The David Pakman Show - Trump admin desperation explodes with criminal probes

Episode Date: January 12, 2026

-- On the Show -- Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, joins us to discuss the killing of Renee Good, and how to resist Trump and his ICE agents -- Donald Trump and his allies respond to scandals involving Nicolás Maduro and the killing of Renee Good by rejecting investigation and demanding absolute loyalty -- Donald Trump pressures the Justice Department to open a criminal probe into Jerome Powell after the Federal Reserve refuses to cut interest rates, and Powell publicly resists -- Newly released video of ICE agents killing Renee Good contradicts official claims of self defense and raises serious questions about the justification for deadly force -- Donald Trump abruptly leaves a high level meeting with oil executives to admire the White House ballroom construction project -- Kristi Noem repeatedly defends Donald Trump and law enforcement actions on television by rejecting video evidence and reframing any challenge to Trump as illegitimate -- Donald Trump delivers incoherent and contradictory answers to reporters on immunity, policing, health care, and foreign policy -- Congressman Jake Auchincloss confronts Fox News host Peter Doocy with the implications of defending the ICE shooting of Renee Good -- On the Bonus Show: Vivek Ramaswamy leaves social media after receiving racist messages, ICE shortens academy training to 47 days, the Pentagon moves to cut Mark Kelly's pension, and much more... ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🥐 Wildgrain: Use code DAVID for $30 off & free croissants FOR LIFE at https://wildgrain.com/david -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Start (01:29) Trump demands loyalty amid scandals (08:23) Trump targets Jerome Powell (19:23) ICE video contradicts self defense (26:45) Trump fixates on ballroom (31:12) Kristi Noem rejects video evidence (41:37) Josh Shapiro Interview (59:40) Trump rambles on key issues (1:08:24) Auchincloss dismantles Fox defense

We are looking at what happens when a political movement gets backed into a corner and decides that the answer is absolute and total loyalty, no matter how extreme things get. We'll start with Trump and allies now defending behavior that in any normal political environment would be completely indefensible. And then we will go to the further escalation by the unleashing of a criminal probe against J. Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, because Donald, Trump didn't get the interest rates that he wants, which is a stunning abuse of power, but Powell refuses to be intimidated.

We're also going to break down the cell phone video taken by the involved ICE officer who killed Renee Good, which is blowing apart the administration's version of events. And then a totally surreal moment where Donald Trump wanders off during a high state's White House meeting to look out the window and gaze towards an. imaginary White House ballroom, which may or may not ever come to fruition. Christy Noem collapses on CNN. Fox host Peter Ducey gets dismantled on live TV by our friend Jake Ockincloss and much more. A show about desperation, loyalty tests, and what happens when reality is optional.

I was thinking over the weekend how in normal politics, in a normal political environment, There is a breaking point at some point. And what I mean by that is that something will happen that is so extreme and so obviously wrong that allies start to hesitate. Loyalists start to question whether this is something we can still defend. You start hearing hedging. You hear we need to change the subject or we need more information. And at the very least, you see people stop defending every single thing that an administration

does. It's hopefully, uh, politics where there is at least a tether to reality. That is not what we are watching right now. What we are seeing now, and I believe we will lay this out in today's show, is behavior so egregious that the only way to survive it politically is to defend it even more aggressively than before. What I mean by that is today's circumstances and what is happening nearly every single day is so beyond indefensible that you can't come in with nuance or caution. You have to come in with total loyalty and a more aggressive defense of what's going on because it is not about policy anymore. It is only about belonging to the cult.

Take, for example, the discussion that has happened after the kidnapping of Nicholas Maduro from Venezuela. In any sane political environment, the entire idea of was it legitimate or not, was it legal or not, was it constitutional, was it okay, that would be a non-starter in a normal political environment. A sitting U.S. president kidnapping, abducting a foreign head of state would trigger immediate condemnation. Constitutional concerns, international backlash, even the hawks would say this is not something

that we can do. But here in the United States under Trump, the concerns are waved away or the supporters of Trump say, damn right, we kidnapped him and we'll do it to Colombia and Cuba and we'll take Greenland and we'll bomb Mexico. Because if you express any concern at all, you're seen as weak or unpatriotic or you're secretly on the side of Maduro, even if you just question the legality of what's going on. So the conversation is not really. about whether any of this stuff is legal or moral. It's are you loyal enough to aggressively defend the things that this administration is doing? Same thing with the killing of Renee Good by an ICE officer.

We'll have the cell phone video a little bit later today. In a normal system, the response would be obvious. Even if I support the broader goals of ICE, which I don't, but I'm saying there is a world that is more sane where even the defenders of the deportation regime would go. I support the deportation regime. But this was an unarmed American citizen who posed no threat and even says in the video, I'm not angry with you or we'll get the exact line from her. And then she was shot and killed by an officer holding his gun with one hand and a cell phone

recording with the other hand. In a normal system, we would say this doesn't seem right. Of course we investigate. We acknowledge the gravity of what has taken place here. We admit that deadly force demands extraordinary justification and it doesn't seem like we had it. But instead, what do we hear? Instant defense and total certainty. Trump says it's the fault of the radical left why she got shot.

No investigation needed. The officer had to do it. He was disrespected, Trump said. That's the newest one. And anyone questioning any of this, any of this is not loyal to the regime. Anyone pointing to the video and saying the video doesn't correspond with the. the story of this administration. You're either lying or you don't care about the officers or you don't care about immigrant

crime or whatever. And when journalists start to push back, they show footage. They just ask like basic questions. The response isn't, oh yeah, you know what? That's interesting. We should reflect on that. The response is how dare you question this? And that is the tell.

Once a movement reaches a point where if you question anything, it is borderline a crime or In some cases, I mean, some of these protesters are being thrown around and detained and in some cases arrested merely for expressing opinions. We are no longer dealing with politics and substance. You're just dealing with a cult. And an authoritarian cult that behaves erratically when it is under pressure. They're not going to moderate. They're not going to self-correct.

They will only radicalize. And every single new scandal becomes a test. Every atrocity that you defend is a loyalty check at the end of the day. The worse the behavior, the stronger the defense has to be, not because it makes sense, but because backing down would mean admitting something unbearable to the regime, which is the leader may not be infallible, infallible. That is why we keep hearing things like, you can't criticize this. We can't wait for evidence.

We need to prevent the state of Minnesota from even. doing a full investigation. And that is how the defenses become increasingly unhinged, because you need to ignore all of the data in order to defend a lot of this stuff. You're trying to communicate. I will defend anything. I'm loyal. I'm in. And notice how the defenses aren't even coherent. One day it's, you know, the economy is booming. The next day it's we need immediate interest rate cuts. And Jerome Powell needs to be. investigated criminally because he's not doing it. We'll get to that a little bit later. So we need to understand the moment in which we find ourselves. Consistency doesn't matter. Only allegiance matters.

And this is what it looks like when a movement is up against the ropes. They know their behavior is alienating normal voters. They know they look extreme. And they know that they can't defend any of what they're doing on the merits. So they don't try anymore. They double down. They get really loud. They get really mean. They get more absolute. And if you are. in the cult, the greatest sin isn't being wrong. It's failing to fully defend the leader, who in this case happens to be Donald Trump. So that's where we find ourselves to some degree. This explains the behavior that we are seeing as doubling down and doubling down and doubling down is really the only way forward. And now they're looking at Jay Powell criminally. Let's talk about that next. Donald Trump

didn't get the in-twist weights that he wanted from Jerome Powell. And so now he has pushed the Department of Justice to open a criminal probe. And officially the investigation is about the $2.5 billion renovation of the headquarters of the central bank. And also what Jay Powell said during congressional testimony about it. But as we learn the details, we learn about an investigation approved. in November by Janine Piro, a time when Donald Trump was publicly spatting with Jerome Powell over the desperately low interest rates that he wanted and believed he deserved. And Jerome Powell

understands what this is really about. It is a personal grievance from Trump, which Powell is now going to get punished for. Powell is not scared. He's not backing down. And he put out a rare statement. Take a listen to this. Good evening. On Friday, the Department of Justice, served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. I have deep respect for the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy. No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context

of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure. Right. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress's oversight role. The Fed, through testimony and other public disclosures, made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts. The threat, the threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president. Right.

This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment. All right. So bottom line, what Powell is saying is what this is really about, what this is really about is that Trump wants really low interest rates and Powell has set them based on economic

indicators, not on Donald Trump's demands. Now, I think it's important here to level set that Trump wants the Fed to slash interest rates because cheap money can boost or appear to boost the economy in the short term. When you lower rates, it means stock prices usually go up. Trump wants that so we can go look at this beautiful stock market. Credit cards, car loans and mortgages get cheaper because the interest rates on those tend to follow the federal funds rate. Businesses can borrow more easily and maybe you're going to borrow even when they otherwise

wouldn't just because it's so cheap. the economy can look like it is humming along. Now, politically, that's great for a president. It creates the appearance of strength. Very low interest rates are almost like giving someone a steroid. Boom. But then there's the come down effect later. And that is what the Fed needs to keep that tool in its pocket being able to lower interest rates when we are in a recession or a financial crash or unemployment is rising quickly. So think about the 2008 financial crisis. or during the COVID era, in a healthy economy, interest rates are normally higher because the Fed needs to leave itself room to cut them later if something goes wrong. Now, this is what's fascinating.

On the one hand, Trump says this is the best economy ever. You know, it's the best in a decade. It's the best he's ever seen the best anyway. But at the same time, he's saying drop interest rates like a rock, which you would normally only do if the economy weren't doing so well. There's no match there. And ultimately, Jerome Powell has refused to be bullied. Now, even people like right wing TV host Maria Bardo kind of recognize that this is a political investigation. There's really nothing here. Here she was this morning speaking with Republican Senator Roger Marshall. And Marshall kind of goes, oh, I think Trump's kind of just trolling with the investigation. Oh, is that right? Is there really a reason for an investigation? Because you know, a lot of people

are looking at this and saying, well, wait a second. We know President Trump does not like Jay Powell, and we know that he's calling him stupid and that he hasn't cut rates fast enough. So is this political, or did Jay Powell break the law and mislead or lie to the Senate Banking Committee? And you say? Well, Maria, we'll let the system play through here. I think there's other issues that we should be focused on. I think this is the president throwing out one more, maybe he's even almost trolling here as well. We got bigger issues to go after than this one, though. Is there really a- She knows it. She knows that this is merely a political investigation and this is a personal grievance. And she's friends with Trump and she's got a kind of tap

dance around this pretty carefully. And Roger Marshall does something else, which is quite frankly dangerous, which is any time Donald Trump's behavior gets extreme, he minimizes it. And he goes, Well, it's almost like a form of trolling, really. That's really all that it is. Peter Navarro on again, off again, economic advisor to Trump. I don't even know if he's formally working for Trump at this point in time. He says, you know what? It does look here like there is real wrongdoing by Powell.

And Maria Bartaromo, you can tell is not really buying it. With respect to Chairman Powell, first of all, the Fed is politicized to Chairman Powell is the the worst Fed share since Arthur Burns, and he is the poster child for politicizing the Fed. The only reason why he's still there is because he papered over the fiscal irresponsibility of Joe Biden and got America into an inflation crisis that President Trump is in the process of curing. So, oh, so we are still in an inflation crisis. Interesting, because Trump insists there is no more inflation. Spare me on that. But if you actually look at what he's being investigated for i mean look they got it looks like there's like luxury elevators and dining rooms

he claims that the thing was never renovated before when in fact it was and i it's just let's see what the investigation says and the funny by like just pal gets up there and says it's politicized and it's the tariffs it's the problem why the costs went out hey come on jay come on jay just just do your job you you since you got there you made three major blunt have cost this economy a trillion dollars easily. So let's see what happens with this investigation. The only question is, Maria, we know he made false statements.

The only question is whether he was aware and did it with malice. And think about that. If he was ignorant about it, that tells you how ignorant he is when he runs Fed policy. So you say we know that he made false statements. What was the false statements?

Do you know, specifically? specifically with yeah sure yeah you can you can run through run to the list first I said that there's never been any major renovation there there has been uh he claimed that there's no luxury stuff in there you got elevated and of course what you count as a renovation what counts as luxury I mean this is all just that it's basically semantics at the end of the day but what's really funny is that Navarro says he is making mistakes the mistake I guess Powell has made is ignoring Donald Trump's feelings about what interest rates should be and deciding with the Fed governors what interest rates should be.

So this is yet another weaponization of the DOJ. We'll see if Trump gets away with it. But even Maria Barteroma was skeptical and that should tell you something. The core issue in political journalism isn't access to facts. It's really framing. Different outlets can start from the same underlying facts and still produce very different narratives. Ground news is built to make those differences explicit. Our sponsor, Ground News, aggregates coverage of a single story from across the political spectrum and presents it

visually. You can see ideological lean, ownership, reliability of each outlet at a glance. The feature I use the most is the side-by-side headline view. Seeing multiple outlets describe the same event differently makes the framing choices very obvious, what's emphasized, what's downplayed. What's the context? What's left out? Ground News also offers a blind spot feed. That lets you highlight stories that are receiving little attention from one side of the spectrum. That helps expose possible gaps that disagreement alone won't reveal. You can also personalize your feed by topic. You can make it easier to track the issues you personally care about without unnecessary noise. Go to ground.news slash Pacman to get 40% off the, you can make it.

The Ground News Vantage Plan. You can also gift a subscription to a friend. The link is in the description. The David Packman show has been and remains primarily an audience supported program. I so appreciate the support of everybody who has signed up recently or ever. Our newest members are Sarah Golden and Timothy Martin appreciate both of you. We do an extra show every day for our members. We also provide audio, commercial free audio.

and video feeds of the show and so many other great things. I invite you to sign up at join packman.com and next Tuesday, marking 365 days of Trump's second term, January 20th, we are doing a one-day membership special to really set up this next year of critical midterm elections. It's going to be a huge membership discount. I would love for you to participate. All you need to do is get on my newsletter, which you can sign up for on my website or just email me, say, David, get me, David, get me on that newsletter. Info at David Pakman.com. Tuesday morning, you'll get an email telling you exactly. And I mean an exquisite and precise detail, exactly how to take advantage of this membership discount offer, hoping to make it the biggest single day membership drive that we have

ever done. We now have the cell phone video of the shooting of Renee Good. Now, you might say, David, do you mean the the body cam video? No, I don't. I mean the cell phone video. The accused officer was holding his gun in one hand and his cell phone in another hand. Alpha News was the first to release this video. I will tell you you don't see anybody get shot in the video, just like as a reverse trigger warning that nobody, you don't see anybody get shot in the video. But this is one of the most incriminating videos that I have seen. The video does not answer every question. but it does destroy the confidence with which Trump and others have claimed this is a clear instance of self-defense. It's a 47-second video recorded by the ICE agent who pulled the trigger

three times. And it is not, you know, we have the benefit that it is not grainy security camera footage. This is the shooter's own phone held in his hand, pointed at the woman he killed. And what you see is not what the government told you happened. So I'm going to play the video. And then we will discuss some key elements of it. Right now the officer has approached the vehicle from the right and you see that Renee Good was speaking to someone out her window and then turns and sees this officer coming around the car. You hear her say, that's fine, dude.

I'm not mad at you. And as you see, the officer has now come around to the left side of her vehicle. Show your face. I'm not mad at you, she said, as the officer is now behind her maroon Honda pilot getting a look at her license plate. It's every morning just so you know, it'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That's fine. You have a citizen. Former fucking guys.

You want to come out of us? The officer has now circled all the way around her car and is back on the right side of the vehicle. You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. Now the car. Get out of the fucking car. A different officer.

has now approached the vehicle from the left and is saying get out of the car. Get out of the car. There you see Renee Good back the vehicle up. She will now shift it into drive. And as you can see there or not see, she attempts to drive off towards the right with her front wheels turned right and the officer holding the camera as she drives away, shoots into the vehicle. we now know took the life of Renee Good. A couple of important things here.

When Renee Good says, that's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you. It's an important moment. You know, legally that's an important moment. It undercuts the claim that this was clearly a chaotic, violent confrontation spiraling out of control. I mean, there's no screaming from her. There's no threats. There's no sudden aggression.

She goes, that's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you. It's almost surreal that it escalates into this guy shooting her three times. The agent records the license plate. Good's wife is in apparently, reportedly the other woman you see there filming. She mocks him. She's annoyed. She says, go get some lunch, big boy.

Certainly not praising the individual, but it should not be a deadly situation. Other agents arrive. They surround the vehicle. They start shouting commands. The situation starts to escalate because. law enforcement escalated it. And at that point, Goods wife yells drive baby drive. That's what the government and Trump want you to fixate on. The car moves forward. The agent yells, whoa, the camera jerks upward and you hear those three shots fired in rapid succession. What the video doesn't show,

of course, is the car striking the agent. And we have other video we played last week from behind the vehicle where you see that the vehicle does not appear to strike the agent. There's no evidence that the guy is about to get run over or anything like it. And then right after the shots as the car speeds away and crashes, there's a voice believed to be the agents who says effing bitch. Fing bitch. That is the language of rage to me. This is why the video has not resolved the controversy. It has made it worse. Now, I'm going to try to be clear. that the people who think the officer did nothing wrong, they do believe the video is exculpatory. They say, you know, she clearly hits the gas and it's reasonable that the officer thought he was going

to get run over. Even if he wasn't, even if the front wheels were turned, he was too close to see that the wheels were turned and therefore, okay. I mean, like, the argument they're making is the car is a weapon. The agent feared for his life and that's the entire story. As I see the video, it certainly complicates that narrative. The other things that I think are important to remember are that there are potentially a number of violations of the potentially limited training that this officer received.

A standard law enforcement training discourages approaching vehicles from the front and it discourages firing at moving cars, not just because it's dangerous for the officer, but because if you kill the driver or even shoot them, it guarantees that the car is going to go out of control. That's exactly what happened. After being shot, goods car kept moving and crashed into a pole. Number two, holding the cell phone with one hand and the gun with the other. My understanding is that officers do receive some training in shooting one handed, but that the

entirety of the way that the officer approached this is not protocol or the way that they are supposed to do it. And of course, forensic reconstruction suggests that the agent was not in the vehicle's path when he fired. And if true, that matters hugely because deadly force is only justified if there is an immediate and unavoidable threat. And it seems very much that that was not the case. Officials are trying to contextualize all of this by saying, listen, this guy, he was kind of traumatized. There was an earlier incident where he was dragged by a vehicle and injured.

And that trauma made him more sensitive to the threat of cars. Trauma doesn't rewrite the law. And if he was so traumatized that he would interpret a vehicle that was not going to hit him as a vehicle that would hit him, that would hit him, that suggests he should not have been allowed back on the job due to his trauma. He was too traumatized to be on the job. The trauma doesn't give you permission to kill first and ask questions later. So this is not a press release that we have or a spokesperson. This is the video. You hear the woman say, I'm not mad at you. You see the police escalated. You hear the three shots fired in seconds. And once you see that, the claim of clear cut self-defense is much more difficult

to accept. Will the officer be charged? We just don't know yet. This is one of those moments that would be unbelievable if it were not on video. Donald Trump is sitting down for what is supposed to be a high stakes White House meeting with nearly two dozen oil executives, Chevron, Exxon, Conoco Phillips. It's about Venezuela, billions of dollars, control of oil exports, a volatile country that the United States just carried out a military operation in. And suddenly Trump just, gets up and walks away. He stops mid thought, turns around, walks to the door behind him, and stares through the windows in the door. Imagine if Joe Biden ever did something like this. Take a look. Well, I got to look at this myself. Wow. This is the door to the ball.

And look at the faces of the people that work for Trump. Uncomfortable smiles. Suze, I believe that Susie Wiles on the right looking straight down at one point in disbelief at what Trump is doing. Marco Rubio sitting there like, what is daddy up to? I don't understand this. Trump gets up not because anything important is going on. There's no urgent situation.

He's looking at dirt. He's looking at rubble and construction equipment. And the camera catches the whole thing. The executive seated at the table. J.D. Vans is sitting there. Marco Rubio sitting there. Trump is gazing out like he forgot why he was even in the room to begin with. Now, apparently Trump had just started talking about his personal ballroom project, which he's

obsessed with, but it may or may not be going anywhere. And he says, I got to look at it myself. It's a meeting during which he was supposed to be convincing oil executives to pour at least $100 billion into Venezuela, a country whose oil infrastructure is collapsing and where many American oil companies have been burned before. And Trump has now destabilized the country and he wants their help rebuilding it. And they don't seem that keen on it. And Trump just gets up and kind of just walks away and looks out the window.

That's the context and the backdrop for this video. This is not Trump being Trump. It's not an isolated senior moment. This is a pattern. We've seen it now over and over. Meetings drift. Answers don't connect. Sentences trail off.

Here Trump is walking away to look out the window. Sometimes he falls asleep. Sometimes he says, we got to go through this much faster because he doesn't have the attention span nor the stamina. And in another clip from the same stretch, Trump is talking about Greenland. And he says with a straight face, just because you landed a boat there 500 years ago, as did Denmark, that doesn't mean you own the land, which is, of course, funny because that's exactly the justification that people like Trump and others give for why the United States is the United

States. And, you know, they've been very nice to me. I'm a big fan. But, you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land. Right. When Denmark landed a boat in Greenland 500 years ago, they don't own the land. But when the pilgrims landed a boat in the unit, what is not.

now the United States hundreds of years ago, that does mean that they and thus we now own the land. That's a really weird thing. Now, of course, it's all funny until you remember this is the sitting president making territorial arguments while threatening international conflict and then wandering off to look out the window. This guy's not well. This is a guy who is seriously in decline And there's an awkwardness to it. There's an absurdity to it. But it's also very revealing. You've got a president negotiating energy policy and foreign intervention and massive corporate investment.

And his attention is pulled away by a construction project that isn't even going anywhere with his name all over it. And it is not metaphorical that he's distracted. He was literally distracted by it and walked away. humiliating and embarrassing and his deputies are doing justice poorly. Christy Noem is the Secretary of Homeland Security. She appeared on a number of shows, including on CNN with Jake Tapper. Jake Tapper said, what was Renee Good doing when she was moving her car and she was shot dead by the ICE officer?

Christy Noem doesn't like that question. she believes that no one should question anything that is happening while Donald Trump is president. She's not- leading law enforcement operations throughout the previous moments and hours before- before the question is, what was she doing when she was moving her car? The question is that's the question. Is we is, why are we arguing with a president who's working to keep people safe? Why are we arguing with law enforcement operations that have gone?

Trump says he's keeping people safe. That is a blank check to do whatever. the hell you want on in this country for years and we're working to collect murderers and rapists and drug traffickers and fraudsters off the streets of Minnesota and we don't have local law enforcement and local elected officials that are partnering with us to help do that work overwhelmingly the people in this country said they wanted America to be safe again that they didn't want and of course you can ask most people do you want America to be safe and most people would go yeah I mean what sure sounds good

But then the question is, well, how are we going to get to that? And are we going to make it safe at all? Is any of what Trump's doing really making the country safe? And are we going to do it legally? Are we going to do it morally? But Christine Nome's position is never argue with Trump. Just accept it. Now this one is pretty Kafkaesque.

This is from another interview that Christine Nome did on CNN, this one with Dana Bash, where Nome goes, we can't trust the government anymore. And Dana Bash points out, you're the government. And Christine Nome goes, yeah, that's what I'm saying. I remember a time when Republicans were very, careful about and worried about the government, particularly unelected people, we can't trust the government anymore. Having access to personal data.

Yeah. Oh, absolutely. You are the government. Yes, that's what I'm saying, is that the American people now are saying that we have had our personal information shared and out there in the public. But now Elon Musk has access to it. Elon Musk is part of the administration that is helping us identify where we can find savings and what we can do.

And he has gone through the processes to make sure that he has the authority. You're totally comfortable with them. I am today by the work that he's doing by identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. So understand the contrast. Christy Noem previously said, we can't trust the government. We just we, we, we can't, but you're the government. Yeah, but like it's different now because it's outsiders in the government like Elon Musk. This is back when Elon Musk was involved.

But then she goes, just trust Trump. Trump said he's doing it to keep us safe. Just don't don't question Donald Trump. argue with Donald Trump. But Christy, you told us not that long ago you can't trust the government. No, we can. But because it's us, we can. Got it. The question of what is divisive versus what is unifying has come up. Back to our new interview with Jake Tapper and Christy Noem. Tapper points out, Christy Noem referred to Renee Good as a domestic terrorist after the shooting. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. And in fact, it seems clear that she was not a domestic.

terrorist. Christine Ome has asked about that. Here's how she addresses it. You've also been criticized for your comments. The shooting, we should note, was Wednesday at 1037 a.m. Eastern. Just over two hours later, the Department of Homeland Security put out a statement definitively asserting what had happened, defending the ICE agent, accusing Renee Good of domestic terrorism. That's a characterization that you reiterated in a press conference half an hour later. A Republican Senator Tom Tillis said, quote, it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed. Generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed

forever, the shooter's life will change forever, we're collecting video, we're trying to assess the situation. Why did you not wait for an investigation before making your comments? Everything that I've said has been proven to be factual in the truth. This administration wants to operate in transparency. I have the responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security to know this information as soon as possible, had just been in Minneapolis the day before, had already had conversations with officers on the ground and supervisors and knew the facts, and decided that the department and the people of this country deserve to know the truth of the situation of what had unfolded in Minneapolis.

With all due respect, Secretary, the first thing you said was, quote, what happened was our ICE officers were out in an enforcement action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. That's not what happened. We all saw what happened. It absolutely is what happened.

Those officers had been out of an enforcement action. A vehicle had been stuck. They had come to help get that vehicle out. That's when this individual started blocking traffic for minutes and minutes before this. You said that the woman attacked them and surrounded them and attempted to run them over and ram them with their vehicle. Blocked the road for a long time and was yelling. at them and impeding of- Notice how block the road for minutes became a long time.

Anyway, these people are disgusting. I guess Christine Homme is right. You certainly can't trust this government. And Jake Tapper actually doing some journalism here where he says, we're going to look at video of what happened on January 6th and look at the story we are told there. This is actually good stuff. I want to ask a question about the rules of how law enforcement is allowed. to engage when feeling threatened, per your assertions.

Because I want to show some video to you right now and ask, what is the appropriate response for the police officers in this situation? And this is January 6th riot video. Those are law enforcement officers being physically attacked. By this standard, would any of those officers being justified in shooting and killing the people causing them physical harm?

Every single situation is going to rely on the situation. those officers are on, that they know that when people are putting hands on them, when they are using weapons against them, when they are physically harming them, that they have the authority to arrest those individuals. The president pardoned every single one of those people. And make sure that they're getting justice for their actions going forward. President Trump pardoned every single one of those people. And every single one of these investigations comes in the full context of the situation on the ground.

And that's one thing that President Trump has been so focused on is making sure that when we're out there. We don't that she is repulsive. She is repulsive and disgusting in every way that you can imagine. And good for Jake Tapper for pulling that out. Now, here's a bonus. Tom Homan, who runs in some generic sense, Trump's whole deportation thing. He was asked by Kristen Welker in a different interview. You know, Christine Ome said that Renee Good was a domestic terrorist. Was that right? And check out Homan's answer. I want to stay on this question, which is about the way in which the woman who, the woman who was shot and killed is being labeled as a domestic terrorism terrorist just to be clear is anyone

who protests ice a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the administration i can't say that you know it's a case-by-case basis but you know if you look up the definition of terrorism is there violence is there a threat of violence based on an ideology that wants to change the way the government does what we do look at definition of terrorism was with secretary noam correct to label her a domestic terrorist, Mr. Homan? Look, we don't know what, I don't know a secretary knows and what I know. I can tell you is what they did is illegal.

And if you look up as a definition of terrorism, it certainly could fall within that definition. If you look at definition of terrorism. But you don't have evidence. Pardon? You don't have evidence that she's a domestic terrorist. I don't know what secretary has that I don't. I'm not going to judge what the secretary says,

but if you look up the definition of terrorism, it certainly can fall within that. Well, I think we all got to agree. Obviously, the question is which specific actions of Renee Good could fall under domestic terrorism? Is it simply being in the road for a few minutes? This we we have to do away with any false notions that these are people you can talk any kind of sense into or who are going to be even remotely honest with us in any way. And the question now is, can there be a full investigation of the shooting?

And if it is determined that the evidence points to wrongdoing by the officer, is there going to be a fair process for indicting, charging, and a bringing to justice in whatever way that needs to happen? I am not confident that that is going to happen. I'm curious you. Do you think that we are going to get a proper investigation here? Let me know in the comments are at info at David Pakman.com. During these colder months, it's great to have something warm right out of the oven to have it home.

Our sponsor, Wildgrain, is the Bake from Frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries, and fresh pastas, already in about 25 minutes. Everything's made with simple ingredients, slow fermentation process, no shortcuts. The boxes are fully customizable, including gluten-free, vegan, and the new protein box. I've been loving the Wildcrain sourdough bread. And the pretzel buns, both are excellent. The sourdough is made with Wild Grains' own starter. Takes days to develop with a light open crumb and crisp golden crust and a subtle tang that you want. The pretzel buns have a soft, airy interior, and that traditional Bavarian-style crust makes them great for sandwiches or burgers.

I love having fresh bread on the table. It changes the feel of the whole meal. And Wildcrain makes it super easy. You just put it in the oven. Get $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life at wildgrain.com slash Pacman. It's great to welcome back to the program, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who recently announced that he is indeed running for reelection in the state of Pennsylvania. Governor, appreciate your time.

Good to see you. It's great to be back with you. Thank you. You know, we are at a time where governors are now suddenly in the center of, in the center of incredible and significant decisions that have to be made with regard to some of these incidents that we have been seeing. We saw some in Oregon, but earlier this week, we saw the killing of this unarmed 37-year-old woman, Renee Good in Minneapolis.

And one of the things that's happening, as we saw from hearing from Governor Tim Walz, is that governors as administrators of states are really in an important position, not only with regard to questions of, as Governor Wall said, do we mobilize the National Guard potentially against federal ICE troops? What about investigating what took place where the FBI is now reportedly preventing state authorities from doing a full and thorough investigation? I mean, let me just put that scenario to you. What sorts of conversations are you having as governor of Pennsylvania about if you were to be in such a situation, how do you make sure that justice is served in these situations?

Yeah. You know, you ask great questions, and maybe if I could take it in two parts. I think first, the preparation part, and second, I think we should take a minute and talk about Minnesota and what's transpiring there. If that's okay, I'll kind of break the question up in two. First, look, you know, we prepare all the time for emergencies

and whether it's an emergency because of a natural disaster, an emergency of, God forbid, a shooting or a terrorist incident. And I've got a terrific team that is constantly preparing and I'm engaged in those tabletop exercises. I think what's unique about now is we're literally doing tabletop exercises about what happens if the federal government sends in troops against our will. Right. And, I mean, think about that for a minute.

That's what governors are being forced to grapple with. That's what we're working through. And obviously, I'm not going to get into the specifics of our plans. I can assure the good people of Pennsylvania that we have plans and that we are prepared. And we hope it doesn't come to that, but we know what we're doing here. And I think what you're seeing play out in Minnesota with the horrific loss of life. And I mourn for her spouse and for her children. And I just mourn for the entire community that's having to deal.

with this trauma. I think what is clear is that as a result of federal action, they eviscerated the trust that has existed in those communities, the kind of trust that exists between law enforcement here in Pennsylvania and the communities that they police. And I think what's also true about what's happening in Minnesota, and I say this is the former chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania, is that by refusing to participate, in the after-action report, in the investigation that is so crucially needed in that community, what they're doing is they're undermining trust, and I believe they're undermining the rule of law. Look, I've had to deal with investigations where law enforcement officials have pulled a trigger

and either injured someone in the community or killed someone in the community. These are brutally difficult investigations. But the most important thing you have to do is follow all of the facts and coordinate law enforcement in sharing those facts, the federal state and local level. And you've got to apply the law. You've got to apply the rule of law without fear and without favor. You've worked, Governor, on one thing you said there, which I think is interesting to delve more deeply on if we can.

J.D. Van said that there's just flat out absolute immunity here. You, as you say, you've worked on cases that are analogous to this in certain ways, although not exactly like this. Does that statement stand up legally in your experience? No, J.D. Vance is absolutely and completely full of shit. And J.D. Vance is just afraid of his boss, and he's a total weakling and sycophant. And so he goes out and just says this stuff because he thinks it pleases Donald Trump. No one's above the law.

Not any law enforcement official or member of the community. J.D. Vance isn't above the law. And so look, I think what's important here is that there be a thorough investigation. And if this law enforcement official should be charged because that's what the evidence calls for, then they should be charged.

And you should not be using the federal government to block access to this information. You have to have a thorough investigation. That is how you bring trust to a community. And David, I want to say this. I've had these investigations. They're incredibly. difficult and sometimes a law enforcement officials charge and sometimes they're not. What I guarantee

you is in any scenario, someone is disappointed. But what the hope is, if you're doing this work honestly and with integrity, the hope is that people at least respect the process and respect that it came to a just outcome, even if they disagree with it. By the federal government and J.D. Vance gaslighting the community, they're further eroding that trust. They're making it more difficult for this community to get answers and to heal. And I think that's a very dangerous thing for our communities. What's the jurisdictional battle that takes place in a situation like this where, as we think ahead, we know that if this were to take a federal path, that involves Pam Bondi, who does not

seem like an unbiased arbiter, and that potentially also at the very far end of the path involves the pardon power of the presidency? On the other hand, if this were to go down state lines, it's a completely different scenario where at the end of the rainbow, there is no pardon pot of gold from the president of the United States. What are the sort of arguments here jurisdictionally? Sure. And look, I'm obviously not an expert on Minnesota law. I can tell you that here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I would presume it would follow a similar track in Minnesota. it would be up to the local prosecutor or potentially the state attorney general to follow through on this, to conduct the investigation. And typically, when you're leading the investigation, as I did as attorney general, the first thing you do is bring law enforcement together from

every level to share information, to make sure you've got everything on the table. You look at every angle of every piece of evidence. And then you take you take. take that evidence and you apply the law. In this case, it would be Minnesota law that would be the applicable law. And then that prosecutor would make a determination as to whether or not to charge. And so in this case, I would presume that Minnesota state authorities would retain that jurisdiction and would go forward in analyzing the evidence. It is made more difficult when the federal government isn't cooperating here. And J.D. Vance made clear that they're not going to cooperate. And I think that that creates not only a problem in getting to the answers of what

happened in this case, it creates more distrust in communities, not just in Minnesota, I would argue, but all across America because people are watching this case. People here in Pennsylvania are watching this case and looking for answers. And this is the job of a prosecutor now to dig into it and get those answers and the federal government is making it much harder. I want to talk a little bit about what's happening in Pennsylvania and your campaign. Pennsylvania is a very interesting state for a lot of reasons, including that you have large cities, you have suburban areas. As you get out further and further west, the state starts looking more like other parts of the country that are very different from Philadelphia. Is there something that is palpably different now in 2026 in terms of the

concerns for voters than what they were in 2024. So like, I know that affordability is still a concern, but that's not a new concern in 26. Is there anything that has changed as far as you understand the concerns of your residents? I mean, look, I think Pennsylvania is a microcosm of America. We really are the ultimate swing state. That may be one of the few things that Democrats and Republicans still agree on, right? I mean, and so I think when you look at Pennsylvania, you can get a lot of answers for the rest of the country. I think what I've been struck by, and I look, you know me, I travel all across this kind of both rural, urban, suburban communities, spent a lot of time out in areas that, you know, quite frankly, voted for Donald Trump or

didn't vote for me, maybe the first time around, because I'm a governor for all Pennsylvania. When I'm hearing, yes, on issues like you point out, affordability is an important issue. There are a number of important issues that continue to, you know, rise to the top of people's minds. People are incredibly worried about the chaos and the cruelty and the corruption that's coming out of D.C. I think that overlays a lot of this. There's a whole lot of people, though, that are also feeling that their vote last time, maybe for President Trump, was maybe the wrong vote. That it's led to higher prices, that it's led to more chaos in their communities. communities. It's led to a level of instability, not just around the globe, but that they're feeling

here at home. Our farmers, many of whom voted for me and many of whom voted for Donald Trump, are getting absolutely screwed by these tariffs. They're losing market share. Our small businesses that dot our main streets are really struggling. We're seeing more and more building trades people who are absolutely wonderful. They're the backbone of our economy. Losing jobs in the energy sector because Donald Trump cut off a whole bunch of those clean energy, you know, investments that were being made here in Pennsylvania. So what I'm seeing is a lot of buyers are more. So a lot of people saying, you know what, this is not what I signed up for.

And I'm trying to speak to them and meet them where they are. And, you know, not cast judgment on why they voted the way they did last time, but show them a better way, show them a more positive and hopeful future and show them that what we're doing here in Pennsylvania by actually bringing people together is working. On the issue of health insurance and health care premiums, I've told my audience as a self-employed person, I buy a plan through a marketplace and it went up 25% from 2025 to 2026. Same coverage, just 25% more expensive. I'm not in the bucket of the people who got hit the worst. There are people whose premiums have doubled or even tripled in some cases.

And I've read some of the stories of folks in Pennsylvania that are experiencing that. what can the governor and the state do about that issue, which flows down from what's happening federally, if people are in that position where their premiums have just doubled or tripled, what is it even possible for you to do? Yeah, we're seeing the average Pennsylvania who gets their health care through the Affordable Care Act. We're seeing their premiums double going from about 180 bucks to about 360 bucks. and we're just seeing really a tragic amount of people drop their health insurance as the calendar

went from 2025 to 2026 and folks had to re-up for the new year because of these rising prices. This is really, really concerning. You know, look, I said at the time when Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania, you know, acted really as the deciding vote to pass that budget bill in D.C. and vicerate and gut Medicaid and then not come back and expand the Affordable Care Act subsidies or extend, I should say, the Affordable Care Act subsidies. I said that the state government would not be able to fill that gap, that this is a crisis of Donald Trump and congressional Republicans doing.

States don't have the dollars to be able to make this up. And so it is so tragic for me to see more and more Pennsylvanians lose the money. their health insurance, whether because of Medicaid cuts or because of an unwillingness by Trump and the Republicans in D.C. to extend these Affordable Care Act subsidies. States can't make up the difference. And more and more Americans are being hurt because the policy is coming out of D.C. So can you make up any of the gap? Or is it quite literally you have to lobby for the federal government to make a change to the decision that's been made? I mean, the federal government and cut billions of dollars out of state budgets.

And states don't have the ability to make up that delta, to make up that difference. And so what you're seeing is the cruelty of these policies in D.C. Now actually coming sadly to fruition. And let's not forget, why did they cut health care for millions of Americans to give a tax cut to people who, frankly, didn't need it. And so I think that is demonstrating yet again

that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are screwing over the very people that helped put them in a position of power, whether it's our farmers because of our tariffs or whether it's because of a whole lot of Pennsylvanians who voted for Trump who are now losing access to health care because of his policies of giving a tax cut to those who are at the highest income brackets. Governor, last thing I want to ask you about thinking more generally about the Democratic Party, there are a lot of complaints right now about what many voters see. is kind of outdated and stayed leadership in the party nationally and even within states. As we think about 2026 and also 2028, do you like the Democratic bench right now?

Do you think there are a lot of people that would make good presidential nominees in 28, for example, or for fulfilling other office? Do you think it is time for there to be a sort of leadership transition in the party? How are you feeling about it in general? Well, look, I think we've got some extraordinary leaders. in the Democratic Party, you know, folks that I talk to all the time, I look to for, you know, inspiration and people who I think are leading their states and their communities quite well. I would just suggest, though, we don't have the luxury right now thinking about 2028.

We've got to focus on these midterms. This is an opportunity for all of us to come together and win the U.S. House of Representatives. Hold on to more than 30, we have more than 30 governor's races across the country. we know how pivotal governors are. I think this is a moment where we've got to get stuff done for the people in our respective states and show people the government can be a force for good in their lives, to beat back some of that cynicism, to stop the cruelty coming out of D.C. And so I and many others are laser focused on these midterms and focusing on that.

I know that there's a broader conversation about, hey, what the Democratic Party get wrong in the last presidential. election. I'm going to leave that to others. I got to focus every day on doing my job, on getting stuff done every single day for my community. And to me, the best politics are good policies, good outcomes for people. And that's what we're focused on. So to answer your question directly, I'm laser focused on these midterms. It is unbelievably important for all of us around the country to be doing the same. We don't have the luxury of being able to think too far down the road, number one. And number two, I am inspired by the leaders we have in the Democratic Party.

We have a number of people. By the way, folks who get talked about in the media every day and some folks who are kind of below the radar who are just running their communities, running their cities, their towns, their states really, really well and effectively. And I think they're inspiring. And I'm excited for more and more of them

to get notice as we go forward here. So it sounds like you're saying you are confident in the current Democratic leadership in D.C., at least as far as this coming election cycle? I'm confident. You asked me a different question. You asked me about the leadership. leaders in the Democratic Party.

This is a follow-up now. I think, okay. Look, I think we've got to win the U.S. House of Representatives, and we've got a real shot to be able to do that. And here in Pennsylvania, we've got four competitive congressional races. And if you think about all the redistricting stuff that's going on around the country, I'm not an expert on this. But, you know, the math could kind of math out on that, right?

It could end up that they all sort of cancel each other out. You're more of an expert on that than I. So please, if I'm getting the numbers wrong, let me know. And so then it's going to come down to just good old-fashioned elections in tough swing districts. Yeah. We got four of them here in Pennsylvania. And that is going to be, I believe, the determining factor in these midterms. That's why I am focused on that.

And I'm focused on running these races locally here in Pennsylvania. I don't take my cues from Washington, D.C. I take my cues from Washington County, Pennsylvania and places all across our Commonwealth. And that's what I'm going to continue to do. We've been speaking with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, now running for re-election. Governor, always appreciate your time. Thank you. Great to be with you.

Thank you. The David Packman Show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. the full experience by signing up at join packman.com. Donald Trump spoke to reporters just hours ago on Air Force One. He did it flanked by his completely subservient cult follower like press secretary Caroline

Levitt, who would smile or look serious depending on what sort of editorializing she wanted to do of the questions that were asked. And I've got to tell you, I don't think Trump could really do this anymore. I don't know if it's that he's out of energy. He's out of attention span. He's declining. He's tired. He's uninterested.

He's bored. I don't know what it is. It's probably some combination of all of these things. Trump was asked, do you believe deadly force was necessary in the altercation between the ICE officer and the now deceased Renee Good? And Trump says, well, it was very disrespectful of law enforcement, what she was doing. You believe that deadly all the footage? It was highly disrespectful of law enforcement.

The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement. You saw that? They were harassing, they were following for days and for hours. And I think frankly they're professional agitators. But just disrespect. And I'd like to find out, and we are going to find out who's paying for it. With their brand new signs and all the different things. But these are professional agitators.

And law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff. what that woman and what her friend and what their other friends were doing to law enforcement, not just ICE. Right. Is being disrespectful to law enforcement behavior that justifies getting killed? Because notice how now that all the video is out, the video from behind, the video from the officer's cell phone, it's much harder to say she was about to run him over. She was angry. She was erratic. She was furious. She said, I'm not mad at you, dude. And then she turns the wheels and goes to drive away, at which point she got shot. And so Trump is now well, it's very disrespectful, very disrespectful. And I don't know where in the law. It says that that is an appropriate circumstance, disrespect,

to kill a woman. Seems weird. Some are saying it's actually impeachable for Trump to even suggest such a thing. The administration has talked about absolute immunity. The officer has absolute immunity. Trump was asked, what do you mean by that? And Trump goes, well, the woman was very violent. You really need title, as they say in the Rosampton. You're on Minneapolis. Your administration has advocated for absolute immunity for the ICE officer who shot Renee Good. How do you define absolute immunity? What does that mean? Everyone's seen it. And the woman who's very violent. She's noticed that there was. Notice that there was nothing in any of the video suggesting that this was a violent woman.

You know, very radical person, very sad what happened. Her friend was very radical, you know, go and drive, drive. But the officer absolutely. How would you define that? Get out of here. Drive away. Maybe it was bad advice, you know? Like you could say her, her, I guess this was her wife who was saying drive, baby, drive.

Maybe it was bad advice, but it's radical. It's a radical thing to say. Well, I'm going to let the people just. the fine, but immunity, you know what immunity. What knows means as well as I do. So that officer can be back on the first. But no people can't be treating law enforcement that way, whether it's ice or border patrol or our police and men and women. You can't, you can't do that. All right. So Trump clearly no idea what happened and a moral compass that is like spinning around like crazy like it would at the

North Pole. Trump then asked about his plan to get oil companies in to rebuild Venezuela, and extract the oil. And one of the funny things that's going on is a lot of these companies don't really want anything to do with it because they know it's going to be a total quagmire. And so Trump now has to reverse the game and go, I might keep some of these companies out. What he really means is some of these companies don't seem stupid enough to get involved in this quagmire. Companies make commitments to the United States after you're meeting on Friday, sir. No, I don't want to say.

No, I didn't like exxon. response. You know, we have so many that want it. Probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn't like their response. Yep. Well, you know, it's not clear Exxon wants anything to do with that this is the you don't want it. Well, I'm not letting you have it. It's a very, you know, it's like a poop in the sandbox when it's time to go home kind of thing, the thing you would expect from a toddler. Trump asked if the House and Senate passed the extensions to the Affordable Care Act subsidies, would you still veto it? I might. Yeah. I might. Yeah. Even if the House and Senate agreed on a way to extend these subsidies and

save people from the crushing premium increases under which they are now being destroyed in 2026 because you did nothing about it and you don't give a day. Would you veto it? I might. Yeah. Yeah. That's a that's something I might I might do. Trump asked. Have you made a tantam? A tant. offer to buy Greenland? Have you made an actual offer to Denmark to buy it? I consider that one quarter of a war. When was the last time you made a tangible offer to Greenland yet? Have you made an actual offer to Denmark?

I haven't done that. But Greenland should make the deal because Greenland does not want to see Russia or China take over. They don't go there. It's very far away from Greenland. And Greenland, basically, their defense is two dogslets. Do you know them? Do you know what their defense is?

dogs let's in the meantime you have Russian destroyers and submarines and China destroyers and submarines all over the place. We're not going to let that happen. In the meantime, we're going to be it affects NATO and then it affects NATO. But you know, they need us much more than we need them. I will tell you. There you go. Yeah, whatever.

I mean, maybe I will. And it's far from Denmark to Greenland and therefore, I mean like maybe I'll buy it. Maybe I'll take it. I don't know. Okay. Then Trump dumps an authoritarian classic about. stealing Greenland. If we don't take it, Russia might take it, China might take it.

That is an authoritarian classic. If I don't steal it, someone else would anyway. That's a war that should have never happened with Ukraine. The UK and Germany are discussing plans for a joint NATO mission to protect Arctic security in Greenland. Does that change your calculus at all? No, look, we're talking about acquiring, not leasing, not having. it short term. We're talking about acquiring. And if we don't do it, Russia or China will. And that's not

going to happen when I'm president. Are you going to increase the amount of military bases on Greenland in the meantime? So this is an authoritarian classic. Justifying what you are going to do because if you didn't someone else would do it anyway and wouldn't it be better if it was us. And then finally, Trump says if credit card companies don't agree to cap interest rates at 10 percent, then they will be in violation of the law. The only problem is there is no such law. With no help from the vet because we have a total stiff at the Fed.

very severe things. No, I want a cap on credit card interest rates. interest rates. Because you know, some of them are 28, almost 30%. And that people don't know they're paying 30%. The people out there, you know, they're working and they have no idea that they're paying 30%. All right.

So anyway, this is an issue. Credit card rates are definitely an issue. But Trump just goes too far. Oh, they'll be in violation of the law. What law? There is no such law. Guys, I don't think Trump knows what's going on anymore. I don't think he can do it.

And in some weird way, I think losing the house in November might end up being a blessing for this guy because then he doesn't really have to do anything anymore, which he doesn't want to anyway. It's a sad thing. But I think getting the having the keys taken away, which partially one key would be taken away if they lose the house. I think it might be for Trump, a blessing in disguise. This one really makes me proud because it's our friend Jake Ockincloss. Massachusetts Congressman Jake Ockincloss appeared with Peter Ducey on Fox News.

They were arguing about the killing of Renee Good by this ICE officer in Minneapolis. I'm going to present it without much of an intro because Achen-Claas does a really just an excellent job of dismantling Peter Ducey, excuse me, Ducey. So you are putting all the on the ICE officer. What about on Renee Good, she's behind the wheel of a vehicle. I've been pulled over by a car, I assume that by a cop rather, I assume that if I start to drive forward, I might, that's against the law and they might take action to someone. stop me. Is that completely off base? This is entirely the fault of the ICE officer.

Put more plainly. To be clear, so Peter, what you're saying is, just so I can understand, what you were saying is if you get pulled over on the side of a highway, for example, and, you know, the officer grabs your door and attempts to prize it open and is filming you with another officer on the other side of the car, and your car moves forward away from the officers, you think your family would be okay if you then got shot in the face to, Of course. No, but I would think that I'm disobeying a law enforcement officer who's giving me an order while they pull me over for something.

I think the point here, the question is, isn't there a better way for progressives who are upset with ICE policy to protest than getting up in their grill possibly from behind the wheel of a cart? Would you agree that that is not the best way? Again, Peter, you're victim blaming here. Not victim blaming. No law enforcement officer. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, law enforcement officer should be doxed. Nobody is victim blaming. About two minutes ago, I heard director lie in and say that the civilian was at fault for being involved in that operation. They're literally blaming the victim. That's exactly what they're doing. She's a domestic terrorist, radical. Her wife gave her the wrong information and was agitating and she was about to run someone

over. She deserved that she's the, she is the one who is at fault here, even though she is the one who is the victim. To be clear her, you have a badge, you have a gun, you are wearing a mask. You are accountable for everything that happens or fails to happen in that operation. No law enforcement officer should be accosted or harassed or assaulted and there should be penalties of law for so doing. And no U.S. citizen should be afraid of their own government.

And that is what ICE has created. They have stopped being an arm of the law and they have sort of being an instrument. Look at Deucey's ridiculous smirk there. And Jake just was pounding and pounding and pounding him. Here is once again him, uh, setting expectations. which is if you're the one paid to have the gun and keep the peace supposedly, you need to be held to certain standards. That's not crazy.

She did not make every effort possible to avoid the ICE officer who is standing in front of the car. Are you saying that a car cannot be- Remember that standing in front of the car is not what the officer is supposed to be doing. This is a weapon. Of course a car can be used it as a weapon. What I am saying is when you have a badge, and a gun and you are interacting with a U.S. citizen who has committed no crime, the bonus, the onus

of responsibility is on you to exercise good judgment and to use that weapon only as an absolute last resort. And nobody watching that video will buy the argument from that ICE agent that he had no other resort other than to shoot her in the face. It is impossible to come away from the video evidence and say the officer really had no choice. It was, it was, It was the last resort situation. And hopefully that is something that is kept in mind as the investigation carries forward. Now on the bonus show today, producer Pat is back. We'll be talking about Vivek Ramoswamy stepping away from social media.

We will talk about how little training ICE Academy is now providing to new recruits and the scandal over Senator Mark Kelly's retirement pay. All of that and more on the bonus show. You can sign up instantly at join packman.com. And I will also remind you that you can get on my newsletter and then on the 20th of this month, you'll be notified how to avail yourself of our biggest membership discount of the year. Just get on my newsletter. You can email info at David Pakman.com if you'd like to be added to it.