The David Pakman Show - BONUS SHOW: American pride at new low, Paramount settles Trump 60 Minutes lawsuit

Episode Date: July 5, 2025

-- On the Bonus Show: Most Americans think ICE is going "too far," American pride at a new low, Trump's 60 Minutes lawsuit settled, and much more... -- Become a Member: https://www.davidpakman.com/membership  Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com/  Buy David's book: https://davidpakman.com/book 

Hey, everybody. David here. What you're about to hear is an episode of The Bonus Show. We do a bonus show every day for our members and for a limited time. We will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays, exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up at Join Pakman Dotcom. Here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to the bonus show. Here we are. The bill passed.

Should we talk a little bit, Pat, about my rant on the show today? I feel like it just bears maybe a little bit of discussion. Yeah, absolutely. If you'd like to speak about it a little bit more, go for it. So a couple of weeks ago, I don't even when did the bill originally pass the house? Do you remember how long it's been? It's been like a vortex. I don't know. It's been a few weeks, a month, somewhere between two weeks and 20 years, about a month ago on the bonus show, we came together. I was wearing a different shirt. I was wearing a different shirt

You were wearing a different shirt, but we were speaking into these very same microphones and I said listen the bill is gonna pass It's not gonna pass in the exact same form But Senate Republicans are going to massage and manipulate and do what they need to do So that they get to 51 or that they get to 50 and JP Mandel comes in and passes it. Now in the middle of all of this, there were, um, influence campaigns, call the donors, call the senators, all this stuff, all valuable, worthwhile stuff that activism, uh, encompasses that as tactics I support. But ultimately what happened is after all of the hemming and hawing, it ended up being

that Lisa Murkowski was number 50. She got some goodies for Alaska incomes, JD Vance and the thing passes. So as I said on the podcast today for people who haven't listened to it yet, I didn't go out of my way every day to tell the audience, listen, guys, no matter what we do, it's going to pass because I know that the audience wouldn't go out of my way every day to tell the audience, listen, guys, no matter what we do, it's going to pass because I know that the audience wouldn't like that. But I also didn't participate in the hey, you know what? If enough of us call Lisa Murkowski's office, maybe she won't go from no to yes and we can prevent like they have the power.

It's just the reality. And so I think that there is a little bit of a question with activist media like our show independent Media. How much do we balance realism and pragmatism with passion and hope without feeling like I'm being defeatist, but without feeling like I'm misleading people either. That's sort of like the question, I guess. It's a tough thing to strike a balance on because if you do say that it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to pass the bill, well then maybe we can't fight to eliminate

some of the worst aspects of the bill. Maybe we can't convince some of those more centrist Republicans to vote against it and even if they do end up passing a version of the bill, maybe it won't be as bad as it otherwise would be. So that's the downside to that. But also if we go out there and say that we're going to be able to stop this thing, it's going to lessen the trust that we have with our audience once the bill actually does pass. So it's a tough thing to strike a balance on.

I think we did a reasonably good job at it, but there are obviously going to be people who are disappointed about the fact that the bill passed and they look to blame whoever possible. And sometimes that blame falls squarely on our shoulders for some reason. All right. So I do look forward to hearing from people in the audience in response to that rant. Let's move on to some other stories, but we'll do a follow up if people do want. There is new polling from PBS News NPR Marist, which finds 54 percent of Americans believe

that ICE has simply gone too far. They have gone too far in arresting migrants. Obviously, Democrats are more likely to believe that than Republicans. But almost half of Republicans say that roughly. So nearly half of Republicans say actions are appropriate. Thirty one percent of Republicans say ICE actually hasn't gone far enough. I don't know when I look at these numbers, Pat. In other words, you can just look at the big picture and you go roughly half the country

doesn't like what ICE is doing. Cool. Is that a public backlash? I don't know, because roughly half the country voted for it. So in a sense, it's sort of like I don't really know the right way to conceptualize these data in terms of what it means for the future of the program, because roughly half of those who voted said, I want Trump. Trump said he was going to do this. And roughly half of Americans now like it. So is it even fair to say that it's a backlash?

I don't know. I worry that it's not enough because Trump especially doesn't care about what the majority of Americans think. He cares about what his base is concerned about. And when it comes to the Trump in base, they're very much all for what ICE is doing right now and he's primarily going to serve their interests. So I think that if we saw a poll showing that 80% of Americans believed that ICE was going

too far, maybe we would see some rollback. We wouldn't see as aggressive of a tactic or approach as we're seeing right now with the ICE agents going to Home Depot's and going to places that you wouldn't normally suspect they would go. But because they feel as though enough of the Republicans are behind them and they have this public support among their base, they're probably going to continue to pursue these tactics. One of the things that I think is interesting is that while the country is roughly split 50 50 on

what's been done, the support for legal pathways for people to stay either with citizenship or with some kind of just permanent status that has increased. And I don't really know to what I would attribute that. I mean, I would like to say it's we've done a good job, not like this particular show, but people who are on this particular side have done a good job of showing the economic importance of migrants, both, you know, documented and undocumented. And also some of the personal stories have convinced some of these hardline people, even if I'm sort of OK with what Trump is doing, I still would like to see a different

approach in terms of getting people a pathway. I don't really know what it is, but if there's anything positive to glean from the from the data, it's more people seem to support some kind of path to normalized immigration status. Maybe because people are just more interested in this immigration issue than they ever have been before. Immigration is at the top of mind right now in American politics for many that didn't used to be the case. So maybe that has led people to think through the issue a lot more.

Even the people who think that those who are undocumented immigrants in this country should be sent home. Well, maybe they have to realize, okay, well, if you have been living here for 10 years, you haven't broken any laws, there should be some pathway to citizenship for you or some pathway to legal status or they hear about the economic impacts and they think, okay, well, maybe there's a balance to be struck here or when they say, why don't you just do it legally? Why don't you go through the process the right way? Maybe they hear arguments about how incredibly difficult it is to do it the so-called right way and how years ago, legal immigration in this country used to be a lot easier than it is now. So when they hear about how the standards have changed,

they figure, okay, well, we should make it an easier process for people to become naturalized citizens to go about it the right way so then they don't have to resort to crossing the border illegally or being in this country undocumented. So I think maybe people are just becoming more educated about the issue overall. And so that's what sets them up to be more in support of these legal pathways of citizenship. I would love it if that were the case. I don't know if it is, but it would certainly be a sign, a sign towards the positive. Speaking of polling, here's something interesting.

There's a new Gallup poll done during June. It finds that 58 percent of adults say they are proud to be American. This is the lowest number ever recorded. It's down nine points from 20, 24. It's down significantly more than that from 63 percent in 2020. Democrats are not as prideful right now about being Americans down significantly. Republicans are 92 percent proud to be Americans right now. Independence are right around 50 percent, 53 percent. And among generationally the oldest one, the older one is, the more likely they are to

be proud of the United States. So there's a couple of things going on here, Pat. First of all, pride is very partisan. Democrats had a much higher pride level when Biden was president. Now it's down. So the first thing is we just have to remember hugely partisan split. That's one factor. The other thing is the generational data is interesting because I think that aside from who's president, older generations subscribed more frequently to the idea that you should always be proud of your country, no matter

who's president and no matter what the country is doing. And I think that that's heavily reflected. Now, you know, I don't think there's any virtue in blind pride. I evaluate pride based on what's going on. I don't think there's anything unpatriotic. You can be patriotic in terms of what you want and the belief of what your country can and should be.

But say it's failing to meet that standard. I'm not proud of what's going on right now. You know, just because you go, how could I be proud of a country where Trump is saying deport citizens and arrest members from CNN? Right. I'm not proud of that. So I'm not proud of what's going on, but I still consider myself a patriot for, you know, whatever. Right. Somebody could say that. So I think these are really tough things to study for generational reasons,

for partisan reasons, but interesting to see the data nonetheless. Yeah, I've always struggled with this question personally about whether I'm proud to be an American because it really is a complex question, this issue of pride in one's country, because when you say that you're proud to be an American, are you subscribing to everything that the country has done in its past? Well, then you'd run into some issues, right?

Because of course the US has had a long checkered past of racial inequality and inequality in other realms when it comes to women, when it comes to LGBT folks. So when we take a look at that history, it's maybe easier to distance ourselves from it than say, okay, yeah, I'm full-on proud to be an American. But you can also look at it through another lens and say, well, we had the Civil Rights Movement, we had the labor movement, we had all these different stages in American history that we can be proud of. We have a long track record of immigration in this country.

We're a very multicultural country. When you take a look at even like the geographic landscapes of our country, all the different things that we have going on here, there's a lot that we can say that we're proud of. But when you wrap it all up into one thing, just the country overall, it's difficult to say, okay, yes, I'm proud of this or no, I'm not proud of this. I think it's maybe easier to divide things up a little bit because of the propaganda in this country and because of the raw, raw supporting of the flag and saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day before school and how that's how a lot of us were brought up.

It's easy for people to default to just saying I'm proud to be an American and I think a lot of people may not look at it beyond that. Certainly the Trump era has complicated things a lot more though because when we think about this issue of pride in one's country it's not only difficult because we have to compare like the past to the present we also have to consider what Trump is doing in the here and now. And when he's talking about invading other countries, when he's dismantling our relationships around the world

with tariffs and everything else that he's doing, I'm certainly not proud of any of that stuff. And that's what's top of mind right now for people when they think about the United States. So now in particular, it's really difficult for me to answer that question about whether I'm proud to be an American. I think I would lean on the side of no, at least right now. Generally speaking, though, it's already tough to begin with. There's another analysis. You know, the class reductionists would analyze this in this way.

Pride seems to be highest. The more money on average the group has. And it is true that right now we see a direct line in terms of net worth. The older one is the more money on average they have now to a degree that is because you've had more time to accumulate money, right? The older you are, the more years you've had, presumably in the labor force. I don't know that there is a strict layering here to economic class necessarily. I think that there's a cultural thing where Gen Z millennials, you know, are various generations. I was not brought up with the idea that you must be proud of your country. I was brought up with the idea that there are reasons to be proud sometimes based on your values.

But the idea of pride in country as a as a first principle that just really I'm sure and more, you know, maybe if I had gone to like conservative right when schools or something, it would be different. But that just was not inculcated in me. Yeah, it certainly was when it comes to the older generations and even nowadays with people who live in more conservative areas of the U.S., just this blanket pride of one's country. And when you ask people to explain why they feel this way, it's often things that don't really add up because you can find those exact same things

in other countries. Like sometimes people will say, well, I'm proud that we have a history of democracy in this country, that we get to choose our own leaders. Well, about half of the countries around the world have the exact same thing. Or maybe people are proud of the economic opportunity that people have in this country because they think about the American dream and this idea that you can come here with nothing and build yourself up into being successful. Well, when it comes to upward mobility, we don't rank nearly as high as we used to on those charts, it's other countries that have surpassed us when it comes to that metric as well. So when you really dig deep into the explanations that people give, it doesn't

seem to make a whole lot of sense. But it really depends on how you look at the issue, right? Because if you just want to say like, oh, I love the people here, I love the food here, I love the landmarks and the sites. And I like talking to the people around this country and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. And therefore I'm proud to be an American. It's difficult to dispute that. Right. I think it's just, we're talking in such generalities that, you know, you can come away from this issue thinking a lot of different things.

So let's talk about the Paramount lawsuit. This is really wacky stuff. Um, we now have a situation where the parent company of CBS news Paramount global has agreed to a $16 million settlement to resolve a Trump lawsuit over the infamous 60 minutes interview of Kamala Harris last fall. The payment isn't going to Trump personally. It's going to his future presidential library. You can get a lot of crayons for Trump's library with 16 million dollars.

The lawsuit came from Trump's accusation that that interview that was done with Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to favor Democrats. Legal experts said it's a it's both unconstitutional and frivolous. CBS ultimately released the unedited interview. It confirmed no misconduct. But despite this, Paramount has chosen to settle. They're settling without an apology. They're saying the cost and the uncertainty of litigation is a factor.

You know what's terrifying about this, Pat? I based on the evidence, I don't think CBS did anything with liability here. I don't think I think there was no misconduct here that's been demonstrated. When you look at a Trump led FCC, you look at the way that the justice system to a great degree has capitulated to Trump. You look at even up at the Supreme Court, one third of it is Trump picks. The environment has become so terrifying that even despite not having been demonstrated to do anything wrong, Paramount said we would rather pay 16 million as long as we don't have to apologize because of the uncertainty of how this system might treat the situation.

That's terrifying. That's chilling. And that's part of the dystopian authoritarianism and the self-censorship. They should be fighting this. But what if it costs them 10 million to fight it? And then they end up owning owing 30. Well, 16 million maybe is a cheaper way out. Terrifying. Yeah. Paramount

should be fighting this because this is a lawsuit that they can win. It's certainly a frivolous lawsuit. But at the end of the day, they're not concerned about sticking to principle or making sure that we have a free media in this country. They're concerned about making money. And they're also concerned about the merger going through with Skydance Media that Trump and the executive branch is going to have control over. So if they figure, well, we just pay them $16 million, that improves the chances of us getting that merger passed and maybe Trump will look the other way. He won't criticize CBS and 60 Minutes as much.

Maybe he'll focus on other news outlets, that they calculate will make them the most money and so that's why they're going with that approach. But obviously it's really worrying for the state of our media today and I wonder if progressives should retaliate, if we should do something similar because we heard about how Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News, for example, over their false reporting, allegedly having to do with the supposed phone call that did or didn't take place between Trump and Gavin Newsom. Normally, Newsom wouldn't be suing Fox News over such a situation, but it's backlash to

all the frivolous lawsuits that Trump has been launching. We have an example during the 2024 campaign of Fox, selectively editing an answer to benefit Trump having to do with the Epstein files, the real answer had him say something like, oh, well, we don't want to we want to make sure that people who are innocent don't get wrapped up in this. But Fox News aired an answer that basically just said that he would be willing to look into declassifying the Epstein files. So it's the exact same thing that they accused 60 minutes of doing. I don't know who would have standing to issue such a lawsuit. But if they're going to take this approach of suing 60 minutes over a supposedly selectively edited answer, maybe progressives, maybe a member of the Kamala Harris campaign should do the exact

same thing. We will see if there is. We'll see two things. Are there more lawsuits like this from Trump? Because he's now succeeded with two of them. And do Democrats take this as an opportunity to try some of the same stuff? That's the bonus show for for today. We'll be back tomorrow with a new show and a new bonus show.