The David Pakman Show - 11525 Blue Wave Sweeps Country As Maga In Shambles Trump Panicked

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney who explains law and politics on MSNBC and her Substack newsletter Civil Discourse, joins us to discuss effective political activism -- Democrats sweep major elections across multiple states as Donald Trump faces historic losses and visible backlash from his own party -- Donald Trump reacts to Republican defeats with incoherent social media posts, angry rants about mail voting, and calls to end the filibuster -- Republican commentators try to downplay Democratic victories as irrelevant while ignoring massive electoral swings in Virginia, New Jersey, and Georgia -- Democrats' sweeping wins mark the start of the 2026 midterm fight as Trump plans new voter suppression efforts to stop another blue wave -- Karoline Leavitt struggles through questions about Trump's health, controversial pardons, and false election claims, offering evasive and contradictory answers -- Donald Trump defies court orders by linking SNAP food benefits to reopening the government as the show raises funds for Feeding America in response -- Marjorie Taylor Greene's awkward appearance on The View exposes her unchanged views on QAnon, Trump, and Republican leadership -- On the Bonus Show: Democrat wins Virginia Attorney General race despite violent text scandal, Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's tariffs, teachers get doxxed after MAGA claims their Halloween costumes mocked Charlie Kirk, and much more... 🔊 Babbel language learning: Get up to 55% OFF at https://babbel.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Start (02:06) Dems sweep major elections (09:10) Trump lashes out online (15:25) GOP downplays Democratic wins (24:08) Midterms preview & voter suppression (29:43) Leavitt dodges tough questions (40:45) Joyce Vance Substack Live (1:01:29) Trump links SNAP to shutdown (1:06:58) Greene's awkward View appearance    

It finally happened. A blue wave hit the country last night. Republicans wiped out everywhere. Virginia flipping. New Jersey, not even close. Georgia kicking out Republican incumbents and Donald Trump spent the night panic posting like a guy who just had the floor drop out from under him. We're going to go through the numbers. We'll look at the margins. We'll look at the swings. And Republicans are pretending this doesn't mean anything. It's just Democrats winning in blue states. That is one of the funniest things I've heard all year. And if last night's results hold anywhere near these levels in 2026, Trump's presidency will be prematurely ending and he will be a lame duck two years early. I think Trump knows it. He melted down on truth social, said, kill the

filibuster. California was rigged and somehow circled back to attacking snap recipients. Caroline Levitt, meanwhile, was asked, why did Trump get an MRI? And her aunt, answer, it may not shock you to hear, does not exactly clear it up. We are also going to look at the panic inside of MAGA, the denial and what the blue wave means for 2026 because I believe the 26 election started last night. Plus, Marjorie Taylor Green went on the view. Trying to convince everybody that she's normal now. Did it work?

We're going to have to take a look at it. Big night, big fallout. We have also now raised more than $6,000 to feed hungry families. We are donating every new membership payment. If you are not yet a member on my website or not yet a substack premium subscriber, every new payment, whether it's monthly or yearly, for November, we're donating to Feeding America, an extraordinary hunger charity. We so far have collected more than $6,200 in donations from you all. This is going to fund more than 62,000 meals. So I hope you'll participate.

What a day. Well, Republicans are in shambles as they have lost everything in last night's elections, a dominant blue waves spreading through the country, almost like a cleaning. Trump lost everything, a clean sweep for Democrats. And Republicans had better be careful because if they don't accept and acknowledge and appreciate the significant. the significance of what happened last night, they risk getting decimated in 2026. Now, we're going to look at all of it. But why don't we start with the results so we can all get on the same page about exactly what happened? We start in Virginia where Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic challenger, the Democratic candidate, defeated winsome Earl Sears, the Republican

candidate by a huge margin. 15 points in Virginia. Virginia is not a blue state. Virginia sometimes votes for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans. And they currently have a Republican governor, Glenn Yonkin. The margin is important here. Four years ago, Glenn Yonkin won in Virginia by just a couple of points. And yesterday, Spanberger won by 15.

That is an roughly 18 point swing. in a state that is pretty purple. It also bears mentioning that the Republican candidate winsome Earl Sears did not appear to be playing with a full deck. I mean, she seemed, something seemed wrong with her. She seemed to be sort of in crisis. Maybe the analogy or metaphor that works is the wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead. A very odd woman, certainly.

But also had political beliefs that were completely whacked out and she got absolutely crushed. in Virginia, the attorney general race was kind of notable because the incumbent Republican Jason Miaris was kicked out by the Democratic candidate Jay Jones. That's notable because Jay Jones text messages were uncovered in which Jay Jones said that the then House Speaker should be killed along with some Republican children, not language that I would ever endorse or use. And despite that, still one. That's how sick of these Republicans voters are in Virginia, that they chose the guy who said the

House Speaker should be killed over the incumbent Republican. We then go to New Jersey, a bluer state, certainly, but the margin here really tells the whole story. Mikey Cheryl, former a Democratic Congresswoman, brutalizing Jack Shittarelli. Shitterrelli actually lost in 2021 to Phil Murphy by a few points. And this time he lost by 13. Yet again, the margin is a lot of the story. And we are seeing large margins here for Democrats and then incredibly important race as well.

We then go to New York City, both the most interesting race, but maybe the least consequential nationally in so far as I think Virginia governor is a much more significant bellwether about the country than New York City mayoral, but a win for the left and a loss for MAGA again, Zoran Mamdani winning not a plurality, but a majority of the vote, 50.6%. Andrew Cuomo coming in second with 41, Curtis Slewa with seven. Interestingly, there was the belief that Slewa may be playing spoiler and that if only he got out, Cuomo could win. At least based on last night's vote, that's not true.

if you gave all of the Slewa vote to Cuomo, it still wouldn't be enough because Mom Donnie got over 50%. Next up is California's Proposition 50, which just crushed it. Now, I'll remind you what this is about. Governor Gavin Newsom came up with this idea. Texas and other red states are just doing partisan redistricting. They're not consulting with the voters. They're just doing it to try to gain seats next year. Gavin Newsom said, well, we're not going to unilaterally disarm. We are going to fight fire with fire if the voters want to. And so he put it to a vote. Do voters in California want to do partisan redistricting, the likes of which could help California gain five seats in the house next year? Voters overwhelmingly said, yes, please, I will take one. 64 to 36 overperforming the polling.

you saw the lines of voters. We had video on our live stream last night. It seemed like a real, like this was not just a ballot initiative. The crowds, the lines waiting to vote on Prop 50. Massive, just massive, massive, massive. And a huge win there. Another loss for Donald Trump. He says it's rigged. And then also interesting, if we go to Pennsylvania, there were three races related to the court of Pennsylvania. And, and these were fascinating. All three Democrats stayed. Stella Tsai winning with 56% of the vote. Brandon Newman winning with 55% of the vote.

And, oh, hold on. Did I miss one? I thought that there were three, but this is only showing me two. Well, okay. In any case, we will get the other data. Oh, yeah, for some reason I thought there were three, but I only have two here. And then finally, and this is wild, even in the red state of Georgia, look at this. Georgia Public Service Commissioner number two, incumbent Republican Tim Eccles crushed by Democratic

Challenger Alicia Johnson. This is, folks, this is Georgia. And they are kicking out Republican incumbents. Another one of these, Georgia Public Service Commissioner, three, incumbent Republican Fitz Johnson, destroyed. These are by almost a two to one margin in Georgia. Democrat Peter Hubbard, the winner there, 62 to 38, just unbelievable numbers. So what comes next? A few things we're going to talk about today.

Number one, what is the reaction of Donald Trump? predictable. He's on a bender. He's unhinged. He's disjointed. Number two, what are the MAGA talking points going to be? The talking points are going to be Democrats winning in blue states isn't a big deal. Democrats winning in blue cities isn't a big deal. All right. Well, we're going to analyze that. We're going to evaluate it for what it is. And then I'm going to talk about the importance of this heading into 2026, which I believe immediately starts on the basis of these results. And I think that's going to be a very, very big deal. Let's go next to what was Trump's reaction. A visibly depressed Donald Trump lumbered up to speak to Senate Republicans this morning after brutal losses last

night. He was barely audible at moments and we will listen to it. And he seems to realize that the champagne honeymoon is over. We'll start on truth social, where we're, immediately last night after being pounded brutally by these losses, Trump took to truth social, where he said, quote, Trump wasn't on the ballot and shutdown were the two reasons that Republicans lost elections last tonight according to pollsters. Of course, Trump wasn't on the ballot, but to a degree last night was a referendum on Trump and Trumpism. And if he's blaming the shutdown, It is his shutdown and the country knows it. 55 to 45 the country blames Republicans, not Democrats, for the shutdown.

Trump continuing. Republicans terminate the filibuster set back. Hold on. I don't have wait. Oh, get back to passing legislation and voter reform president DJT. Trump is not saying we need to win the will of the people by convincing them that our policies are better. is saying let's get rid of the filibuster so that we can do whatever we want without checks,

balances and restraints. That is not the right way to react after losing everything. Trump continuing, pass voter reform, voter ID, no mail-in ballots, save our Supreme Court from packing, no two-state addition, et cetera, terminate the filibuster. This is an authoritarian through and through. There is no, hey, you know, maybe some of what we've been offering people isn't what they want. Maybe some of my policies haven't been so good for voters and therefore understanding that they went and voted for Democrats tonight. No, it's let's do what we can to make it harder for certain people to vote.

Get rid of the filibuster so Republicans can do whatever the hell we want. That's the reaction. And then finally, Donald Trump posting. And so it begins this morning, a barely audible, depressed Trump. tried to speak. And he sounds as down as I have heard him in a long time. It's time for Republicans to do what they have to do. And that's terminate the filibuster. It's the only way you can do it. And if you don't terminate the filibuster, you'll be in bad shape. We won't pass any legislation. There'll be no legislation passed for three and a quarter. We have three and a

quarter years. So it's a long time. Trump is, of course, unable to suppress his authoritarian instincts to just do whatever I can do so that no voters get a say and we can just decide. But he seems to be acknowledging they are up against the problem here. And Trump knows if he loses the House in 26, his presidency is over. Hilariously, Trump running through a list of the things that Democrats might do. Most of the list sounds pretty good. There's nobody else is going to object. They're going to do it the first day. They're going to pack the court. They're going to make D.C. a state and they're going make Puerto Rico estate. So now they pick up two states. They pick up four senators. Okay. You you think you have problems? They're going to do all of the things. They're going to pick up electoral

votes. It's going to be a very, very bad situation. And it's done. It's done. As soon as they attain power now, if we do what I'm saying, they'll never, they'll most likely never attain power because we will have passed every single thing that you can imagine that it's good. You know, most of the stuff Trump's talking about sounds, it sounds pretty good. And most of what Trump wants to do himself sounds pretty bad. I mean, even after these brutal losses last night, Trump still had the gall or the ignorance to get up in front of Senate Republicans and again attack food stamp recipients. What?

You are still doing this? So millions of Americans are going to be without snap benefits. And I will say about SNAP benefits. So when I was president, we had $7 billion worth. And now they have many times that, because these benefits were given to anybody that asked, and they're up to, I hear, just many times, $47 billion.

So it wasn't the purpose of SNAP. It was for people that really had problems, down and out, people that really had problems. But during Biden, they gave it to anybody that wanted it. I think it's something you have to talk about, the numbers are incredible. But countless public servants are now not being paid in the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately we have to get it up. We have the hottest economy. Trump's asking like other people

are responsible for this stuff. We really got to get the government open. Well, why did your party close it then? What doesn't really make any sense? And then finally in a real message of unity. Trump about Democrats says they are like kamikaze pilots, really going to unite people here. I've heard that about four times. I heard it after kings. You know, they said I was a king. And I heard it after kings. I heard it after a couple of other moments in time. And I said, no, I don't believe so. And now I heard it's after the election. I don't believe so. I think they will, I think they're kamikaze pilots. I just got back from Japan. I talked about the kamikaze pilots. I think these guys are kamikaze.

They'll take down the country if they have to. Nothing says unity and inclusion like saying my political enemies would be the equivalent of kamikaze pilots to take the country down if they get their way. So Trump's disheveled. He's upset. He's down. He's depressed. But the question that I was curious about is what is the more buttoned up Republican line going

to be? How are they going to spin? this. And the funny thing is that they are arguing like it's Democrats who have to spin it. Let's talk about that. They want you to think that last night's losses mean nothing. Maga is falling apart when you really understand what happened last night. They lost everything, but they want you to believe that none of it means anything. I was wondering what line are they going to go with after they lost everything last night? And it quickly became obvious. what they were going to go with.

Democrats won in blue states. It doesn't really matter. When blue cities vote for Democrats, it doesn't really say anything about the country. A leftist one in New York City, Democratic governors, one in Democratic states, New Jersey's blue, a Democrat one, who cares? Now, you might be saying, well, what about Virginia? And you're thinking along the right lines. But we're going to get back to that.

Here's a couple of examples. Here is Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary. to, I guess George W. Bush, if I recall correctly, here he is. And there's sort of a new look Kelly Ann Conway here. Um, anyway, Ari Fleischer said the following. R.A Fleischer, let's get your take on tonight. Well, blue states are blue states and that's why the Democrats won tonight, but you take blue states are blue states and that's why Democrats won tonight. Jesse Waters on Fox News basically going with the exact same idea. with you. Thanks for having me. The Democrats are going to spin this. This is a referendum on Trump.

I mean, these are all blue states. Is it? This is wildly, wildly wrong. Now, if they want to go with that, they can do that at their peril. But let's go through it one by one. New York City, mayor's race. It's usually a Democrat. Not always, but it's usually a Democrat when it's a Republican. It's someone like a Bloomberg who's, you know, kind of center off sometimes in some ways, he's almost center left, but a centrist of sorts. And in New York City, the Democratic nominee won. Fine. I acknowledge that New York City is an N of one. It's a completely unique place. What happens there might have a bearing on the country or it might not. But hold on a second. Hold on a second. Virginia is not a blue state. Virginia has a Republican governor right now. And in 2021, Republican Glenn Yonkin won that race by 1.9.

And yesterday, the Democrat, Abigail Spanberger, won by more than 15. That is a 17 point swing to write that off as Democrats voting in blue states, Republican plus two to Democrat plus 15. And your takeaway is blue states voting for Democrats. That is a dangerous takeaway. But if that's the takeaway they want, go, but have at it, Haas, have at it. What about New Jersey? Well, New Jersey is a blue state.

That's true. But New Jersey does sometimes vote for Republican governors. They had Chris Christie, for example. But the margin really matters here because four years ago in 2021, Phil Murphy, the current governor, won by three over Jack Shittarelli. Same Republican who ran this time. And then last night, Democrat Mikey Cheryl defeated the same Shidorelli by 13. Think about that. Same state, same opponent, three point win four years ago, 15 point win this time.

Dems voting for Dems in a blue state. Okay. But that margin shift is hugely meaningful. Now, meanwhile, look at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a swing state. They voted to retain their Democratic judges who were on the ballot on that court by massive, massive margins. That's a state that Trump won in 2024. And then just look at Georgia, not a blue state where multiple Republican incumbents were kicked out by Democrats.

Georgia Public Service Commissioner two special election. Alicia Johnson defeated the incumbent Republican. Georgia Public Service Commissioner three special election Democrat Pete Hubbard defeated incumbent Fitzjohnson. So if their takeaway is, none of this means any of. thing because it's blue states voting blue. You really are going to do that at your own risk. And I don't think 2026 is going to go well. Republicans seemingly unwilling to acknowledge that Trump does bear some responsibility for their losses. I don't often praise Vivek Ramoswamy. At least he's acknowledging they got their ass handed to them.

We got our asses handed to us in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City. Democrats swept all three. Two key lessons for Republicans. Listen carefully. Number one, our side needs to focus on affordability. Make the American dream affordable. Bring down costs. I thought Trump did do that already, though. Wait. Electric costs, grocery costs, health care costs, and housing costs, and lay out how we're going to do it. And number two, cut out the identity politics. It doesn't suit Republicans. It's not for us. That's the woke left's game, not ours. You know why Vivek. Oh, my God, this is so fascinating. Do you know why Vivek now is saying we've got to cut the identity politics? It's because he is now the victim of that. Just weeks ago, Vivek, who is running for governor of Ohio,

who's welcome to come back on the show anytime. He's been on twice. He told me I had the viscosity of sanctimony. Last time he was on, he's welcome anytime. The vague was hit by the, the monster he created because at an event, the turning point Charlie Kirk disciples said, you're Hindu. We need Christianity in this country. So all of a sudden, the vague is getting hit by Republican identity politics. That's why he's saying, oh, we got to get away from it. But at least he's acknowledging that they genuinely did lose. If Republicans want to insist last night was nothing more than Democrats winning in blue states, they're going to get crushed in 2026. Leave a comment, leave a like if you're watching on YouTube.

Make sure you hit that subscribe button. 26 is starting now. We're going to talk about that after the break. When I was preparing for my last trip to Italy, I didn't want to spend weeks and weeks trying to learn Italian with the typical apps where you get, you know, flashcards and games and it doesn't really translate to talking to people. And this is why I turned to our sponsor Babel. This is a method that works and it works.

quickly. And what really stood out to me was just how personalized Babel feels. The app was instantly adjusted to my level. I wasn't wasting time on things I already knew. And the review system is really good at making sure that things stick. Babel's lessons come in 10 to 15 minute chunks. I fit that easily into my schedule. I saw the progress. Before I knew it, I was ordering a cappuccino and their version of a croissant. It's a cornetto. Anyway, I was impressing everybody. People loved it. Babel is not just about memorization. It uses interactive dialogue, spaced repetition, tips that make the learning feel way more natural, and my audience can get up to 55% off.

At babble.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're reframing it so it all sounds a little more palatable.

And that is why I use ground news. This is a news comparison tool. Doesn't just feed you headlines. It shows you here's how different outlets left, right center, are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias, catch story. that your usual sources might downplay or not cover at all on everything from immigration policy to economic shifts.

If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, ground news is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And ground news is offering my audience 40% off their top tier vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to ground. News slash Pacman or enter the code Pacman in the app to get started. The link is in the description. I believe that the 2026 election has officially started.

And it is unfortunately likely that recognizing the precarious position in which they find ourselves on the basis of yesterday's democratic clean sweep, Republicans are going to pull out all the stops to try to win next year no matter what. What are the stakes? What does all of it mean? That's what I want to talk about today. I believe that last night was really the opening show. of the 2026 midterm elections and what is on the line must be understood.

If Democrats take back the House in 2026, Trump becomes a lame duck president. Everything he wants to do for the last two years of his presidency will die in Congress. The agenda is dead. No even chance, not even a chance of major legislation. No more controversial appointments sailing through. Democrats will control House committees. They will control investigations. they will control the floor. Trump's presidency effectively ends two years early. And what's important

about that is not only stopping Trump specifically, but also diminishing his power to choose an heir apparent, maybe J.D. Vans or someone else, and to maintain momentum into the 2028 election. And the thing is, Democrats don't really need that much. The House majority for Republicans right now is very thin. And the exact number of seats that will need to be flipped depends a little bit on how all of the districts are redrawn. It could be five to eight seats. And the reason it's a little complicated is, you know, Texas has redrawn their maps. California passed prop 50 yesterday. That's going to, I believe, gain five seats through redistricting alone. So the point here is Democrats will be in a position to take back the house with relatively few seats needing to be flipped. So now we go,

and look at what happened last night. Virginia, Virginia swung 17 points towards Democrats from where Glenn Yonkin won in 2021. New Jersey swung 10 points with the same Republican candidate running as in 2021. Georgia kicked out some Republican incumbents. If those swings held in competitive house districts across the country, dozens of Republican seats are suddenly in play. Seats that that looked safe six months ago are going to end up being toss-ups, states that were toss-ups might lean Democratic. And the fundamentals are all working in the favor of Democrats. And we are now 30-something days into a government shutdown.

Trump is admitting the shutdown hurt Republicans last night or this morning he said, we got to open the government where he posted on truth social. The shutdown was a factor. And then today said we got to open the government. It's their shutdown. It's their shutdown. Voters are furious about snap benefits being cut and federal workers not. getting paid in the chaos. And if the shutdown continues, or if there's another one before the

2026 midterms, this is going to be an anchor around the neck of every single one of these Republicans who's running. Now, you add to that Trump's tariffs hurting the economy. You add the enthusiasm we saw in terms of turnout in a lot of these races. There are some real structural advantages for Democrats going into next year. But what we have to be ready for is MAGA will respond to this. They're not just going to accept losing. We've seen Trump calling to terminate the filibuster, demanding voter ID, calling to end mail in ballots. When they analyze these results and see the momentum that Democrats have, they're going to get even more aggressive about voter suppression. They're not going to get more thoughtful about how can we win the hearts and minds of voters. No,

that's what they should do, but they're not. They're going to say, how can we manipulate the voting systems and other procedural tools in order to try to win? So we'll see, Republican-controlled state legislatures pass more restrictive voting laws. Make it harder to vote by mail. Make it harder to register. Make it harder to vote early. Purge voter rules. All the stuff that they do. Close a polling places in Democratic-leaning areas. So they will be ready to make it harder for the coalition that showed up last night to show up again in 2026. They're going to say it's election integrity. It's voter reform. It's all great while they're doing it. Trump's posting about it. He's already said multiple times in the last 48 hours. We got to get voter ID, get rid of mail-in

voting, make it harder for people to vote. So Democrats have momentum. Democrats have enthusiasm. Democrats have some fundamental and structural things that are favoring them. But this is going to be a real fight. Maga's going to throw everything they have at suppressing the vote and making it difficult for Democrats to win, even if that is the will of the average voter. The question is, can Democrats maintain the energy of the last 24 hours for 12 months. Not an easy thing to do. Can Democrats fight back against the voter suppression? Can you actually turn the momentum into House seats in November of 2026? If they can, Trump's presidency is over and the agenda stops. He's powerless for two years. He becomes diminished in his ability to pick a successor successfully. And that is why I believe

the 2026 election starts right now. I don't remember higher stakes. for a midterm election in all the time I have been doing this. And I think both sides know it. And that's why it is going to be a full year of this election. Tell me if you disagree with me, but I think it's already started. Caroline Levitt did not like being asked. Why did Donald Trump get an MRI the other day? Now, her answer makes me think, does she think anybody is going to fall for this? The question very simply, We were told he got an MRI, but we still don't know why. Why did Trump get an MRI? And her answer leaves a little something to be desired.

Why did President Trump get an MRI during his recent visit. Look, as President Trump said, he would inquire with the physicians, I'll check back on that. But as the physical itself stated, Kristen, and as you all know, because you were all witness to it, every single day, the president is an optimal physical health. This was a follow-up appointment and we provided a detailed readout. of that physical. I'm happy to give it to you again and I can inquire further. So I want to go back.

Think about each element of what she said here and how deceptive it is. During his recent visit. Look, as President Trump said, he would inquire with the physicians. I'll check back on that. So it's now been weeks and we're still at you haven't even checked with the doctors. That's really weird, Caroline. But as the physical itself stated, Kristen, and as you all know, because you were all witness to it, every single day, the president.

resident is an optimal physical health. In fact, he doesn't seem to be an optimal optimal physical health. His ankles are swollen. His right eye is almost completely swollen shut. His hands are bruised. His gait is bizarre. He seems confused. And again, you don't normally get MRIs for no reason.

And they still haven't even told us what part of his body was received an MRI. This was a follow up appointment. To call it a follow up appointment doesn't really tell us one way or the other why he got the MRI or what it was looking for. provided a detail readout of that physical. The readout that they've provided never said he got an MRI. I'm happy to give it to you again and I can inquire further. With all due respect, an MRI is a very specific procedure.

It's done on a part of the body looking for something specific. So it's not generally part of any kind of routine checkup. And in addition, President Trump has said that he wants to be transparent. He has told us to ask the doctors, which we have and have not heard back. Why don't we have more information on this? As I said, I'll check back for you. Yep, it's only been a couple weeks, but she's going to check and then maybe you'll forget about it. And then maybe you'll ask about it again several more weeks.

The more they do this, the more we should be saying to ourselves, why did Trump get an MRI? Why has it been weeks and they don't go, oh, the MRI was of his back because he's been having back pain. And we wanted to see was there any physiological explanation for that or the MRI was of his brain or why do we still not have an answer as to even what. part of his body received an MRI. This is a disaster. This is a complete and total disaster. Second question, Trump was during the 60 Minutes interview, Trump was asked about the pardon of the finance founder. And Trump said, I don't know him and I don't know anything about it. To which we all said, that's what you said was the situation with Biden's pardons. And you said they should be invalidated when you claimed Biden didn't know who he was pardoning. Now, Trump says,

I know nothing about it. And we're supposed to believe that it's fine. Well, here is Caroline Levitt's explanation for that one. ... with this individual. And when it comes to pardons, the White House takes them with the utmost seriousness and the president understands the responsibility that he has as president to issue clemency and issue pardons to individuals who are seeking that. That's why we have a very thorough review process here that moves with the Department of Justice and the White House counsels, office, there's a whole team of qualified lawyers who look at every single pardon request that ultimately make their way up to the President of the United States. He's the ultimate

final decision maker. And he was very clear when he came into office that he was most interested in looking at pardoning individuals who were abused and used by the Biden Department of Justice and were over-prosecuted by a weaponized DOJ. And the individual you're referring to, that was certainly the case. Even the judge in his case said that the sentencing that the Biden administration was asking for was egregious and went too far. And so the president is correcting that wrong. And he has officially ended the Biden administration's war on the cryptocurrency industry. And I think that's the message he sent with this part in.

So does Trump know the guy or not because he said he didn't know anything about him? Well, we get to that. And still, the answers are pathetic. Question. President Trump said to CBS in the 60 minutes interview that he did not know the finance founder, which he pardoned. What exactly did he mean for that? He means he does not know him personally. He means he does not have a personal relationship with this individual. And when it comes to pardons, the White House takes them with the utmost seriousness. So her position now is all Trump meant is I don't

personally know the guy. I'm going to play that part of the 60 minutes interview for you. Do you think what Trump is saying here is I'm completely familiar with the situation? I just don't personally know the guy? Or do you think Trump is saying? I know nothing about this. Let's take a look. This year, the president has pardoned or shortened the sentences of more than 1,600 people. The latest pardon was for a cryptocurrency tycoon who is known as CZ. The company CZ founded, Binance, helped boost the profile of the Trump family's crypto firm,

World Liberty Financial. He pled guilty in 2023 to violating anti-money laundering laws. The government at the time said that CZ had put. caused significant harm to U.S. national security, essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. Why did you pardon him? Okay, are you ready? I don't know who he is. I don't know who he is is different than I've never personally met him. I don't know who he is. I know he got a four month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. In 2025, his crypto exchange finance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty Financial's

staple coin. And then you pardoned CZ. How do you address the appearance of pay for play? Well, here's the thing. I know nothing about it because I'm too busy doing the other. That is not, I've never met the guy personally. He said, I don't know who he is and I know nothing about what he did, period. Someone just told him, how about this guy?

And Trump said, all right, let's do it. That's the most benign explanation. The more, the, the darker explanation is Trump knows exactly who he is and knows that Binance lined Trump's pockets. And that's why Trump pardoned the guy. On SNAP benefits, Caroline Levitt was asked about that. And she says, we are complying with the court's order, except it doesn't seem that they are. I know it's been asked.

and I know Rieja asked it, but I want to put a fine point on it. You talked about the president's post here, and he wrote that SNAP benefits will only be given from the Republican Democrats open up the government. I understand your previous answers, but as written, how would that not violate court order as is written? I've now answered this question several times, Gabe. We are complying with the court's order.

We are getting the payments out the doors quickly as we can. USDA sent the guidance to the state. The president is referring to future SNAP payments. He does not want to have to keep tapping in to an emergency fund in depleting it. In the case of a catastrophe in this country, he wants to have those funds preserved as they should be. The court has said, you got to use that money and pay people's benefits. Trump is trying not to.

Caroline Levitt is lying that they are complying with the court order. And then finally, finally, Caroline Levitt asked, Trump said Prop 50 in California was rigged. What did he mean by that? What evidence do you have that it was rigged? Sure. Sure. The president posted on true social left of voting underway in California is quote rigged. What evidence does he have that?

And what does it mean that mail and ballots in that state are under legal and criminal review by whom and why? And also in this vein, does the White House still plan to issue an executive order banning mail and voting and what legal authority do you have to do that? The White House is working on an executive order to strengthen our elections in this country and to ensure that there cannot be blatant fraud, as we've seen in California with their universal mail-in voting system. It's absolutely true that there are fraud in California's elections.

It's just a fact. It's just a fact that there's fraud. It is just a fact. They have a universal mail-in-voting system, which we know is ripe for fraud. And if you want to deny that, I'm happy to provide you all of the evidence for it. I'd be glad to send that to you after this briefing. I rigged. fraudulent ballots that are being mailed in in the names of other people and the names of illegal

aliens who shouldn't be voting in American elections. There's countless examples and we'd be remember that so-called illegal aliens can't even register to vote. So it's all lies. Takeaways. We still don't know why Trump got an MRI and Caroline Levitt's not going to tell us. Trump is still not complying with the court order on SNAP benefits and Caroline Levitt is lying. They're still not providing actual evidence of California's Prop 50 being rigged and Caroline Levitt is very willing to lie. The big theme is Caroline Levitt's willingness to lie. She's less effective now than she was at the beginning because reporters understand almost nothing she says can be believed and they're actually asking follow up. A lot of people think identity theft is something that only happens when someone

hacks into your account. But the truth is that it usually starts with your personal information being posted online by data brokers where anybody can find it. Our sponsor Incogni is a service that helps protect your privacy by forcing the data brokers to delete your information. This includes your name, address phone number, even sensitive things like property records or your political affiliation. And now with their custom removals feature included in the unlimited plan, you're not limited to just the list of 250 plus brokers they work with by default. If you, find any site exposing any of your private information, even one they've never seen before. You can send a link and Incogni's team will work to get that removed. This is serious protection for you and

your family against identity theft, against fraud, doxing, harassment, and Incognies data removal process is the only one independently verified by Deloitte. Get 60% off an annual plan when you visit incogny.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description. Well, it is really a pleasure to be speaking with Joyce Vance today. Her new book is giving up is unforgivable, a manual for keeping a democracy. It's such a great, not great. It's an important time to be talking. It's great to be talking and an important time, but it is not necessarily a great time in the sense of a lot of the things that we're following. I really do appreciate your time, though. You know, it's really nice to be with you. And it's funny, I was just

thinking about what you're saying because I had said to somebody, oh, I really enjoyed that conversation. But enjoy was the wrong word, right? I mean, it was a sort of a dark conversation about the political moment, but it felt good coming out of it to have had the conversation and to have shared ideas with somebody. So I think we can all be forgiven for that use loose of the word enjoyed. Well, listen, I think one place to start that might be really relevant to my audience that is an audience that, you know, is more steeped in politics than the average person, I would say. And I've been very honest with my audience that even personally, I think there are limits to how much of this stuff is healthy to consume that I think it's good. You know, when I'm done with my last show of the week, I really try to not engage with what's happening for a couple of days, which I know is a privileged thing to be able to do. but it's really a mental health thing.

And one of the things I saw that you mentioned in a recent book chat that you did is that we can't be outraged all the time. And there's a couple of different layers where I think that that is important. And what I would love for you to do is to talk about it, but also contrast it with one of the things we're fighting is getting too used to the absurd things that are happening. And so on the one hand, not everything can be a scandal. we can't be outraged all the time. And also, we don't want to fall into a situation where any of what's going on is accepted as normal. So can you talk a little bit about how those two things can both be true? I think you just said all of the smart, important things all at once and connected them in a way I've never really connected them before.

Because I think this sense of overwhelm that we all feel, right? That's my new noun for the day. Overwhelm. It's deliberate. This is a strategy that want to be dictated. use in order to get people just to give up because they just feel beyond the ability to cope with it. And like you say, for mental health purposes, maybe need to just check out for a while, just to stay on an even keel. You know, at the same time, outrage fatigue is real. And if you just think back

to the first time that you, for instance, saw ICE attack a person on American streets and how horrified you were, and we're still horrified, but every time we see it, it's a little bit less. You know, we're watching these attacks that the administration is launching what the Secretary of War, Pete Hengsteth, calls kinetic attacks, which are extrajudicial murders of human beings. And it's hard to sustain the outrage on time 15 or 16. I think that's really the challenge that we face. How do we stay involved and engaged in what's going to? on. How do we do it without becoming sanguine about what we're seeing and accepting it as the new

normal? And so that's part of the value that I've found in these substap conversations, maybe with folks that I don't know and with new audiences, is for us all to have the chance to observe what's going on through fresh eyes, to make sure that we maintain the outrage. We should all be righteously indignant right now. I mean, it's hard to sit in my basement, but simultaneously jump up and down and demand answers from my Republican senators. So we all have to figure out how to do that. We also need to take care of ourselves. And remember that the reason that we're doing this is because democracy is not some abstract goal. It's a system that lets us live good, happy, productive lives and make our own decisions, not to have a king or a dictator who tells us what we can and can't do.

So our challenge is to do all of that at once. one of the challenges I've been thinking about a lot is especially as there is, I would say, some fracturing on the left. I don't want to like overplay and say there's this civil war. I also don't want to pretend that the left is as united as it's ever been because I certainly don't think that that's the case. But in a context where there are certainly factions on the left right now, one of the things that seems mathematically correct to me is that given that 40 to 50 percent of the country doesn't vote, depending on what election we're talking about. I see a bigger opportunity in activating people not currently voting by connecting what they're worried about in their

communities to who they vote for, then getting into the rage debate scenarios of the intra-left fighting. The latter may be entertaining. There's a lot of shows and YouTube channels built around that kind of debate. But I actually think the bigger opportunity is in this massive. of people, tens of millions of people who have not come to believe that they might be able to better their circumstances if they did engage with the political process. Now, every election cycle, as you know, you hear if we can just increase turnout among 18 to 29 year olds by 2 percent, we win everything. And of course, like, it just ends up coming down to the seven swing states, every election, and it's close. And so I guess my question is, what is your sense now

of the best way to activate these tens of millions of non-voters? This is a really great question. I mean, the numbers don't lie, right? If more young people voted and if they voted what I think we generally perceive as for progressive policies, then maybe we wouldn't have a president Donald Trump. Maybe we would have a president who cared about climate change or a president who cared about civil rights or what have you. So look, I think a big part of this issue.

is persuading people that voting matters. I mean, that's canon in my household, right? We deeply get, because my husband is an elected state court judge, we both come from families that had different levels of involvement in the political process and the civil rights movement. We get that voting is incredibly powerful and that nobody would try to take your right to vote away as hard as these folks are doing if it wasn't really powerful. But I have a 22-year-old kid. And we were talking about what would it take to motivate you to, well, this was me as his mom fishing. What would it take to get you to read a book about democracy? Because, you know, you want your kid to read your book, and he just sort of yawned.

And we had this interesting conversation that I recite part of in the book where he said, Mom, I was four years old when Occupy happened. And nothing has changed. You know, rich people still control government. They control Congress. They control caucuses. I'm a 22-year-old kid. What exactly is it that you expect me to do against billionaire and billionaire adjacent people? And I think that that's a really legitimate point of view. And if we're going to

activate younger voters or people who feel disenfranchised by the political process, then we need to share with them the story of times that government worked. Because they don't remember those times. I mean, my kid, his earliest memories of a presidency, Donald Trump's first term in office. He maybe has shadowy memories of Obama and happy times. But that's not what he's grown up with. And so I think we need to tell the stories, and I do in the book, of the civil rights movement. And of times when voters went out in the streets to demand their rights and then change became possible. But we've got to make that concrete.

You can't expect people to go out and vote based on ideas, not on benefits in their own lives. do you or to what degree do you also think that kind of understanding the pace of progress historically is relevant and I'll contextualize what I mean by that. In my book, I had a chapter on basically why I am not an accelerationist, I believe in incrementalism. And the reason I say that is when I look at the three eras of the biggest progressive advancements, which I identified as the progressive era, the New Deal era, the civil rights era. At the time, it's. sort of seemed slow. But when we look back and we realize, you know, a lot of it depended on who had won a prior election and who were the new Supreme Court justices that were in,

on the Supreme Court at what ended up being critical times. I try to build up this case that it can feel slow, but we are hopefully building on something. Do you think that there's not enough of an understanding of some, like we want things to happen fast and in retrospect it will be fast, But in the moment, it can sort of feel slow. Yeah, I mean, we're a fast society, right? I mean, in 30 minutes of TV, including commercial breaks, a crime is supposed to be committed and solved on law and order. And that's how the world is supposed to work.

I think the point that you make in your book is the right point. And the civil rights era illustrates this in some very interesting ways, right? There's the integration of the University of Alabama, where I teach, over the objection of the governor, George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse doorway very dramatically and then stepped aside because President Kennedy had made it impossible for him to continue to stand there successfully. And so we see the integration of the university, and there's a woman named Vivian Malone Jones, who becomes the first black student to be enrolled, someone with great credentials who would have been accepted in a race-neutral environment, but they found excuses like,

the class size won't allow it or some other BS like that to keep her out. But she enrolls. And she doesn't have an easy path. There's a lot of opposition. There are bombs that go off. She tells a story in an interview, right? That one day she decides to go to class, even though there's been a bombing right by her apartment that day because the moment demands it of her. And in her wake, lots of students, black students enroll at the University of Alabama. There's even a black student government president, something that was unthinkable, you know, in my lifetime. And 50 years later, when the university holds the celebration of the anniversary of integration, the sitting attorney general, Eric Holder, the first black attorney general, is Vivian Malone Jones' brother-in-law. So there's this

sort of straight line of progress that's elusive in the moment, especially when the times are tough and it's difficult and you feel like progress isn't linear, which it never was in the civil rights movement. It was a step forward and two back and then go forward again. But it's that long sweep of history that's instructive. So at the risk of sounding like a professor, which I am in real life, you know, I'll just say we sometimes have to look at the video, not the snapshot, to understand why incrementalism, even when it's frustrating, is the right approach. In the kind of theme of the book of not giving up, one of the things I've sort of done content about and written about a little bit is that there are some structural realities in the country that implicitly sort of resist mass

protest and mass action. And kind of what I mean by that is when health care is for most people linked to their job, when wages have been stagnant and 40% of the country would have to borrow to meet an unexpected $400 expense. When public transit or train transit is very underdeveloped, you know, you put all of these things together. And it's both like kind of difficult and risky for the average person to take time off from work to go and protest. This is great for these structures that don't want people protesting, that don't want our financial

system grinding to a hall, et cetera. So I'm interested in kind of hearing your thoughts about. whether those structural hindrances to mass protests need to be dealt with first or whether it's part of what the protest would try to change or like, how do you conceive of that? It would be great if we had the luxury of fixing all of the problems that you've just identified right now. The reality is we don't. I mean, we have to first run the race for democracy and then fix the problems.

And as you point out, there are a lot of interests that de-incentivize, all of those problems. Look, if you're a young single mom and you're a waitress or you have a job where you eat what you kill, you know, you only eat if you earn money, you can't afford to take a day off of work. But one of the lessons of the civil rights movement, so I live in Birmingham, I've had this amazing opportunity to talk with foot soldiers over the years. And one of the lessons that you learn is the importance of being in community and realizing you do not have to fight the entire fight on your own. And if you can't afford to stay home from work, don't. But that means that those of us who are in a position to go out and protest absolutely have to. And there's a moment in the

fight for civil rights in Alabama where parents are being threatened with loss of their jobs if they protest. And so we get the school children's march where children, I mean like young kids, high school kids, march out of their schools and protest on the streets in Birmingham. And that leads to this sort of famous moment with Bull Connor and dogs and fire hoses. And much of that animates the rest of the country in the belief that something has got to change. You know, I hope it won't take a traumatic moment like that one. But I do think that there's value in understanding that not everybody has to do everything. But those of us who can do certain things have an obligation to do them right now. Yeah, it's interestingly a very similar.

message to what Heather Cox Richardson kind of suggested when I had her on a couple of months ago. And that is a very interesting one and an important one that I think resonates with a lot of people. How significant do you think the divisions on what we would loosely call the political left are right now? Because I could kind of, I could steal man both cases, right? I could say, listen, you've got corporate, central. Democrats who seem very interested in maintaining the status quo and the systems that got them into power and treading very lightly in order to get themselves reelected. Cool.

On the other side, you've got accelerationists and actual socialists, not people that are called socialists as a pejorative, but actual socialists who are happy to try to burn down systems with the belief that they can build them back up in a better way. And then in between, you've got a bunch of stuff. like I'm a social Democrat in the style of like Denmark and Sweden and I believe in well-regulated capitalism that ensures that standards of living don't go too low and we use taxes to, okay. How serious are these divisions in your mind? So look, Democrats have always been the party of a big tent.

I'm a lawyer. I'm a former federal prosecutor, not a political theorist, but I've been around long enough to know that the only way this country works is if, we build coalitions among people who don't see 100% eye to eye. And if we're willing to do something that's become all but unheard of in our politics, which is to compromise. And the hope is that if we do that, we can certainly do better than what we're seeing on the other side of the aisle, right, at this moment. I mean, if you don't see this as a moment where you have to, in many ways, put country ahead of party or ahead of faction, then I think all hope is lost in this country. And it's,

It's instructive to me to think about how much of the divide on the left, but really even the wedge between Republicans and Democrats, has been driven by, let's just say, outside interests that are invested in seeing this country fail. So a lot of the disinformation and even the misinformation that we see online and in social media is designed. to sail was designed to elect a particular presidential candidate. And I think if we study that sort of behavior, which is well documented, at least online, then it helps us understand that the people who have interests in dividing us are not people who have any of our best interests at heart. And so my daughter, who I think is pretty far to the left of you and maybe among that group of people

who are true believers in socialism, she nonetheless said, you know, I don't love Kamala Harris. I know you do, Mom. I'm going to vote for her because I think she's the best choice, and it's a binary choice, right? It's not my perfect world versus what's on the other side. And so we do need to, I think, well, enough of the divide to address that. But at the same time, it's not enough for people who have been in power for a long time to continue to, to ride on that, to coast on that, and to refuse to have conversations with people who see things differently. And, you know, a lot of the time when we all sit down at the table and discuss ideas, our ideas evolve and they're better and they're stronger. Socialism on the model in the Scandinavian countries where people have great educations and get good health care and have good

quality of life, there's no reason we shouldn't be exploring what we can import from that into our system and in an area that I work in that's near and dear to my heart, which is prison reform. We can absolutely learn from other countries, and it's ridiculous that we insist on having prisons where the model is house people, warehouse people like animals, and then send 98% out of them back into the community and expect good results. So I would say, let's get through the moment that we're in, but let's not forget that on the other side of it, there's a response. for people to listen to other people and to really fulfill the sort of, you know, the big tent moniker instead of just paying lip service to it. Sorry, I know that's sort of rambled, but I think it's a complicated issue.

It's complicated. No, but that I think is very well said and really lays out the stakes very, very accurately. The book is Giving Up is Unforgivable, a manual for keeping a democracy. And we've been speaking with the book's author, Joyce Vance. get the book, subscribe to Joyce's substack. If you're one of Joyce's viewers, I'd be flattered if you subscribe to my substack. And I so appreciate your time and I hope to do it again. This has been great. Let's do it any time you want to. I mean, I think this is exactly the kind of conversation we should all be having right now. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you soon.

Thank you. Bye. Let's be honest, when it is hot outside the way it's been, bad underwear makes it it really much worse. Our sponsor Sheath underwear has completely rethought how men's underwear should function in the heat. Sheath's boxer briefs are designed with a dual pouch system, keeping everything in place, separate, ventilated. This means less sweat, less sticking, less of that awkward adjusting. And if you're not using the pouches, the fabric alone is a game changer, You're soft, stretchy, moisture wicking, now available in cooling materials like bamboo and mesh.

I wear these at the gym during long work days, especially when I know it's going to be hot outside. It just keeps you dry and comfortable. And they've really raised my expectations about how good, good underwear can be. Waring sheath is like having built-in climate control for the lower half of your body. Everything stays cool, dry, and where it should be. If you've never thought much about your underwear, this is the one brand that might make you start. Go to sheathunderwear.com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman for 20% off.

The link is in the description. Donald Trump is attempting to ignore a court order about food stamps. Does he really think that this is going to work? I mean, this is crushing a bunch of his own supporters as much as it's crushing the country at large. And by the way, it's terrible for businesses, food stamps being one of the most economically stimulative forms of government spending. Here's what's going on.

A court has said, you've got to spend the six billion you have in reserve to give people food stamp benefits. And the Trump administration doesn't want to do it. As we're going to air right now, as I'm recording this, there is the claim that half of benefits are going to go out eventually, I guess. But in the midst of this, Donald Trump posts the truth social. quote, snap benefits which increased by billions and billions of dollars many fold during crooked Joe Biden's disastrous term in office due to the fact that they were haphazardly handed

to anyone for the asking as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of snap, will be given only when the radical left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do. And not before. Thank you for your attention to this matter, President Donald J. Trump. One of the greatest inaccuracies about food stamps is that there are people hanging out, living large on food stamp benefits who don't really deserve them. And the truth is we're talking about a couple hundred bucks a month.

Now, a couple hundred bucks a month is not going to make an already wealthy person wealthier. And so the idea that people who don't really need the food stamps at all are just collecting the money and getting rich, that's not going to happen. But for people who do need food stamps, that $200 actually actually is the difference between I can eat or I can't. It's the difference between I have to go into debt to afford my groceries by putting them on a credit card and paying interest next month and more interest the following month and on and on. or I can go and get my groceries and use food stamps to pay for them. And the idea that there are just that that there is largesse because of people who don't deserve or really need the food stamps getting them, it is an absolutely pathetic and ridiculous idea.

Politically, this does seem quite risky because there's a lot of Republicans who depend on food stamps as well. Now, Trump is trying to sort of say, yes, you're not going to have the food stamps, but it's because of Democrats that you're not going to have the food stamps. I don't think people are falling for it. The polling certainly doesn't show that with regard to who's responsible for the government shutdown. And this seems like another one of these extraordinarily short-sighted measures.

Now, I would expect because Trump loves to try to take credit for partially solving problems he created. My guess is that at some point, some food stamp benefits will go out and Trump will take credit. And it will be something like despite. The evil Democrats who want everybody to starve, including my own followers, I have been able to and decided with the great strength of my orange face to release some money. I'm expecting something like that. And of course, we have to remember this is a problem he created.

And by the way, even with the government shut down, there's no reason the $6 billion can't be used. Trump goes, well, once the government is open, the government being closed is your fault. But even with it being closed, you've got $6 billion for food stamps for exactly these sorts of situations. Now, again, I want to mention many of you are still writing in. David, I want to help on this food issue. The audience is the most powerful part of the show. And what we are doing for all of November, and I'm going to have an update for you on the success, for every new website membership and new paid substack subscription this month, we are donating the entire first payment

to feeding America. I have an update. We now have. It's November 5th. We started a new. We started this on November 3rd. We have 172 new memberships. 6,7992 will now be donated to Feeding America. Feeding America funds 10 meals with every dollar. The way they do this is by making deals with grocery stores and others with food that is normally gotten rid of and then also buying food in bulk. They can they can support 10 meals with every dollar. The $6,700 that you, you all have raised, which we will be donating, funds 67,000 meals. We're only on day three of this thing. So I hope that you will join. We've chosen feeding America because 98% of donations go directly to feeding people. The overhead at the organization is really small. So if you get a monthly

membership on my website, you're funding 60 meals. If you get a yearly membership on my website, you're funding 600 meals. And meanwhile, Trump's got six. billion. He could use it to feed the 42 million Americans on food stamps. He doesn't want to do it. Courts are saying he has to. Families are scared while we are fighting all of that. People need to eat. So we're trying to help them. And I will update you tomorrow as to where we are. $6,700, 67,000 meals. As of this moment, links are in the description. Marjorie Taylor Green went on the view to try to prove she's normal now. She's not a complete whack job. and it didn't go particularly well. Now, I've said before, Marjorie Taylor Green is at odds with

some elements of what is happening in the Republican Party. She's at odds with the government shutdown. She's at odds with what's happening with health care premiums. But big picture, she's still a right winger. She's not a friend of progressives. She might be an enemy with whom we overlap in one or another area, which is fine. Politics makes strange bedfellows and we should take advantage of anything we can to achieve our policy goals. But this is a, uh, an interview, I guess meant to showcase how Marjorie Taylor Green, the radical and repugnant reactionary Congresswoman has turned the corner in some sense. It's a new her. She was asked by Sonny Hoston, so you don't believe in Q and on anymore? You've changed now. And Marjorie's answer is a little bit

shaky. I'll put it that way. Say you don't believe in the Q&ON conspiracies anymore. I went over that a long time ago. I mean, we can... So you've changed? Well, no, I haven't changed. I was a victim just like you were of media lies and stuff you read on social media. You all have attacked me many times on this show. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether she believes QAnon.

I have because of things that you read about me that weren't true. Or clips we've seen. Or clips you've seen that took me out of context. No, but it's not even true. Let's take a second because I'm getting... All right. So she says that the Jewish space lasers thing has been rebuffed. Just as a reminder, it was posted to her Facebook page. She's just arguing that whoever was handling the Facebook page posted it.

Now, whether we believe that someone running her page would post without her permission and without her believing it's something about Jewish space lasers, I don't know, maybe I've got a bridge to sell you. But needless to say, that is what she is claiming. She was asked a question by Whoopi Goldberg. Does she support Trump sending troops to American cities? Clear question. issue of constitutionality, issue of separation of powers, issue of federalism. She dodges the question, sadly. Because, you know, free speech is everything. And it feels like it's harder to do and to have in this country.

Do you think it's a good idea for the military to be marching into our cities and towns right now? because maybe people don't like the speech that they're hearing. How do we combat that and get back to going after the people who really are the problems? Well, you know, on speech, free speech, I want to say that I think that all of us right here are doing a great job of exchanging our ideas and things that we believe in, and we're doing it in a very professional and kind way. And this sounds to me like playing both sides My opinion I think we need more of that in America I really do

And a lot of people wanted me to come on the show And say nasty things And you know, all of us to fight They wanted all of us to fight Thank you for not doing that Oh my goodness no I didn't want to do that It's like five to one

She could handle it But she would want to handle it No I didn't want to do that today because I believe that people with powerful voices like myself and like you, and especially women to women, we need to pave a new path. This country, our beautiful country, our red, white, and blue flag is just being ripped as shreds. And I think it takes women of maturity to sew it back together. And I think that happens. Oh, boy. You know, I've got to hand it to her. She was prepared.

Um, she is trying to play both sides. I want to take you back to the question. Do you support Trump sending troops into American cities? And she does this kumbaya as women speaking as women, which is not the way that Marjorie Taylor Green normally talks because she knows her audience. And this is a PR effort. Marjorie Taylor Green having been pseudo shunned by Donald Trump and. bits and pieces of MAGA is looking to climb the social ladder. And what she is trying to figure

out a way to do without having to say, of course, I don't support sending troops into cities, which would put her completely at odds with the Republican Party. Or, of course, I do support sending troops to American cities, which would put her at odds with the audience and the women of the view. She should just to go, listen, we got to be nice. I'm not going to come on here and say nasty things as women, as powerful women, blah, blah, blah, blah. She's trying to play both sides. This is a PR campaign. I am now more convinced than ever.

It doesn't mean that there aren't some nominal disagreements between Marjorie Taylor Green and MAGA on the fringes, but she is trying to play both sides. The topic of Republican men came up. You called them, quote unquote, I believe this is you, mostly weak Republican men. So would you like to name names? You know, I think there's a lot of paid social media influencers. And I found it very interesting that they were the MAGA accounts, but they're all paid, and they all attacked me when I announced I was coming to join you ladies on The View.

And I think that's very weak and pathetic. But when I talk about weak Republican men, I'm pretty much talking oftentimes about the leadership and the House and the Senate. And they're just, they're not getting our agenda done. All right. So it's the leadership of the House and Senate. And then finally for Marjorie Taylor Green, maybe her most normal moment of the entire thing. 21. And there was a sunset date of the end of this year.

And Republicans never made a plan for that. And I have been practically, I yelled at Mike Johnson last week on our GOP conference call. By the way, I'm missing the call today. It's going on right now. And I hope that Mike Johnson is finally giving a single health care policy because the country deserves it. And it shouldn't be a secret. And I shouldn't have to go into a skiff to go find our Republican health insurance plan. There is no plan.

You know what? You want to know something? That I believe is the truth. There's a lot of ideas. There's a lot of bills, but there's no consensus. And I think that's- All right. So Marjorie Taylor Green rightly saying enough with the healthcare plan has to be a secret thing.

We can't keep doing this thing. I think she's playing both sides. I think this is a PR effort. I don't buy that this is a new Marjorie Taylor Green, even one iota. But she's welcome on the show anytime and I'd love to talk to her about it. On the bonus show today, we will delve in more detail into some of the down ballot races in yesterday's blue wave. We will talk about the Supreme Court entering the lion's den on Donald Trump's tariffs.

And we will talk about teachers getting threats after Halloween costumes wrongly linked to Charlie Kirk. All of that and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join packman.com. Make sure that you are getting the bonus show and the commercial free show and all of it. And I'll see you then. But of course, we'll have a new show tomorrow.