USA
through Sleepy Joe's horrible open
border policy. Okay. And then he goes on
and on and on and he closes with, "Fear
not, great people of Minnesota. The day
of reckoning and retribution is coming.
As usual, total confusion about what
this is really about. First of all, ICE
would only have jurisdiction with regard
to undocumented immigrants and arguably
in cases where they are trying to
denaturalize or whatever. The vast
majority of convicted individuals
anywhere are not undocumented
immigrants. They are just natural-born
Americans which are outside of the
mandate and scope of ICE. And it's funny
how of course motans want to live in
peace, but the vast majority of the
chaos is being caused by ICE and by the
raids. Think about the level of
uncertainty that is being brought to the
streets by the very presence of Donald
Trump's ICO. So Trump could turn that
off overnight and it would all of a
sudden be a much better environment for
motans. The guy doesn't know what's
going on. He is desperate. He is
cornered and he is grasping at straws.
Christy Gnome is getting impeached or at
least the impeachment effort is going to
move forward. Democratic lawmakers are
now saying we're going to impeach
Christine Gnome, Donald Trump's
Secretary of Homeland Security. This is
after federal ICE agents a one federal
ICE agent shot and killed an American
citizen in Minneapolis, 37year-old Renee Good. She was a mother of three. She was
Good. She was a mother of three. She was born in the United States. No, no
born in the United States. No, no serious criminal history, no violent
serious criminal history, no violent record. And yet, within hours, the
record. And yet, within hours, the Department of Homeland Security said
Department of Homeland Security said she's a domestic terrorist. And of
she's a domestic terrorist. And of course, that label came before any of
course, that label came before any of the facts were known. It came before the
the facts were known. It came before the footage was reviewed. It came before an
footage was reviewed. It came before an independent investigation, which by the
independent investigation, which by the way, they are blocking. Representative
way, they are blocking. Representative Angie Craig went on MS Now and said, "We
Angie Craig went on MS Now and said, "We are going to move forward to impeach
are going to move forward to impeach Christino." Another Democrat, Robin
Christino." Another Democrat, Robin Kelly, uh, has already introduced
Kelly, uh, has already introduced articles of impeachment. Those are very
articles of impeachment. Those are very serious articles. They accuse Gnome,
serious articles. They accuse Gnome, number one, of abusing her office for
number one, of abusing her office for personal benefit, of obstructing
personal benefit, of obstructing congressional oversight, of withholding
congressional oversight, of withholding funds that Congress already
funds that Congress already appropriated, and this is a big one, of
appropriated, and this is a big one, of compromising public safety and violating
compromising public safety and violating the constitutional rights of American
the constitutional rights of American citizens. This is not about the rhetoric
citizens. This is not about the rhetoric of Christino. This is about oversight of
of Christino. This is about oversight of ICE and the use of deadly force. Now,
ICE and the use of deadly force. Now, we've already talked about what happened
we've already talked about what happened in Minnesota. Uh, videos show Renee Good
in Minnesota. Uh, videos show Renee Good attempting to drive away when she was
attempting to drive away when she was shot. DHS says she used her car as a
shot. DHS says she used her car as a weapon. Local officials say that's not
weapon. Local officials say that's not what it looks like at all. The mayor of
what it looks like at all. The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Fry, said that those
Minneapolis, Jacob Fry, said that those are claims and told ICE to get
are claims and told ICE to get the f out of his city. And then things
the f out of his city. And then things really escalated. Protests, not just in
really escalated. Protests, not just in Minneapolis, but nationally. Federal law
Minneapolis, but nationally. Federal law enforcement kills a civilian. Leadership
enforcement kills a civilian. Leadership rush rushes to justify it. And the
rush rushes to justify it. And the victim ends up smeared. and
victim ends up smeared. and accountability is optional here. H I
accountability is optional here. H I don't think we're really going to do a
don't think we're really going to do a full investigation. We're certainly not
full investigation. We're certainly not going to let state officials do it. Now,
going to let state officials do it. Now, the claim from the administration is the
the claim from the administration is the ICE officers are really in danger here.
ICE officers are really in danger here. They are facing assaults. But of course,
They are facing assaults. But of course, it is ICE that is carrying out the
it is ICE that is carrying out the assaults, including on American
assaults, including on American citizens, which were so supposedly
citizens, which were so supposedly outside of the purview of ICE. Now, I
outside of the purview of ICE. Now, I think it's always good to be upfront. Uh
think it's always good to be upfront. Uh will impeachment succeed at removing
will impeachment succeed at removing Christine Gnome? No, Republicans control
Christine Gnome? No, Republicans control the House. Republicans control the
the House. Republicans control the Senate, at least for now. And Donald
Senate, at least for now. And Donald Trump is not exactly known for
Trump is not exactly known for supporting accountability. But that's
supporting accountability. But that's not the only point of the impeachment.
not the only point of the impeachment. As I've said before, impeachment is a
As I've said before, impeachment is a duty of Congress, of the House of
duty of Congress, of the House of Representatives. And impeachment can
Representatives. And impeachment can also force facts into the open because
also force facts into the open because you get hearings, you get sworn
you get hearings, you get sworn testimony, and you get a lot of
testimony, and you get a lot of information gathering ability. And so it
information gathering ability. And so it puts decisions under the microscope. If
puts decisions under the microscope. If indeed the feds are going to impede an
indeed the feds are going to impede an investigation at the state level, well
investigation at the state level, well maybe the impeachment of Christine M
maybe the impeachment of Christine M will bring that fact to light. If a
will bring that fact to light. If a cabinet secretary can get away with
cabinet secretary can get away with labeling an American citizen a domestic
labeling an American citizen a domestic terrorist after they are shot dead by a
terrorist after they are shot dead by a federal agent before the facts are
federal agent before the facts are known, it is a terrifying amount of
known, it is a terrifying amount of power. Christine Gnome has snatched a
power. Christine Gnome has snatched a lot of power and it is very far from law
lot of power and it is very far from law and order. It's all narrative control.
and order. It's all narrative control. So, I don't believe that this effort is
So, I don't believe that this effort is silly. I believe that this effort is
silly. I believe that this effort is dramatically overdue.
dramatically overdue. We are going to be furthering our
We are going to be furthering our discussion of this on the bonus show
discussion of this on the bonus show today as the Minnesota Hilton has canled
today as the Minnesota Hilton has canled ICE agents hotel reservations after what
ICE agents hotel reservations after what happened. And there are people furious
happened. And there are people furious on all sides of this. We'll talk about
on all sides of this. We'll talk about the latest with Elon. We'll talk about
the latest with Elon. We'll talk about Trump's call for a 10% cap on credit
Trump's call for a 10% cap on credit card interest rates. All of it and more
card interest rates. All of it and more on the bonus show. You can sign up at
on the bonus show. You can sign up at joinpacman.com.
joinpacman.com. And remember that Tuesday, January 20th,
And remember that Tuesday, January 20th, we will be doing a 1-day membership
we will be doing a 1-day membership drive. It'll be 365 days into this first
drive. It'll be 365 days into this first year of Donald Trump's second term. I
year of Donald Trump's second term. I would love for you to partake. Get a
would love for you to partake. Get a membership at this record low rate. Uh,
membership at this record low rate. Uh, just make sure you're on my mailing
just make sure you're on my mailing list, substack.davidpacman.com.
list, substack.davidpacman.com. See you on the bonus show.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
