The David Pakman Show - BONUS SHOW: Republicans support Ukraine now, Trump official blames Signalgate on Biden

Episode Date: July 19, 2025

-- On the Bonus Show: Republicans now backing Ukraine, Josh Hawley tries to restore Medicaid funds he voted to cut, Mike Waltz blames Signalgate on Biden, 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 Pacman dot com. Here is that bonus show episode.

Welcome to the bonus show. There's a very interesting thing happening and it's interesting in ways that are different than some of what's being reported. We are suddenly seeing many congressional Republicans say, hey, we should be sending aid to Ukraine. Hey, we should be helping Ukraine against Russia. And I think it's very clear why it's happening, which is Donald Trump has started to change his tune.

And so Republicans who follow Trump have been changing their tune. But the funniest part about it to me is I don't think Trump's really genuine insofar as his authentic beliefs about Russia and Ukraine. When I see Trump's latest statements about Ukraine, Pat, it's sort of like, yeah, you know, Vlad's kind of irritating me by continuing bombing. And so Ukraine does deserve help. And I'm threatening Vlad with tariffs, but they're going to start in 50 days. The way I see it is this is all Trump just posturing.

Trump wants to create the appearance that he's not just enamored with Putin. I've already said I think the tariffs will start in 50 days is sort of code for I'm going to let him do whatever he wants for 49. And as long as he then on day 49 comes to me and goes, hey, you're right, Mr. President, we're done with the missiles. We're ready to come to the table and avoid 100 percent tariffs that Trump's going to fall for it. And I see the no, we've got to fund Ukraine stuff as basically more of the same.

You know, Trump is completely ideologically flexible. That's the charitable way of putting it. But it's really what we call hypocrisy. And the funny part is it's putting many Republicans in the position of having to say, you know, we are with the president. We are with the president. I think we should be aiding Ukraine here. I largely agree with you on this.

I think Trump sees it as a failure of his administration that he wasn't able to bring about a quick end to the Russia Ukraine war. It's pretty clear to people that he promised to end the war on day one of being president elect, not just president. So he obviously failed to live up to that. And people are still going to ask him about the conflict, obviously, because it's ongoing and people are losing their lives. So you need something to say. And this makes it seem like he's just doing some extended negotiations that we're going to have this 50 days of tough talk that could result in tariffs. And because he's in the negotiating process. He has to try to get Putin to come to the table, which may involve supporting for now anyway,

funds to Ukraine to help them in the war effort. So this isn't about whether he thinks that the US taxpayer should be spending money on Ukraine like it is about for so many of these Republican lawmakers. It's really just about what's going to make me look good. How can I reach some sort of agreement between the two parties? Doesn't matter if Russia gets out ahead or Ukraine gets out ahead. But ending the conflict is what's first and foremost to him. And he sees this as a way to approach that. There's also a really funny thing where this has really exposed

the true believers versus the Trump following hypocrites. So I'll give you an example. true believers versus the Trump following hypocrites. So I'll give you an example. Marjorie Taylor Green genuinely seems to want to give Ukraine nothing, not because for a while Trump was skeptical about it. She just does not want to give Ukraine anything. And she now is in the position of looking around and her colleagues that are sort of like will do whatever the hell Trump says on this issue. They're changing their minds.

And Marjorie Taylor Greene is looking at it and going, what is wrong with these people? I thought we were against funding Ukraine. And so one of the other really interesting things here is, you know, on like the deficit, loosely speaking, although not even Rand Paul is like a true believer, I guess, even though at the same time, like he was sort of in the boat of if you don't increase the debt ceiling limit, I'll still vote for a tax plan that does increase the deficit. But, you know, maybe like a Thomas Massey is a better example. I don't know.

But and so on this issue, it's like a Marjorie Taylor green, but it really exposes the rotten core of MAGA, which is like whatever Trump says. Yeah, I've noticed it with Ukraine. I've noticed it with raising the debt and deficit. I've also noticed it with tariffs. There are some hardline conservatives who are free market types who say we shouldn't have these tariffs, even if they're going against Trump by saying that they've said it for years.

So they're going to continue along that path and say that. But for a lot of these Republicans, they've come up with the perfect excuse to betray the principles of old, which is to say, let Trump cook. That's all they got to do at this point. They say, well, Trump has been in office for less than a year. He's a master negotiator. We don't know if the tariffs or the Ukraine aid or whatever is just a negotiating tactic or if he actually means it. But because we are going to trust his judgment, let's see what he does for the time being and then we'll follow up. So that's the excuse that they're finding most convenient right now. And it also buys them time, right? Because they probably figure, okay, for now,

this will satisfy the people who support me because I'm saying that I'm trusting Trump. And when it's time to follow up on it, when the 50 day time limit comes up or when it's time to actually institute the tariffs or send the money, whatever the case may be, people often forget about it because so much time has gone by. I want to talk about what's going on with Josh Hawley, a Republican senator speaking of flip flopping and changing, changing views. Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill to undo Medicaid cuts. Now you might be saying what Medicaid cuts the ones that Josh Hawley voted for two weeks

earlier. These are the cuts that were part of the new Trump tax bill. They were passed along party lines and it includes delaying Medicaid funding. The new law includes delaying Medicaid funding reductions and work requirements, both set to start in twenty twenty seven and twenty twenty eight. And what Hawley's bill would do is restore the funding and add 50 billion more to support rural hospitals. Despite the fact that he voted for all of it, he now says, I want to prevent future

cuts. And the goal here is to be able to say, look at what we're doing while Trump is president to protect Medicaid. Now when he was pressed, he said, well, I voted for the big bill because there was lots of good stuff in it, like the tax cut extensions, aid of different kinds, whatever. No bill is going to be perfect. So now I'm just going to go and try to fix the things that are a problem. Now, this is extraordinarily relevant to Holly because of rural hospitals in his state being

under threat and Medicaid recipients as well. The whole thing to me, Pat stinks of hypocrisy and political cover because this is really damage control. That's that's what this is. Josh Hawley is talking about good things and bad things like this is all just like about the facts and the specifics of what's in the bill. But the bill will have really disastrous consequences. He enabled them by voting for it.

And he is trying now to get some cover to say, I tried to reverse this part. Don't blame me when the shit hits the fan, essentially. Yeah. And of course, the Medicaid cuts were among the most significant aspects of the bill. So it's not like this was just a minor issue. I think he could get away with a justification like this if there was some minor thing he didn't like about the so-called big, beautiful bill, he decided to reluctantly go along with it because he likes the other

things in the bill. And then a week or two later, he said, you know, there was this one thing that people aren't really focusing on, but it deserves some attention. We should try to undo this. That would be one thing. I would sort of understand the logic there because this is how we do things, right? We package everything up into these large pieces of legislation and you're not going to like 100% of it. But with something like Medicaid cuts and the cuts to rural hospitals, that obviously is a very important issue.

Perhaps the most important thing that we saw from this legislation, there's obviously the major tax cuts and the no taxes on tips thing and the little things here and there that Republicans like. But one of the most significant aspects of this legislation was the Medicaid cuts. So because it's such an important piece of it, I don't think Josh Hawley can get away

with saying, oh, yeah, I support it, despite me not liking that one thing. I'm going to try and do it later because we know that he's not going to be able to undo it. And the time to actually fight back against it was when they were debating this. That's right. And it also does much like we when we talked about the Ukraine thing, it does expose more of these. At least we could call them contradictions within the Republican Party, where on the

one hand they say fiscal cuts are sort of the most important thing. They're a virtue in and of themselves. It's the conservative ideology. On the other hand, there is some real politic here where they go, hey, you know what? Sometimes when you cut stuff, even though you're cutting and doing the right fiscally conservative thing, you're hurting real people. It might hurt people whose votes I then need. Maybe the ideological loyalty is all of a sudden taking a backseat to the electoral reality

and it undercuts the idea of fiscal responsibility above all else. ideological loyalty is all of a sudden taking a backseat to the electoral reality. And it undercuts the idea of fiscal responsibility above all else. Also goes to show that a lot of these right wing populists really aren't populists when push comes to shove because Holly was willing to back this legislation that's largely going to help the rich. But the poor are screwed over by it. Holly is one of these types of Republicans who acts like he's for the everyman. Well, you had an opportunity to show that to the American people by voting against this bill and holding out, hoping that they wouldn't cut Medicaid.

But he decided to go along with it when push came to shove. And that goes to show that he was siding with the rich and powerful over the poor people in this country without a doubt. So my conclusion here is this is exactly the sort of political cynicism rich and powerful over the poor people in this country. Without a doubt. So my conclusion here is this is exactly the sort of political cynicism that defines Washington. And people, when people know about this stuff, they hate it. Now, obviously, if you're in Missouri and you've learned what the bill will do for you and then you hear that Hawley is trying to reverse an element of it that would be bad.

Sure, you'll go. Well, I'd rather it be reversed than it not be reversed. But at a thirty thousand foot level, this is the cynicism that people that makes people hate the way our political system works. That's the opposite of when these Republicans will take credit for something in a Democratic piece of legislation that provides jobs or infrastructure spending in their districts. They'll champion it and say, look at what great things I've done to bring about jobs and investment in our district. But really when you look into it, they voted against the proposal. This is the exact opposite

here where Josh Hawley is trying to act like he's a champion for the working poor in this country, people who need health care coverage. But really, he voted against that thing that would have protected them. So it's all show. And unfortunately, it probably does convince some people because some people are not going to look too deeply into it. And that's right. Lies how he voted on this. Hey, a former national security advisor, Mike Waltz, who was removed from the role, but apparently still getting paid after the Signalgate fiasco had a wild hearing yesterday. And among other things, he deflected blame for using signal and blamed the Biden administration. This is how he explained it, Pat. He said we were told by Biden people, this is a nice tool to be using.

And he said that under Biden, the CISA guidance that cyber security and infrastructure security agency said it endorsed signal as part of the best practices for securing communication. Now, of course, that guidance was completely broad and general. And it said that for government business, you shouldn't even be using personal devices. So this is another one of the like we sort of always joke this must somehow be Biden's fault. And that's exactly what they're doing. And he's saying there was this guidance that broadly said use encrypted communications.

But of course, the guidance didn't say use personal devices and signal for information that should be classified, whether it is or isn't. That's those are two very different things. And as usual, it's just like, who can we blame? It's a political shield. And Mike Waltz really is one of the most despicable kind of characters of this administration. Yeah, absolutely. He's trying to confuse people. He's pointing to this CISA guidance and saying that it's sufficient when we know that the D.O.D.'s policy is more broad and forbids Signal and these other

types of apps to transmit information in the Defense Department that's not public. So he obviously should not have been using Signal. And it's not just him who's at fault, it's everyone else who participated in the group chat. I also love the blame Biden thing. It's funny to see. Obviously it's desperate as well. We used to see it with blame Obama. Obama got blamed for everything seemingly under Trump's first term, but it's especially funny given the fact that they don't blame Trump for the signal gates controversy because they say, well, he wasn't involved in it whatsoever. There's this idea that the buck is supposed to stop with the president. But apparently with when it comes to Trump and the signal gate story, it doesn't stop with him.

It actually stops with the previous president. You have to go back to Biden to find whom the book stops with. The other thing that's really just beyond belief, but it's not beyond belief because it's Trump is after the humiliating signal gate thing. the only reason Waltz is even asking questions is because he is once again under consideration for a top diplomatic post. I actually free. Is it NATO ambassador? Yeah. Or is the UN UN ambassador?

Sorry. Yes. UN ambassador. Only in Trump world could this happen because the only thing that matters is loyalty to Trump. Right. And by Trump standards, Waltz did everything right. He never blamed Trump.

He allowed Trump to get out of this without being implicated in any way. And the specifics kind of don't really matter. That's all that matters. And so you actually get rewarded here, get a cushy gig rather than in most administrations, you would just be fired and not paid anymore. That's the other thing that came out yesterday. Waltz didn't say that. He said, I wasn't fired.

I was just removed from that role. So of course I'm still going to get paid. Yeah, this Trump cabinet must be the most unqualified cabinet of all time. Right. Because you start with a whole bunch of Fox News hosts and other right wing pundits, and then you create a system in which they're promoted by failing upwards, like Mike Walls going from being a national security adviser to the next UN ambassador after the Signalgate fiasco. I would argue that's probably a promotion, right? A more prestigious position. Yeah. And when you have those things combined, the

Fox News cabinet with the failing upwards cabinet, you create a cabinet that really doesn't know what the hell it's doing. No, without a doubt. So listen, Waltz is almost certainly going to stay involved in this administration. He's someone who should never work in government again. But this is this is the Trump era. What else can we say? That's where we are right now. Curious to get feedback from folks about the Jake Tapper interview.

I know there were lots of people saying, oh, David, you shouldn't even interview him as if that's something we do on the show, just like blacklist people because we don't like some of the things they've said, done or written. I thought the interview was really interesting, so I'm looking forward to hearing from you. And I'll be back tomorrow with a new show and a new bonus show.