The David Pakman Show - 7/17/25: Epstein causing total MAGA meltdown, Trump out of ideas, trade deals not coming

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

-- On the Show: -- Mark Bankston, civil rights attorney, joins David to discuss his client Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against Fox News -- Peter Navarro admits Trump’s “trade deals” are just empty threats dressed up as diplomacy -- Trump’s approval crashes as even Republicans think he’s hiding Epstein evidence -- Trump axes the Epstein prosecutor, Maurene Comey, in what looks like a political cover-up to protect himself -- Trump lashes out at his own base over Epstein questions, calling them stupid and disloyal -- Trump forgets he appointed Jerome Powell, raising serious questions about his mental fitness -- Trump rambles through another fact-free press conference, inventing wins and flubbing basic points -- Trump looks exhausted and paranoid, blaming Biden for Epstein as panic sets in over sealed files -- On the Bonus Show: Fox News obeys Trump over Epstein scandal, Senate approves cuts to public broadcasting, bill would prevent ICE from deporting US citizens, and much more... 🥕 Quantum Nutrition Labs: Get additional 10% off with code PAKMAN at https://qnlabs.com 🪙 InvestingPro: Get 50% off + extra 15% off your subscription at https://davidpakman.com/invest 🥐 Wildgrain: Use code PAKMAN for $30 off & free baked goods at https://wildgrain.com/pakman 💻 Sponsored by Aura: Try it free for 2 weeks! See if your data is safe at https://aura.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/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

Welcome to the show. Great to see you on this Thursday. We are very quickly coming up against the limits of the meaning of words. And I'm going to explain what I mean by that. If I said to you, I am making trade deals. Do you envision that there is more than one party to the deal? I think for the most part, with average to better English language skills, you understand a deal to be something that has at least two parties.

I can't go to a car dealership and say, I will not be paying any more than 15 grand for this car and call that a deal. A deal means that we have agreed to the terms I am willing to pay for the vehicle, some amount at which you are willing to sell me the vehicle. And if I just start sending dealerships letters, we can't say that those are deals. And Peter Navarro, longtime Trump suck up, one time economic adviser, one time prison inmate, total sycophant, is acknowledging these aren't exactly deals by his definition. Now, he doesn't say that he still tries to defend Donald Trump. These aren't exactly deals by his definition.

Now, he doesn't say that he still tries to defend Donald Trump. But here he is this morning on Fox Business speaking to Maria Bartiromo. And this is a total blindside to Donald Trump when his own guy is saying, well, it's not exactly what we call that. It's the economic narrative collapsing as soon as someone opens their mouth. So here's Maria Bartiromo. It's a very basic question.

It's a tractable and measurable question. How many more trade deals do you expect in the coming month? Put aside for a moment that 90 deals and 90 day deadline has already come and gone. They had one deal. Put it. Put that aside for a moment. How many more deals can we expect in the next month? Listen to the words that Peter Navarro uses real quick, Peter. How many more deals would you expect on trade in the coming month?

Well, look, I want to want to make this really clear. We've got a bunch of deals right now, but a lot of them are unilateral because we had to send letters to people. And the problem, Maria, is they have such a good deal screwing America, let me be blunt about it, that they're reluctant. But we've got over 90% of the trade deficit covered with letters or deals right now. We're in a good place trusting Trump. He's going to get it done. And the American people are going to have trillions of dollars in tax cuts. Yeah.

And don't ask too many questions, Maria, just trust in Trump debt reduction because of that. Let's never lose sight of the fact that what we just had a budget surplus for the month of June. So there's that. Thanks to tariff revenue. Peter, good to see you. Thanks so much. Yeah. You know, Trump and his team used to say we are going to make 90 deals in 90 days. It wasn't very long ago, so I presume most of you remember that. And it was going to be this golden age of

trade like a phoenix rising over the horizon, America would be respected again. Deals would be raining down from the sky as every country is desperate to get a deal done with Donald Trump. We are now down to sending letters long after the deadline has come and gone. These are not signed agreements. These are not joint announcements. These are not frameworks. These are I wrote them a letter saying we're tariffing you 35 percent.

And not only were they not eager and desperate to make a deal by my own self-imposed deadline, they are not even responding to my letter in many cases. So these aren't deals. Really, these are threats. These are warning shots, one way memos that don't have both sides agreeing to terms. Deals are mutual. Deals are negotiated. This is like showing someone an invoice for something they didn't buy and saying we've

got a partnership. And if even Peter Navarro, who really has been one of Donald Trump's most loyal and sycophantic suck up economic foot soldiers. If even Peter Navarro is saying, well, we're going to have deals and letters and it's really the letters. You know, this entire strategy is completely vapid and empty. And what's really striking here is the total lack of urgency from the other side. Trump claimed countries would be lining up to make deals once he got tough with them, like the big boy that he is. They would want to avoid tariffs.

They would instantly cave and come to Trump and say, sir, we're sobbing. Give us give us something. But it's not happening. There's been no stampede and no last minute concessions. And really, in many cases, there's been no response from a lot of these countries, because the reality is that most countries have learned just right out the storm. They know because Trump chickens out that a lot of these threats are more bark than bite and often there's not even that much bark.

The truth about global trade deals is that they typically take months or longer where you have quiet negotiation, technical compromise among seasoned economic negotiators. You build a coalition. Trump's view is I'm going to threaten everybody and within 90 days they will all acquiesce and we're going to have great deals. And it's not happening. These are really tantrums more than they are negotiating tactics. So as we hear from Peter Navarro and whether he knows it or not, right, Trump's art of the deal strategy is a coercive strategy, not a diplomatic and cooperative strategy.

And the problem with coercion is that it only works if the other side fears you. Now, Donald Trump's authoritarian tactics have done a really good job of making a lot of Americans afraid. They've done a really good job of making media outlets afraid. Paramount and ABC, they're now afraid of if we do coverage of Trump that he doesn't like, is he going to come and sue us again? So domestically, the fear base of governance governance is not really the right word. The fear based behavior has worked to a degree and that's terrifying. But at the national level, the international level, better said, countries look at the U.S., they see political chaos, economic mismanagement, a declining ability to even enforce consequences. And so they're just not afraid of Donald Trump, certainly not in a way that would be beneficial

to Trump's economic agenda. So we're increasingly aware that Trump is panicking behind the scenes because of the tariff circumstances not going his way because of the Epstein stuff. His own people can't pretend anymore. And Peter Navarro is acknowledging deals. Well, letters were going to send some very strongly worded letters. All right. If Donald Trump wanted to blow up his own presidency, he is doing a hell of a job because really nothing says second term success like a collapsing approval rating, a flood response scandal in Texas. And of course, the Epstein case coming back from the dead to completely consume Trump's administration and critically divide MAGA.

And it is the Epstein part of it is completely self inflicted. We have new polling. And this is a very interesting poll that I encourage you really to look at in total. But there is a critical question here about Epstein that I want to show you. And I should have had it scrolled correctly before putting it up on the screen. But we are going to get to it and it is going to be an incredible moment. Here it is. Do you think the government is covering up evidence it has about Jeffrey Epstein? Sixty seven percent of American adults believe that, yes, the current government, Trump's

administration is covering up evidence it has about Jeffrey Epstein and stunning. Even among Republicans, 50 percent of Republicans believe Trump is covering up Epstein evidence. It's not just Democrats. Eighty two percent of Democrats believe there's a cover up. It's not just independents. Sixty nine percent of independents believe there's a cover up. It's not just independents. Sixty nine percent of independents believe there's a cover up. Fifty percent of Republicans believe there's a cover up.

And fascinatingly, 35 percent aren't sure. So to say it a different way, only 15 percent of Republicans believe there is not currently a cover up happening in the Trump administration about Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, and by the way, I shouldn't ignore the first question. Should the government release all of the documents? Everybody agrees. Seventy five percent of Republicans, seventy six percent of independents and eighty five

percent of Democrats believe the government should release all of the documents about Epstein. This is a time bomb, a ticking time bomb for Trump. What has Trump been saying when he gets asked about it? You're still asking about Epstein. Yes, people are still asking about the child sex trafficker Trump used to hang out with and who a bunch of the people working for Trump promised once Trump is in office, you will finally get accountability.

You will finally get transparency. The documents will come out and the arrests will begin when the DOJ released this memo saying there's actually no list. There's no blackmail. There's no further evidence. There's not going to be any more arrest. A bunch of Trump's base has revolted. He promised them justice and he's giving them redactions.

And even Joe Rogan, who's basically mega adjacent, he endorsed Trump. He said he voted for Trump. Even Rogan is saying, wait a second, who expects us to believe this? We were told there was all this stuff and suddenly there's nothing. Bondi herself said we have thousands of videos and she wrote a letter. We've got the letter from February 27th. I have hundreds of documents and I believe the FBI has thousands more. The right wing doesn't know who to trust anymore. And that is on Trump. Now, meanwhile, if we zoom out, the presidency is rapidly collapsing.

Trump's approval rating is down to 41 percent. He's got a minus 14 disapproval. This is the worst since the first days of the presidency among independents. He's down from 41 to 29. And even non-maga Republicans are very, very wobbly. And we are going to see later in today's show that Donald Trump is now attacking the stupid Republicans who were, quote, duped by the Epstein story, meaning they want the files released, meaning they want Trump to make good on his word and do the thing he promised them that he would do. So this is Trump's own doing. He and the people he chose to hire spent a long time elevating the Epstein narrative.

They promised revelations. They put in Pam Bondi, who was supposedly going to release everything. And he could have said, we will protect no one. This child sex trafficking is so serious. This is postpartisan. There might be Democrats on the list. There might be Republicans on the list. We're going to release all of it.

But he's not doing that to a degree because he's probably in the files, not necessarily as a perpetrator, but certainly in the files because he was friends with Epstein. And so now the base thinks he's in on it. Half of Republicans believe that there's a cover up and you can really only stoke the fire for so long before it gets big enough to engulf your own house. It is happening right now. He's digging the grave. He's got a shovel in one hand and, you know, the Epstein memo in the other.

And we're going to see how far this goes for MAGA. Yesterday, I did a sub stack live with Heather Cox Richardson, who's phenomenal. And we actually she brought up that she believes this Epstein story is actually a major, major deal for American politics because of the critical inflection point at which we find ourselves. So check out the substack live at substack.davidpakman.com with Heather Cox Richardson. We'll take a quick break and be right back. We have talked before on the show about how the vitamin and supplement industry is barely

regulated. The products are often mislabeled. They're expired. They're contaminated. And that's why I'm really excited to have as a new sponsor Quantum Nutrition Labs, which is a brand that does supplements the right way. QNL was founded by two doctors who saw that the supplement industry has become dangerous. And the whole point is, let's skip the shortcuts. Let's not do the junk.

And for over 20 years, QNL has really earned the trust of consumers and health professionals because their big thing is purity. Every product is made in certified facilities, third party tested to verify identity, potency and potential contaminants and never any artificial additives. It's and transparency. If you're ready for supplements that match what's on the label, go to q n labs dot com and use the code Pacman for an additional 10 percent off, which you can use in combination with other promotions on the website. That's q n labs dot com. Use code Pacman for an additional 10 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes.

I've talked before about how I have allocated a portion of my assets to individual stocks. And when it comes to individual stocks, how do you get the information that is going to help you meaningfully decide what makes sense for you? And that's exactly why I've been testing out investing pro. This is the new flagship platform from investing dot com. And the whole idea here is it's a tool to find stocks others may be missing. And the feature I've been using is called Warren A.I. It's kind of like chat GPT trained on up to the minute market data. using and David Pakman dot com.

You can do both, which is awesome. And you can also request a free membership by inputting your name and email at David Pakman dot com slash free membership. Everything we do, the daily podcast, the videos, the substack lives, all of it, it's really all funded by you and it exists at your pleasure. So I appreciate everybody who's been supporting the work that we do and welcome everybody who signed up this month. This is absolutely wild.

Donald Trump's DOJ has fired Maureen Comey. That is James Comey's daughter. But more importantly, Maureen Comey was the federal prosecutor who helped bring charges against this. You can't write this stuff against Jeffrey Epstein and Jelaine Maxwell. Yes. Let that sink in for a moment. The woman who helped take down the most infamous sex trafficker in modern history was abruptly removed from her position in the Manhattan U.S. district attorney's office with no explanation given.

And this was not a quiet reshuffling. This came directly from Washington, not her local office. In other words, this was a political hit job. Comey had been with the office for nearly a decade. She was not some rookie. She was senior trial counsel and by all accounts, deeply respected by her peers. And in fact, after she was fired, dozens of prosecutors walked her out of the building in solidarity, which doesn't happen unless something really stinks. And this is where it all gets even more suspicious.

Donald Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, have been under fire for refusing to release additional Epstein files. These are the same files that many believe could implicate powerful people. And instead of transparency, they are stonewalling. And now suddenly the prosecutor most closely linked to those cases who happens to be the daughter of Trump's longtime enemy gets fired. That is not subtle. And this is the Trump strategy in full view.

You punish your enemies. you protect your allies, you bury the truth. And it's really not just about Maureen Comey. This is, you know, Trump's directed the DOJ to investigate her father, James Comey. Again, he's digging up the Russia probe stuff from eight years ago. He's latching onto Instagram posts. He's arguing that Comey might have even made up the Epstein documents. So this is a purge. It's petty, but it's also political and extraordinarily serious.

And it is not a coincidence that people like Laura Loomer and others have been demanding that Maureen Comey be removed. They tried to discredit her. They pressured Bondi to fire her and she's gone. Maga asked and Trump has delivered. And this is simply not how justice is supposed to work. A sitting president interfering with the legal system to protect himself and punish his critics. And it's part of a broader pattern.

Trump forced DOJ prosecutors to drop that corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. That led to resignations. One of the most powerful U.S. attorneys offices in the country gutted for political convenience. Trump promised to drain the swamp. But what we're seeing is he doesn't really want to drain it. He wants to run the swamp. And so where we find ourselves right now and we're going to have to figure out where it goes is what's in the Epstein files that Trump doesn't want us to see. We have a sense and we're going to keep trying to answer that question. But why are they so afraid of just one prosecutor that they had to fire her without any reason?

And so it increasingly is stepping away from justice and towards cover up. Trump's melting down. He's trying to keep it buried. And that is where we find ourselves today. And it is breaking Donald Trump's brain. And that's what I want to talk about next. Donald Trump's brain appeared to break as he is now attacking his own supporters. This is a big deal.

As I spoke about yesterday with Heather Cox Richardson, we have not seen a moment at all in Trump ism in this terrible decade of Trump ism. We have not really seen a moment where Trump starts going after his own supporters. Here is Trump yesterday saying he is now calling it the Epstein hoax. Let's listen. Intrigue over the Epstein files. But I do want to ask you to clarify something you said this morning. You said this was all a hoax.

Has your attorney general told you this was a hoax? What evidence have you seen? No, it's not the attorney general. No, I know it's a hoax. It's started by Democrats. It's been run by the Democrats for four years. You had Christopher Wray in these characters and Comey before him. And it's a bad group. It started actually look

at the Steele dossier that turned out to be a total hoax. The 51 agents, the intelligence, so-called intelligence agents, it was a hoax. It's all been a big hoax. It's perpetrated by the Democrats. And some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net. And so they try and do the Democrats' work. The Democrats are good for nothing other than these hoaxes. They're bad for policy. They're bad for picking candidates that can get elected. Like in New York, we have a communist running.

He may get elected, too, actually, but he'll destroy the city. No, no, I call it the Epstein hoax. It takes a lot of time and effort. Instead of talking about the great achievements, we've had a great gentleman yesterday, as you know, went on CNBC, and he made the statement that Trump may go down as the greatest president of all in the United States.

And instead of talking about the things we've achieved, we've had tremendous achievement. They're wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems, who died three, four years ago. I'd rather talk about the success we have with the economy, the best we've ever had, and all of the things we've done, including the Middle East. I mean, you see it. Instead, they want to talk about the Epstein Hooks. And the sad part is it's people that are really doing the Democrats work.

They're stupid people. Yeah, they are stupid people. The non Democrats that want to see the files are doing the Democrats work and they are stupid people. He's talking about his own supporters. It's important, of course, to remember that the timing of all of this already implicates Trump, even though, you know, we had this Bill O'Reilly segment where O'Reilly is like Merrick Garland has his fingerprints all over this.

Biden does. Wait a second. Trump was president when Epstein was arrested. Trump was president when Epstein died by suicide. And Trump is now saying it's all everybody but me is to blame. Trump was asked more directly, are you disowning your own supporters who are talking about Epstein. And Trump says, yeah, I've lost faith in a lot of people.

We have never seen this before in the last 10 years. This morning, you mentioned past supporters when you're talking about the Epstein issue. Does that mean that you're effectively disowning any supporters who are now a lot of faith in certain people? Yeah, I'd love that because they got duped by the Democrats. He has lost faith in the supporters of his who have been duped by the Democrats. You know who one of those people is? I could have picked one of, you know, dozens of these.

But here's just one example. Here's Tim Pool. Here's Tim Pool's reaction to Trump turning on his own supporters. Oh, Donald Trump says the people that are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein inquiry are bad people. He said only bad people in fake news are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein inquiry. I guess that puts me in the category of bad people. My friends, there you go.

These MAGA people are not happy that after Trump baited them and goaded them. I mean, are they going to realize that they've been completely played by Trump? They're getting increasingly furious and they should be because it was all the Trump hoax to make you think he really cared about transparency and accountability. And he was going to show you everything that's going on. Finally, here is Trump saying the real scandal is not Jeffrey Epstein. It's Biden's auto pen.

Have you ever seen a more pathetically desperate loser? He's with he doesn't have a policy. Some lunatic around the desk had a policy. Whoever operated the auto pen had a policy, which is, by the way, I think the biggest scandal that's the scandal they should be talking about, not Jeffrey Epstein. The scandal you should be talking about is the auto pen, because I think it's the biggest scandal. One of them in American history. As Ron Filipkowski said yesterday, for Trump to be going to these extremes, to cover up

the Epstein files, including attacking his own supporters, the evidence against him must be incredibly incriminating. There's just no other explanation that makes any sense. And he is definitely panicked. He is trying to figure out what can I possibly do to get the attention away from me on this. And everything he does is only putting more attention on him for good reason, because he seems guilty as hell. Now, I don't even think that the evidence would necessarily be Trump was a client of

the sex trafficking. I think it's more likely because Trump hung around with Epstein for a very long time that he's just all over the files. I think that he was on the plane and I actually don't think the evidence is likely to be as bad as the worst version of what it could be. Although I know there are people in my audience who do. I think Trump just realizes it's going to be a nightmare if the files do come out and his name is in them in so many different places, which it almost certainly is. The oldest president in American history has forgotten that he appointed the very Fed chair

that he is now criticizing. You can't write this stuff. Biden needs an IQ test. Biden needs a cognitive test, all this different stuff. And yet, Donald Trump yesterday said he's surprised that Jerome Powell was ever appointed as Fed chair. How did it happen? Well, it was it was Donald Trump who appointed him.

It's a terrible he's a terrible Fed chair. I was surprised he was appointed. I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him. Biden did not put him in and Biden did not do any of what Donald Trump is talking about. Here is the notification from the Trump White House archives. November 2nd, 2017, President Donald J. Trump announces the nomination of Jerome Powell to be chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Trump did it.

Is this dementia? Is this a liar? If Biden called his supporters stupid and then forgot that he had been the one who appointed the current Fed chair. What do you think we would be seeing on Fox News right now? What do you think we would be hearing from Charlie Kirk and, you know, Megan Kelly and Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro? Just fill in the blanks.

But yesterday, Donald Trump called his own supporters who care about the Epstein story stupid and says that they have been duped and said it's really surprising that Biden appoint appointed Jerome Powell. But of course, it was Trump. We have the declaration from Trump's first term archives right here. What kind of a world are we living in? And there's a couple important takeaways. Number one, Trump is so worried about this.

Trump is so panicked about this that it seems to be triggering even more of these memory lapses and cognitive gaffes. But maybe more importantly, I don't know that Trump supporters are going to let him off the hook on this one because every time he posts about this on Truth Social, he's getting ratioed. Every time he becomes more antagonistic of people who still care about this, including his own supporters, they seem to get even more angry. Like Tim Pool, Tucker Carlson said, how dare I be told that I don't need to know what's

going on here? This is seeming like seeming like it might actually have legs. And again, I know I keep mentioning this. I did a live on Substack yesterday with Heather Cox Richardson, who takes sort of a historical view and follows these things in a different way than we do. She is also on the side of, oh, this Epstein thing might actually be a really big deal. We feel intuitively we're at an inflection point in the country with the disregarding of due process and the authoritarianism. And all of a sudden, Magas belief or lack thereof of what Trump is telling them about Epstein might push us one way or the other at this critical inflection point.

So check out that conversation. Trump doesn't remember a damn thing. Or is he just lying? I don't know. Tell me what you think. in 100% vegan and it just takes the hassle out of baking because all items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or less. Nothing to clean up. My experience has been awesome.

I love the croissants. I was having people over last week, half an hour before pre heat and throw them in the oven and people love it. Definitely. The croissants are my favorite. The quality and the freshness of the items is extraordinary and it is just so convenient. Go to wild grain dot com slash Pacman to start your subscription and get thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissants in every box every month. to I'm are and for myself. You can try or a for free for 14 days at aura dot com slash Pacman.

That's a you are a dot com slash Pacman to try it free for 14 days. The link is in the description. It's great to welcome back to the program. Attorney Mark Bankston, who's a partner at Farrow and Ball. And the latest topic, you're always up to interesting things. I don't I don't know if you seek these out or if they find you. But this time it's you are involved in California Governor Gavin Newsom's seven hundred eighty seven million dollar defamation lawsuit against Fox News. We covered this on the show when it was filed. It relates to this phone call that Donald Trump said he had with Gavin Newsom in the last day, which Gavin Newsom

said that call was three and a half days ago, the subject of which was not what Donald Trump claimed it to be. Jesse Waters then went on TV and you'll tell us exactly what he said, but essentially made the case that it is Gavin Newsom who's making this thing up at the end of the day. That's exactly right. And he flat out said, why is Gavin Newsom lying? And it's interesting because a lot of the cases that I've done involve media outlets where I felt like they acted recklessly, where if they had done their job properly, they would have discovered the truth and by acting recklessly,

they violated the law. This case is different because it's Fox and it follows the same pattern. It's not that they acted recklessly and should have discovered the truth. The reality was they knew the truth and they fabricated and manufactured a completely different version for no other purpose but to carry the president's water. And this is something, of course, we see from Fox time and time again. What made this so you're talking about they knew what the truth was.

They went with something different. They knew what they were doing still, though. And maybe this will help us understand it. What makes this rise to the level of defamation in your eyes? Obviously, this has not yet. We need to see what the outcome of the case is. But but in your eyes, why do you believe that this is more than, oh, you know, we have an agenda, we have a bias and sometimes we selectively include or don't certain claims. Why is this defamation? It's a little bit different. And I think to some background, you know, the governor, just like all of us, watched

that Dominion case and saw the emails that came out of that case. And what we saw was a news organization that wasn't trying to put a spin on things or wasn't trying to to put their thumb on the scale. What they had was journalists who were privately acknowledging that the facts that they were reporting were not true. And they were almost mocking the entire process behind the scenes. And that's what's really upset the governor,

is to see that case go forward, to see Fox have to pay that enormous amount in settlement that should have acted as a deterrent. And what do we see that is still going on is that Fox is willing to lie to carry the president's water. And it raises the question of exactly what is Fox? Is it a media organization or is it a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine? Because in this specific case, the president's office had provided them with the actual evidence

that showed that actually that phone call that President Trump said happened did not happen. And they knew for a fact that Governor Newsom was telling the truth. But they have to continue to carry the president's water, so they had to create this story to smear the governor to say that he was a liar. And when that happens, in the wake of the Dominion suit,

when we've already seen them do the same behavior before, he just wasn't allowed to let that happen. I mean, he feels a great responsibility here that if he becomes the next target, he's got to step up because his silence will allow them to keep doing this. Now, this is we're now zooming out a little bit into how the law works, which I think is useful because we're seeing a lot of cases like this in sort of different shapes and forms. Does does Gavin Newsom need to prove that he was materially harmed by the lie in order to succeed in this matter?

Interestingly enough, no, he doesn't. There's there's two kinds of defamation. There's traditional defamation, which is somebody says something that's harmful about you, that is a derogatory thing that is false. But there's another class of defamation known as defamation per se. And these are certain statements that by their very nature are just understood to be damaging. These include accusations that somebody was engaged in criminal conduct, accusations that they are deficient in their profession, and importantly

here, accusations that somebody is a liar. And you cannot, that's a cornerstone of defamation law. If you know that someone isn't lying and you say that they are, that is defamatory. Because in other words, this was done against the backdrop of a nation in a moment of crisis, looking at two political leaders and trying to judge their veracity, see which one of these guys is an honest and true dealer. And Fox wanted to make sure its audience knew that they didn't have to discover the truth, that it was their own president who was lying to them.

So they concocted this story. And so in reality, from the law standpoint, Governor Newsom doesn't have to show actual damages. This can be completely punitive. But the reality is, is that when Fox airs that two millions of people, there's no question at all that that has reputational damage. And that's probably nowhere more acute than it is in the political environment. And normally a political leader would have a hard time bringing this kind of suit because

they'd have to prove it was said with knowledge that it was actually false. But again, given the facts of this case, that's not a challenge here. One, I guess you would call it a tactic that has sometimes been used over the last five years by lawyers defending Fox News is when convenient, they will go the route of and I'm paraphrasing. I don't know that this is exactly how they phrase it legally, but this is someone giving an opinion and not to be interpreted as a news report per se. Right.

And I think that this was used with Tucker Carlson in one. You know, this is these are hyperbolic, exaggerated opinions for entertainment. This is not a news report where every word comports with the literal facts. However it was that they worded it. And I'm sure you know better than I do. Is that potentially a viable defense technique for Fox in this scenario? I don't see it here. It was it was very well featured in a former lawsuit involving Tucker Carlson and Tucker's

show follows a somewhat strange format. A lot of his talking is sort of a stream of consciousness rant. It's formulated in such a way that it wears its opinion status on its sleeve. And the thing about Tucker's replacement, Jesse Waters, this individual that they thought they would put stick into his time slot, is he operates much more like a standard news show.

And there is plenty of language used in that broadcast, which is communicating to its viewers that Fox is going to get to the bottom of what is really happening. And because they are they're signaling, signaling cues to their viewers that we are informing you rather than having a discussion about political values or Tucker Carlson's preferences for certain policies. This is actually a reporting of live contemporaneous events. And so under this analysis there's really no question that any reasonable viewer watching this would have taken this as a statement of fact, that that Governor

Newsom was wrong, that President Trump had brought the receipts and then had proven him wrong, and this was in many ways just a straight news report. And it's really it's that kind of defamation that's the most insidious is when you have an organization telling you, I'm an honest broker, I'm going to tell you what really happened and then just turns around and lies to you. That is the sort of the damage that we need to prevent. I'm curious. And this is zooming out a little bit.

And this doesn't necessarily apply to what Jesse Waters said because he didn't use this sort of language I'm about to propose. But one of the things I try to do is if I am reporting or analyzing or opining about something that has been reported by someone else, which is almost always the case, right, because I'm doing analysis and commentary, I'm not doing original news reporting. I will make an effort to say this has been alleged or as reported by. And my layperson's belief is that when I do that, I'm just making a sort of disclaimer that I am giving my opinion based on my assessment that a report is true. Of course, if the report is untrue, my opinion would have to be revised.

But it's sort of like the way I couch it. If I'm not, if it's possible that an outrageous report isn't true, do those types of statements generally actually have legal value? Yes, yes, they do. And in several states, there's actually statutes on the book that says a media organization like yours can isn't liable for the reporting or statements made by a third party if you're just reporting that those statements were made. Sometimes that an allegation has been made is itself newsworthy, right? And we should have the

freedom to report on those kinds of things. But when you have a news organization who is saying that it's their own original reporting, that's a very different thing. So I do think it's important for people like you in independent media to always be upfront with their viewers about where their information is coming from, about which parts of the program are meant to communicate facts and which are meant to communicate opinions. I think that kind of language is not only legally important, but also socially and culturally helpful. It's the right thing to do.

But what we see at Fox is a very different formula. And we don't see those disclaimers to the extent that they exist are actually contradictory and confusing. And it leads to a situation where the entire Fox audience is just under a fire hose of false information being presented as though it is factual, hard news. And that, again, is typified by this case. One of the really interesting I mean, it's I don't know if it's evil or evil genius. But one of the things we would often see when Tucker Carlson still had his show on Fox News

is that in a clearly opinionated way on his nighttime show, Tucker would give some outrageous conspiracy theory or, you know, inside job for the January six riots or this sort of thing. It's very clearly an opinion. The next morning, Fox and Friends would report about the fact that Tucker gave this opinion. And it was a very interesting blurring because, listen, I get it. Tucker's opinion was on his opinion show. Fox and Friends reported on the fact that Tucker said this. Everything is true, but it really blurs the lines as to what is Fox and Friends trying

to communicate when they do that. It's exactly right. Well, in this case, you have where John Roberts also did contemporaneous reporting on the same thing. And so you have this blending of the two departments. Now I will say that Tucker Carlson, you may be right to use the phrase evil genius. He was a very sophisticated person in how to use the sort of incurses of language in order to sort of shroud themselves and hide behind certain things in defamation law. Jesse Waters is not as skillful

of a rhetorical forces Chuck Carlson. No, that certainly seems to be the case. Right, right. He went right over the line. And when he had, we know from now, from investigating this case, Jesse Waters and his producers had in their possession the actual information here.

And so for them to go forward as they did so clumsily is actually what surprises me. And it's also a surprise to me, you know, the governor has offered Fox a chance So for them to go forward as they did so clumsily is actually what surprises me. And it's also a surprise to me. You know, the governor has offered Fox a chance to apologize for all of this. Well, it's just to come out and say, hey, look, we gave the false information. We had the right information. We gave it false and we're sorry about that.

And they could avoid this entire mess. And you know, it remains to be seen if they're going to do that. But for the moment right now, we're just charging full speed ahead. So in terms of the demand, seven hundred eighty seven million, I assume that that's a reference to the Dominion lawsuit and the award there. And I know that lawyers are often cagey about speaking about this stuff while this is going on. But what is really the point here?

I mean, is it to collect seven hundred eighty seven million minus legal fees for Gavin Newsom personally? Is the idea here? What would would you accept less is the idea? Not even really this, but something else like what's the goal here? Well, in first, in terms of the award itself, any any monies recovered from Fox that are that are paid on the benefit of Governor Newsom for this lawsuit, he is going to donate those to charity. This is not about the monetary enrichment of the governor who does not need that. That is not his concern whatsoever. The actual concern is to inflict the right amount of

monetary compensation on Fox that will act as a deterrent because apparently first round wasn't enough. And so that number, you are correct, was chosen in our pleadings as a symbolic value of this is the deterrence value of these claims. Yet at the same time, it may very well undersell the amount of damage that Fox is doing. And so for that reason, look, when damages are calculated at trial, it's not a matter of what the plaintiff puts in their complaint, it's the matter of what 12 citizens of that community decide to do. And so the amounts of damages will be left

in the hands of that jury. And that money will be put to good use in a charitable way. But it is a hope that that money can be taken from Fox so that they can understand that this is a cost of doing business. If this is how you're going to operate Then these costs are there and it wasn't just a one-off fluke with Dominion It wasn't just that one thing now you're out from under it

You can keep operating the same way Governor Newsom wants to send the message that a Fox intends to keep operating this way It'll face suit after suit after suit and and that's why there needs to be some sort of you know thematic Continuity between this and the Dominion suit we're arguing the exact same thing And that's why there needs to be some sort of, you know, thematic continuity between this and the Dominion suit. We're arguing the exact same thing. And so if this keeps happening, that's that's what he will do is is he was he was very proud to step up into this role when they made him the latest target.

How long do you think this all will take? You know, it's that's a really hard question. I personally, if I was dealing with a rational entity, I would hope that it would be wrapped up in a month or two and everybody would go off on their separate ways. But that's not how I anticipate this going down. And that would only be if there were to be a settlement, right? A settlement and apology and all of that. Exactly.

Right. And I'm not holding my breath for that. I mean, I'd like Fox to come to it senses, but we will see about that. You know, our team is, is prepared to take this to long haul and some of these defamation cases can sometimes take two, three years, something like that. In the meantime, though, of course, as the suit goes on, there will be discovery in this lawsuit. And so we're going to be learning a lot more about how Fox is operating in the post dominion

environment. And we expect those revelations to be just as disturbing as they were in that suit. Yeah, I think that there is the potential here that in discovery, communications may come out about what was happening behind the scenes as the phone call fiasco was developing, which could be explosive, to say the least. And that that those revelations would certainly have value in sort of exposing the way that Fox may be operating. You know, that's that's sort of the feeling that we've all had about the Dominion suit

itself, too, is when those emails came out, that was an important thing to add to the historical record. Right. And you know, the governor said about the suit that that history is being written on the spot and forces like Fox contribute to that. And so history has to be correct. And this era in which we have a president who lies with such alarming regularity that

we've all just kind of grown used to it. There needs to be a complete record of exactly how this happened and who was responsible. And it's not just all on Trump. It is it is on the powerful forces that surround him, including this multibillion dollar media enterprise. Well, we're going to follow it. It may be two months. It may be two years, hopefully not not much longer than that. We've been speaking with attorney Mark Bankston, partner at Farrow and Ball. Always good having you on, Mark. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me, David. You know, for weeks now, discussions have focused on Trump's big, beautiful bill and its potential Medicaid cuts.

However, a far more dangerous overlooked provision in the bill exists at ground dot news slash Pacman. You'll discover what Maga lawmakers quietly included a provision that could block federal judges from enforcing court orders unless a bond is posted. And if this passes, it could render Trump above the law. This is a critical detail. It's largely unknown and it really exemplifies this flood the zone strategy of the Trump administration.

Now, this is why ground news is essential. It really is the best way to uncover buried information by showing you not just the story, but its origins across the political spectrum. You can see bias ratings, credibility scores, coverage timelines and their browser extension also will flag potential bias when you're on a news site sort of guiding you to more reliable sources for fact checking. Ground News gives you a smarter and more reliable way to stay informed. I'm partnering with them to give you 40 percent off their unlimited vantage plan, which makes

it just five dollars a month. Visit ground dot news slash Pacman. Scan the QR code or use the code Pacman in the app to start. The link is in the description. Donald Trump's worst press conference might have been yesterday in the White House's East Room, a room in which I've been before, but there was nothing like this going on the day that I was there. Donald Trump bragged powerfully and strongly that they passed a tax bill with no taxes on Social Security income.

The only problem is that is not in the bill. It's not in the bill. But Donald Trump keeps saying it over and over and over again. Is it because he doesn't know it's not in the bill? Is it because he doesn't respect his followers enough to even tell them the truth about what he passed? Is it because he forgot? Is it because of dementia?

We just don't know. But Trump insists we've passed no taxes on Social Security. And there's so many good things, whether it's no tax on tips, think of that no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime. If you buy a car, you want to buy a car, you get a deduction of interest on your mortgage. And think of that. Things that were never even a possibility. And then so much else in terms of health, in terms of providing care. It's really just a fantastic bill, and it's about time that we're going to start, and

we'll start talking about it. But once we do, I think we're going to have the greatest midterm that you've ever seen, because this thing really is amazing. And I want to thank all of the senators in particular for getting it done. You know, there is a little problem with this idea of the best midterms ever. Now, if we step back for a second and we just talk super generically, right, we forget about the fact that Trump's own base is turning on him because they feel betrayed over the Epstein fiasco.

If we forget that small businesses and individuals are going to get crushed, if indeed Trump's tariffs go through, if we just say forget about 2025 and 2026 specifically, you look historically usual. Excuse me. I almost choked on the hypocrisy. Usually when you have a party take control of the White House in an election year, the next midterm is terrible for them. That's just like it's not Trump specifically.

There's no Epstein stuff. There's no economic calamity. So just on a historical basis, you would expect Democrats to take the House in November of twenty six because usually the party that takes control of the White House loses seats. And because the margin is so thin in the House, how could Democrats not take control with almost any amount of gain? But this is not any election. This is a midterm election where we are seeing something for the first time in 10 years of

Trump ism, which is a significant part of his base, including both voters, but also influencers, content creators and media people. Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson and others are turning on him because they are seeing, wait a second, he betrayed us. He sold us a bill of goods that actually doesn't make any sense. He he's not giving us the stuff that he promised us. He said he was going to give us transparency and he's not giving us transparency. And he said he was going to give us this, that and the other thing. And he's simply not doing it. And so all of a sudden, Trump finds himself in this situation where not only might he lose the House, Steve

Bannon says if he doesn't release the Epstein files, the Republican Party might lose 40 seats in the House of Representative. But Trump, you know, he goes, we're going to have the best midterms that we've ever had. All right. Trump then, as is often the case, he's just not making any sense. His ability to turn words into coherent language with meaning to communicate things is diminished. And here he is talking about the border and water. And he does one of these

glitches because a lot of it comes in as we block up the border. They start using the water. That's a good run. I could use that. They block up the border. We start using the water. And that's because a lot Trump thinks that it rhymes. And he said it's a good rock.

This is not a guy who is well and even absent the seemingly insurmountable pressure on him right now around the Epstein fiasco. This is a guy who was diminished. This is a guy who was declining. This is a guy who, quite frankly, I don't think he really wanted to be president again. I think he'd rather only be playing golf. He's mostly playing golf right now as president. He would rather only be playing golf and doing crypto scams.

But he saw the presidency as his get out of jail card. It's what kept them out of prison. And so this is now accelerating because of the Epstein fiasco. And you should listen to what this guy sounded like when he called into a TV show yesterday. And it's the bottom of the barrel. Donald Trump sounds absolutely exhausted over the Epstein scandal. Just he is out of energy, dejected. He doesn't know what to do. Like the weight of whatever is in the Epstein files is, you know, pressing down on his helmet

hair. He's mumbling nonsense about the FBI needs to look into the Jeffrey Epstein hoax. This was on just the news on I guess this is Newsmax and he is blaming Biden for all of this. Is there any greater scapegoat? By the way, we are to believe that demented Biden orchestrated thousands of fake Epstein files to years later make Trump look bad. Damn, that's pretty functional dementia, isn't it? All right, check this out. This is just an exhausted Trump. What do you think? What are the things are most important that you would like to see the FBI get to the bottom of? I think they could look at all of it. It's all the same scam. They could look at this. Jeffrey Epstein, hoax also, because that's the same stuff.

That's all put out by Democrats. Yeah. And, you know, some of the the naive Republicans fall right into line like they always do. They just don't have the they don't have the sustainability. They don't have the something. They don't have that stick to it like glue. The Democrats, you know, they have bad policy. They have bad candidates. They have bad everything. But they stick together. The Republicans don't do that. But they're looking to the Jeffrey Epstein hoax because that's another hoax that's frankly put out by the pushing. It's all Democrats, everything pushing the Republicans and put out by the Democrats. Now, they definitely set the Republicans up. One one big prosecutor. Look at it all. Would

that make you feel good? You think, by the way, before Trump answers that, big prosecutor look at it all without making you feel good, you think? By the way, before Trump answers that, what does it even mean to say Democrats set it all up like that? You know, we hear these criticisms from the right about how, oh, one of the left's problems is postmodernism and everyone's opinion is equally valid and everything just can mean whatever you want it to mean. But really like brass tacks. What does it mean that the Democrats set it up? Did Democrats for 20 years attempt to generate false reports about child sex trafficking

in order to later pin it on Trump? Or is it that Epstein really did the stuff he's accused of, but Democrats concocted only the files that reference Donald Trump? Or what do they when it was Trump who was president when Epstein was arrested and when it was Trump who was president when Epstein died in jail, Democrats said like, what does it mean that they set it up? The world may never know. Well, I think it's in the case of Epstein, they've already looked at it and they are looking at it.

And I think all they have to do is put out anything credible. But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years. I can imagine what they put into files just like they did with the others. I mean, the field dossier was a total fake. Right. It took two years to figure that out for the people. And all of the things that you mentioned were fake. So I would imagine if they were run by Chris Ray

and they were run by Comey, because it was actually even before that administration, they'd been running these files. Listen to the host, right? Right? And so much of the things that we found were fake with me. But especially you look at that steel dossier where they paid like 14 or 16 million. Remember, this is immaterial to whether Trump is in the Epstein files. It's more than James Patterson gets

paid to do a number one bestseller. And the thing turned out to be a total scam. So frankly, you know, I think I love that they're looking at all this stuff. If they are, I hope they are. I love that. That's what they're doing. If, if of course I have no idea. We've definitely confirmed it. Yeah. And we are, Mr. President, this is something that could give the American people answers on three different elections, 2016, 2020 and 2024. But to get that rolling, there are two sets of documents that are key to

identifying possible conspiracy. But a grand jury can't see them unless you declassify them. Would you declassify the classified annex in the Hillary Clinton email case as Senator Grassley has been asked in? Well, I would do that. I would do that. Absolutely. I think it's it should be looked at. The whole thing was. I don't even know that Trump knows what she's asking about. By the way, this is not Newsmax. This is real America's voice. It's a scam. Yeah.

And I would do that gladly. Great. And there's one other one I want to mention in the Durham report. They talk about the Clinton plan, intelligence, the intercept where Hillary Clinton approves hanging that Russian shingle on your campaign house. That's another one that hasn't yet been declassified. Was that another one you'd consider to classify? I would declassify it, yeah.

Why not? I would absolutely declassify it. And I will say this, the Durham report was preceded by the Horowitz report. And Bill Barr should have used the Horowitz reports. You didn't need the Durham report, because say what you want about Mr. Horowitz. So he was appointed by Democrats, but he wrote the most. I'm not going to subject you to the whole thing.

This is a guy who is completely out of energy and he's dejected. But maybe most importantly, we really should get some reporters who have access to Trump to ask him, what does it mean that Democrats did the Epstein files? Are you saying the entire Epstein thing was a Biden Psyop that the case against Epstein, who was charged when Trump was in office, was orchestrated by Biden from his basement in Delaware? These aren't legal defenses. Obviously, this is a guy who knows something is coming. He's trying to poison the well. Trump's laying the groundwork. If his name is in the Epstein files and it's looking like it is to some degree, not necessarily

as a perpetrator, but he was hanging out with Epstein. So his name is almost certainly in the files. He will be able to say fake planted hoax, comey, Hillary, deep state and Obama Obama. And we know the script. Someone came up to him with tears in their eyes and said, please, sir, please keep talking about Epstein. We believe in you. But you've got you've got to realize how Trump operates. You preemptively discredit facts that might make you look bad. You find a scapegoat. This time it's Comey, Hillary Obama, Biden. And then you

act like the real scandal is they're going after me again. They went after me for the Russia hoax, the impeachments, the criminal trials. That's it. But what you've got to remember is Trump keeps bringing up Epstein in the context of he has nothing to do with it. Trump's volunteering a whole bunch of this stuff. And in a way, Epstein seems to be living rent free in Donald Trump's head. And Trump is out there barely able to string a sentence together, trying to convince us it's all fake. He was president when Epstein was arrested. He was president when Epstein died in jail.

He was friends with Epstein down in Florida in the 90s, 2000s, whenever it was. But we're supposed to believe that this is all Joe Biden. It just doesn't make any sense. So Trump's spiraling. He's paranoid. He's rattled. He's low energy. And whatever is in these documents, Trump's behavior is not the behavior of an innocent

man. He's it's the behavior of someone who knows the clock is probably ticking. Can I smash the clock over my knee to get it to stop ticking? Because I'm not going to be able to convince anybody that the clock doesn't say the time that it actually is. We've got a fantastic bonus show for you today. We now have reporting that Trump directed Fox News to shut up about Epstein. And again, not the behavior of an innocent man.

The Senate has approved cuts to NPR, PBS and foreign aid programs. And there is a bill that would prevent ICE from detaining or deporting American citizens. What's in it? Who's sponsoring it? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at Join Pakman Dotcom. Get instant access to the world's famous bonus show, the bonus show where you want to make money.

Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Yeah, why not? And then also remember that the substack lives are happening over on substack. Yesterday, I had a great conversation. Thirty five minutes with Heather Cox Richardson. Check them all out for free at substack.davidpakman.com