Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
For everyone who solves crime from their couch, knows more about forensics than their own job, and has trust issues with small town sheriffs. Amazon Music's millions of podcast episodes are calling. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite true crime podcasts ad free included with Prime.
- [00:19]
Caroline Levitt
Oh hey.
- [00:20]
David Pakman
Welcome to gift wrapping. Whoa. Soy saldana. Hey, can you wrap these please? Wow. IPhone 17s.
- [00:26]
Caroline Levitt
You splurged at T Mobile. You can get four iPhone 17s on them.
- [00:29]
David Pakman
The new center Stage front camera is.
- [00:31]
Caroline Levitt
Amazing for groups selfies. It's the perfect gift for everyone.
- [00:34]
David Pakman
I'm the worst. I only got my mom a robe.
- [00:36]
Caroline Levitt
Well, it's better than socks.
- [00:38]
David Pakman
So I have to trade in my old phone, right?
- [00:40]
Kristi Noem
No AT T Mobile.
- [00:41]
Caroline Levitt
There's no trade ins needed when you switch.
- [00:43]
David Pakman
Keep your old phone or give it as a gift. Incredible. In fact, wrap up my old phone too for my Aunt Rosa.
- [00:49]
Caroline Levitt
Forget that.
- [00:50]
David Pakman
Aunt Liz will be jealous. Sounds like my family drama. Oh, I got it. I'll give it to my abuela.
- [00:54]
Caroline Levitt
I'll take reindeer paper with hey, where are you going?
- [00:56]
David Pakman
To T Mobile. The holidays are better. AT T Mobile get four iPhone 17s on us. No trade in needed when you switch plus four lines for just 25 bucks a lot. And now T Mobile is available in U.S. cellular stores, 24 monthly bill credits and four eligible board inside essentials for well qualified customers. Auto pay + taxes fees and $35 device connection charge credits and imbalance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel Contact Us Finance Agreement 256 gigabytes $830 required Visit T mobile.com we're going to be talking about Tennessee today. There is a deep red district that Donald Trump won by 22 points and it is suddenly a toss up in a special election that is happening today. Republicans are panicking. Trump is calling in from exile in Mar? A Lago and this is a race that they should have been able to sleepwalk to victory with. And it is a potential crisis for the Republican Party, potentially a major warning shot for 2026. We're also going to go to the White House briefing room where Caroline Levitt has hit a new low. She has admitted to war crimes on camera after days of denials. Can't explain what on earth is going on with Trump's MRI and and the meltdown will continue as she fumbles basic facts and generically makes no sense whatsoever. We then have to deal with an overnight tirade from the President on Truth Social that involves hundreds of posts, hundreds of posts and Kristi noem the secretary of Homeland Security says they are going to start extreme vetting of people coming to the United States, which of course, confirms what we all knew that the extreme betting they've claimed to be doing, they weren't actually doing. Finally, Megyn Kelly delivers maybe the most bloodthirsty rant I have ever seen, fantasizing about making wounded people suffer before dying. And the question I have is, do we still care about the law? Do we still care about the Constitution? It is a big Tuesday in American politics and it's going to be great to have you with us. There is a special election today. MAGA is terrified. Trump is getting involved. Don Jr. Is getting involved. Why? Because the results of this race could mean so much about what happens in 2026. Let me call your attention back to the first Tuesday and in November of the first Tuesday of November last month, after we saw, yes, Zoran Mamdani win in New York City, but after we also saw two Democrats win big for the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey, Republicans were quick to say it's Democrats winning in blue states. None of this means anything about where voters are or about 2026. And we very carefully, step by step, as I like to do, let's not get our, I don't know what phrase to use. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's look one by one and we see that while Virginia is not a blue state, Virginia, in fact has a Republican governor right now in Glenn Youngkin. And Virginia said, we are going to vote not only for a Democrat, but we're going to vote for a Democrat by a large margin. That's what matters in New Jersey, yes, New Jersey is a blue state, but Cheryl defeating her opponent, Jack Schitter, Ellie, by a far larger margin than the current governor, Phil Murphy won when he was up for election. So the margins are pointing to a big shift to Democrats. We have an election today to fill a vacancy. Vacant seat in the seventh District of Tennessee. It is Republican Matt Van Epps against Democrat Afton Ben. And in a district that voted for Trump by 22 points just a year ago that Republicans have held without any serious challenge for decades. This race is within a couple of points, points. And it is becoming a sort of boiling cauldron. How about that imagery? A boiling cauldron of political controversy. And it could affect not only the balance of the House of Representatives for the next year. It could really be an important signal about what we might Expect next November in the midterms. Now, we have polling. The polling is from Emerson College and it shows that the Republican, Van Epps, 48 and the Democrat, Afton Ben, 46, that is number one within the margin of error, meaning this race might straight up be tied. But the most important takeaway is that this is so much closer than it should be. If that district is still Trumpy. If that district were satisfied with the job that Trump is doing and, and that Republicans are doing in the House of Representatives, it wouldn't be a two point race. Within the margin of error, the Republican would be winning by at least 6 or 8 or maybe 12 or 15 or remember, Trump won it by 22. Now, no matter what the outcome is tonight, you're going to hear certain things from Republicans. If the Republican ultimately wins, even if it's by half a point or 1 point or 2 points or 3 points, the Republicans will go. Republicans won. That's it. This is a referendum on Trump and Trump won it. It's a referendum on Republicans. Republicans want it, Everything's fine. The reality, of course, will be that after Trump won by 22, if the Republican barely squeaks it out in a deep red, blood red district, that is a major reversal that corroborates what we already saw in New Jersey and Virginia, gubernatorial and in other races. So don't fall for that one. Now, if Afton Ben were to win tonight, and I'm not handicapping it, I don't know, it's an uphill battle. It's within the margin of error, it's very red. But imagine that the Democrat wins tonight. Republicans are going to say, oh, not only is this not a presidential election, it's not even a midterm, it's not even an off year. It's a special off year election in December, people are going on vacation, it's Christmas, it's whatever. It means nothing. They will tell you if a Democrat wins in the 7th district of Tennessee tonight. Well, to that I would say ignore the meaning of it, ignore the significance of it at your own peril. But it would point to a brutal 20, 26 midterm that is coming up here. Now, Republicans know that this is a problem. They have been scrambling. They brought out the big guns. And House Speaker Maga Mike Johnson was in Tennessee yesterday. Trump phoned in saying the world is watching what is going on here because they know it's not comfortable. They know they don't have a big lead and they know that losing this one would portend disaster for November of 2026. They know they usually win this one easily. And so they are rattled, they are jittered. Let's dig into the politics of it a little bit. Why is it as simple as Trump? Bad Trump's not helping people, so they're considering voting for a Democrat in the 7th District. Well, there's two things that are going on. Number one, demographic changes in that district, and number two, fatigue with the economic conditions. Cost of living is up. Trump said it would be down. Cost of housing is up. Trump said it would be down. Health care cost is up. Trump said it would be down. These are problems that when you talk to voters in the 7th district of Tennessee, like with many other districts around the country, they go, we don't like this. We don't like what's going on. Meanwhile, the message from the Democrat, Afton Ben, is resonating with people in the district. She says, I feel your frustrations about affordability. I understand the economic stress that this causes. I understand what Washington hasn't delivered and what I need you to send me to Washington to try to deliver for you. So, again, even if the Democrat doesn't win here, if it's a narrow Republican victory and if it's single digits, okay, if, if, if Van Epps wins by single digits, this is a major warning shot. A red district drifting blue for the first time in decades means 2026 could be very dark. Forget about 40 seats that Republicans might lose. We could be talking 60 or 70. This could be a blowout the likes of which we haven't seen in a while. For Trump, for maga, for the Republican Party, this is more than a local race. And so we're going to be watching for those results tonight very closely. And tomorrow, I will tell you what ultimately happens. Caroline Levitt admits to the whole thing. Oopsie. What's a little war crime between friends? This is a reminder of why they are supposed to refuse illegal orders. After denying it, after attacking the media who reported it as fake, after attacking the Washington Post as liars. It turns out that, yes, the Trump administration did order a second strike on survivors in the water off the coast of South America after they had already been bombed into the water. A war crime. They switched overnight from it didn't happen to. It did happen to. Damn right it happened. And it was patriotic and it was legal. Here is Caroline Lovett defending the. By the way, they found Admiral Bradley to try to blame all of this on Admiral Bradley better get himself a lawyer. Here is Caroline Levitt saying, Admiral Bradley did order the second strike of the boat passengers who were in the water after the destruction of the boat. And he had every legal right to do it.
- [11:03]
Caroline Levitt
So that's why you've seen a drastic difference in this administration's policy with respect to the last. And it's one of the many reasons the American public reelected this president and support this secretary of war in conducting these strikes.
- [11:16]
Press Secretary / Reporter
To clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a secondary.
- [11:20]
Caroline Levitt
And he was well within his authority to do so.
- [11:22]
Press Secretary / Reporter
Separate question. The president several days ago said it was his intention.
- [11:26]
David Pakman
Right. He did it, and he did it beautifully, and he did it patriotically. Now, remember that just yesterday, it was. It didn't happen. Remember, this is exhibit A from Donald Trump. No, he didn't do it. And he so strongly didn't do it that I don't even have to think about this.
- [11:52]
Pete Hegseth
I don't know anything about it. He said he did not say that. And I believe the two men.
- [12:03]
Caroline Levitt
Would you be okay with that if he did?
- [12:06]
Pete Hegseth
He said he didn't do it, so I don't have to make that decision.
- [12:09]
David Pakman
He didn't do it. Hegseth didn't do it. Except now we know that Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to do it. Trump Exhibit B from that same interview.
- [12:23]
Pete Hegseth
Killed wounded people even in the first strike. Were you thinking that would be legal? I don't know that that happened. And Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about. So we'll look at. We'll look into it. But no, I wouldn't have wanted a second strike. First strike was very lethal. It was. And if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn't happen.
- [12:48]
Caroline Levitt
Does that make you.
- [12:49]
Pete Hegseth
I am great confident.
- [12:50]
Caroline Levitt
He's saying.
- [12:51]
David Pakman
I have great confidence that I was told the truth. That it didn't happen is the wording that Trump uses. And it turns out it did. Listen, they already got caught lying on this one 48 hours ago. It was. It didn't happen 24 hours ago. It was. It did happen and it was legal and it was awesome. I don't know that I believe this new version of the story either. Now, by the way, we do have video of Pete Hegseth on Fox News saying he watched the entire thing live. So obviously he knew all along that it had happened. They've all been lying to you. How does that.
- [13:22]
Kristi Noem
So the president is sending a message to other cartels, right?
- [13:27]
David Pakman
A very clear one. I can tell you. That was definitely not artificial intelligence. I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing and we knew exactly who they represented. And that was trend Iraqwa, a narco terrorist organization designated by the United States trying to poison our country. Yeah. All along it was clear this was going to be about who falls on the sword. Who do they blame? As it becomes clear that they are committing war crimes, Trump started to position Pete Hegseth to take the blame. Now they figured out maybe it's Admiral Bradley that will do it. It was Admiral Bradley in the cloakroom with the cane who did it. You know, the real clue type stuff. And consider that just days ago they were tweeting stuff like this. Sean Parnell, for example. We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday. These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth. Fake news is the enemy of the people. Turns out the reporting was accurate. It should really make you think twice when they start saying it's fake news. What they might mean is it's real news. That is very, very bad for us. Back to Caroline Levitt. She was asked a clarifying question. Here's how she answered it.
- [14:45]
Caroline Levitt
Thank you, Gabe.
- [14:47]
Press Secretary / Reporter
Caroline. Regarding Venezuela, the President said yesterday that Secretary Hegsett had denied that that second strike, the reported second strike on alleged drug vote on September 2nd. The secretary said to the President that that didn't happen. But to clarify, I just wanted you to clear this up. In his social media post, Secretary Hegseth didn't go into details about that strike. He just said US Operations in the area were lawful and he said that the story and media reports were fabricated. So to be clear, does the administration deny that that second strike happened or did it happen and the administration denied, denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?
- [15:27]
Caroline Levitt
The latter is true. Yabe and I have a statement to read for you here. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question, on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. And I would just add one more point to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place.
- [16:07]
David Pakman
Yeah, ok. Now she's going to go into propaganda about why they're doing this self defense and blah, blah, blah. The only problem with all of this is that Admiral Bradley, they are not arguing Admiral Bradley was insubordinate in ordering this strike. And so by definition, Admiral Bradley was operating under the authority of Pete Hegseth. So Hegseth is implicated in this. And there are, there's a growing list of Republicans and Democrats that are saying this appears to be a war crime and it needs to be investigated. You know, you go back to that video of the Democrats who said, you'd better be prepared to refuse illegal orders. This is why military service members should refuse to follow illegal orders. Because when the shit hits the fan, they are going to do everything they can to blame you. Trump goes, I don't think Hegseth did it. Hegseth goes, well, it was this Admiral Bradley. First Trump said he wouldn't have wanted a second strike, then there wasn't one. And Hegseth definitely didn't order it if there was. And now the White House goes, yeah, ok, the strike happened. Hell yes it did. And it was legal. And it was Admiral Bradley under the authority, of course, of Pete Hegseth. So we are left to ask, does Trump have no control over the military? Are they simply trying to protect Trump? And Hegseth, it stinks more than the surf and turf at Mar a Lago. Now, on the legality, Caroline Levitt was asked about it. You said it was lawful. What law is it that allows you to kill the survivors? And listen to what Caroline says, Jack.
- [17:38]
Caroline Levitt
Thank you, Caroline. Following from Dave's question, you said that the follow up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors? The struck. The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.
- [18:01]
David Pakman
If it was so legal and so cool, why can't they cite the law that allows this? Because we can cite the law that doesn't. And I'm so sorry to have to break the news to Caroline. Bombing survivors of a boat attack off the coast of another continent does not qualify as self defense. You can't just cite self defense and make it so. There are definitions as to what counts as that when a country is taking military action, it's. It was probably not even legal to do the first bombing. It was definitely not legal to bomb the survivors. So the cat is out of the bag. Yes, we did do it. All that fake news reporting, turns out it was true, but it was totally cool and totally legal. What are they going to come up with tomorrow? AI tools are everywhere now, but most people aren't even aware how much AI can help their business and their daily workflow. Our sponsor Outskill is hosting a free two day AI mastermind training this Saturday and Sunday from 10am to 7pm Eastern. You don't need any coding or technical background and over those two days you're going to learn practical skills, how to use AI to automate repetitive tasks or building agents that can handle multistep work, connecting it to sheets or notion or CRMs so the information moves on its own. They are going to give you ready made systems that you can put to use right away. Outskill is rated 4.9 out of 5 on Trustpilot. More than 10 million professionals have taken their programs, learning directly from the experts with experience at Microsoft and Nvidia. The training is normally almost $400. They're offering it free right now to my audience. If you attend both days, you'll also get bonuses worth $1500 including an AI program prompt, Bible, a monetization roadmap and a personalized toolkit. Availability is limited. Grab your free seat using the link in the Description this time of year, people often start thinking about where the country is heading. As we get closer to the New year and with politics as unstable as it is, one of the big areas of concern for me, and I know for many of you, is how there are groups pushing religion into government. This brings me to our sponsor, the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They've been defending the separation of church and state since 1978. December 15th is bill of Rights Day and this is a reminder that Christian nationalism is no longer theoretical. Religious ideology is shaping policy and challenging constitutional protections that are supposed to keep government neutral. FFRF is one of the most important groups that's pushing back. They file lawsuits, they challenge violations, they defend the secular boundaries that affect people directly. And through December 9th they are running their Season of Reason campaign. You get 20% off merchandise when you join. You get a free gift membership to share with someone who cares about secular government, something I care about, visit ffrf.us/shop or text my first name David to 511511 before December 9th, take action. While these offers last, Theocracy doesn't wait. Neither should we. The info is in the description text. Fees may apply. The David Pakman show is an audience supported program. If you like this show, it exists primarily because of your support. There are two primary means to support the work that we do. Number one, get yourself a membership@join pacman.com I want to say a huge thank you to John, Emma and Leonard Smith, our newest members@join pacman.com you can also support by being a Substack Premium member. You can find out about that@substack.david pakman.com and remember that there are dozens of free ways to support our work, not the least of which is liking this video and clicking the subscribe button on YouTube and of course becoming a free subscriber on our newsletter@substack.david pakman.com as well. Caroline Levitt accidentally told the truth at a press briefing. I know it's rare. I know it's uncommon. Well, it was accidental. She meant something very different. And the reactions to this widespread ridicule of Caroline Levitt all over social media. This is one of the funniest, unintentionally true statements she's ever made. She goes, there is so much fake news being pumped out of the White House every day. And of course we all react to that by saying, yes Caroline, and you're pumping out most of it. Take a listen to this room who.
- [23:04]
Caroline Levitt
Do reach out for comment, who try to get things right. And there are some that remain. But overwhelmingly the fake news that we see pumped out of this building on a day to day basis, it's honestly overwhelming to keep up with it all and to constantly have to defend against these fake news and these attacks.
- [23:20]
David Pakman
Yeah. You know, like for example, when the Washington Post wrote that the Trump administration did a second bombing of survivors off the coast of Venezuela, which is a war crime, and then the administration started pumping out all of Thanksgiving weekend. That's a lie. It's fake news. It didn't happen. And then yesterday they go, yeah, it did happen and it's legal and it was awesome. It's just hard to keep up with all of the pumping out of fake news. She actually told the truth. It is overwhelming and difficult to keep up with. Now there is a question as to the broader strategy, if you can even really call it that, of the Trump administration in targeting drug dealers in other countries. And whether that means you go after the president or you don't, one of the things that's really interesting is that on the one hand, Donald Trump has pardoned the former Honduran president for alleged involvement in the drug trade, but says that he is going to try to go after Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela for involvement in the same pardoning, one going after the other. How does that make sense? Caroline Levitt's ready for that. She says it's cherry picking question.
- [24:31]
Press Secretary / Reporter
The president several days ago said it was his intention to pardon the fleet former president of Honduras who was a convicted drug Trafficker. And yesterday on Air Force One the president said that if someone sells drugs in that country, that doesn't mean you arrest the president and put him in jail for the rest of his life. How is that different than what the administration is accusing Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro of?
- [24:55]
Caroline Levitt
You're cherry picking the president's statement a little bit yesterday. As he also said yesterday, the people of Honduras have highlighted to him how the former President Hernandez was set up. This was a clear Biden over prosecution. He was the president of this country. He was in the opposition party. He was opposed to the values of the previous administration and they charged him because he was president of Honduras. There were some other egregious facts that come out, came out during this trial and I would encourage you to report on them. His court appointed lawyer was only given three weeks to prepare for trial. He shared that his conviction was lawfare by the leftist party who quote struck a deal with the Biden Harris administration. Hernandez has highlighted there was virtually no independent evidence presented and many of his conviction was based on testimony from many admitted criminals who hoped that cooperating would reduce their own penalties.
- [25:49]
David Pakman
So yeah, listen, this is a disservice to, to the American people. We all of these topics touch on matters of extraordinary importance. When we talk about war crimes for example, or in this case there is serious international law and legal theory that goes to addressing when can you say that the president of a country is materially involved in, in some criminal activity that is taking place and when can't you? And does looking away, does knowingly looking away count or does simply not knowing make you guilty of some kind of negligence or like. The point is if these were serious people and they had serious people advising them, there would be an interesting and consequential conversation here as to well what, what is the difference between saying the Honduran president was over prosecuted but we're going to go after Maduro for the exact same thing? Ok, well why, what, what are the, what are the facts that you believe are dispositive in adjudicating that sort of conclusion? It's just Caroline lead it reading a prepared statement and that's it. One other thing that I think is relevant to mention part of what is being said as to why Trump pardoned Hernandez is that it was a politically motivated prosecution in which Biden was involved. Well, if that's the case, how is this not politically motivated? That Donald Trump has now set his sights and his ire on Nicolas Maduro for obvious political reasons? Isn't it? Isn't it an example of political motivation? Oh, no, that. Just let me read my talking points off of my piece of paper. Paper. We all have to pretend that this is sort of normal and that these are the sorts of statements that are just clarifying relatively benign matters. But this is really globally disgusting stuff. I mean, Hernandez was indicted by a grand jury, convicted by a jury that heard all evidence and legal defenses, sentenced, but then all of a sudden, Trump goes, no, it was over prosecution and that's it. And politically motivated. But Maduro, that's who we really have to go after. And where I land is for all the talk about restoring, you know, law and order and the rule of law, they don't give a damn about it. All they care about is what's politically advantageous at the time. And unfortunately, it seems to conflict with everything that's happening six months before, six months after. But the Republican Party doesn't care if your voters don't care about consistency. I was talking about this with someone else about, like, when they appear on shows with Republicans, they go, you know, there was an era where pointing out an incredible double standard or a hypocrisy would actually get these Republicans to stop and think and go, you know what? I'm not being consistent. Let me clarify, let me modify, let me adjust. They don't care anymore. They don't care about consistency and the double standards because there's no downside to it. Just say whatever when it's convenient and take the opposite position when it's not. Your voters aren't going to punish it, punish you for it. So why would you care? And the answer is, they don't. Caroline Levitt was confronted about Donald Trump's a brain and his mri. And I have to tell you now, months into this, they still cannot explain what on earth is going on with Donald Trump. Caroline Levitt knew she would be asked about Trump's mri. This is the MRI that first. They told us nothing about. When Trump let it slip that he had an mri, they wouldn't tell us what part of the body was scanned, but Trump told us, it's perfect. It was the best MRI anyone's ever seen. Caroline Levitt delivers the following word salad and although it's 98% drivel, there are some little hints in there about what might be going on. So let's listen to her answer, if.
- [29:57]
Caroline Levitt
You can call it that, Danny, on the mri, because President Trump yesterday said that he would release, release the results of his mri. Is that happening right now? It is happening right now, as part of and this is a summary from the President's physician and we will release it now.
- [30:13]
David Pakman
Consider whether this is actually an MRI summary. Okay.
- [30:15]
Caroline Levitt
Right now, I think my team has it teed up for all of you. I'll read it for you and then you'll get it physically as well. As part of President Trump's comprehensive executive physical, advanced imaging was performed because men in his age group benefit from a thorough evaluation of cardiovascular and abdominal health.
- [30:33]
David Pakman
So right now she's basically saying it was just preventive. It was screening. This is not typically done. This is not first line.
- [30:39]
Caroline Levitt
The purpose of this imaging is preventative, to identify any issues early, confirm overall health and ensure the President maintains long term vitality and function. President Trump's cardiovascular imaging was perfectly normal. No evidence of arterial narrowing, impairing blood flow or abnormalities in the heart or major vessels. The heart chambers are normal in size. The vessel walls appear smooth and healthy, and there are no signs of inflammation or clotting. Overall, his cardiovascular system shows excellent health. His abdominal imaging is also perfectly normal. All major organs appear very healthy and well profused. Every everything evaluated is functioning within normal limits with no acute or chronic concerns. In summary, this level of detailed assessment is standard for an executive physical at President Trump's age and confirms that he remains in excellent overall health. Again, we will provide that to you. I think that's quite a bit of detail. And in the effort of transparency, the President promised it last night and we have delivered today.
- [31:40]
David Pakman
So now if you believe that that is an MRI report, okay? Remember that none of this crap makes any sense. Preventive MRIs that were not even included in the report. Question one, why wasn't it in the report? Number two, MRI is not a first line tool for routine cardiovascular and abdominal screening. Now, there is this thing where wealthy people will sometimes get a full body mri. There's companies that do it. Like, there's one called Pernuvo, and some celebrities get it, but they're not saying that that was what is what was done. They could say that. They could. From the beginning, they just could have said, oh, there's these full body MRIs that people get. Now we got it. And there was just absolutely nothing on it. Trump was perfect. That's all. The fact that they've been so cagey and now they go, well, it was for the cardiovascular system and abdominal. Meanwhile, oftentimes on cardiovascular screening, you would look at the arteries in the neck for calcium, but that's often done by ct. Like, if everything about this doesn't really make any sense. And of Course, what every doctor that writes to me is saying is if you're going to do a full abdominal cardiovascular mri, you would be explaining or at least having some kind of clinical reason why you selected that over what would normally be done. Maybe it's a stress test or. It's very difficult to believe that in an asymptomatic 79 year old, supposedly asymptomatic 79 year old with no concerns you would do this type of mri. It just. None of it makes any sense. It continues to read like propaganda documents. Now, Caroline Levitt then said that the story from the New York Times that claimed Trump is tired and is working a limited schedule. She says that story is fake. Remember that two days ago, they also said the second, the second bombing story was fake. Now they've confirmed it, but she says, no, this one's definitely fake.
- [33:47]
Caroline Levitt
And I will point out one fake news story over the weekend before I let you all go. From the New York Times that took about one third of the president's daily calendar in his daily schedule and said that he's doing less than he did in his first term or he might not be fit for the job. That is is unequivocally false. And it's deeply unfortunate that this story was written by the same outlet and the same reporter who wrote this. Biden is doing 100% fine after tripping while boarding Air Force One. Oh, same outlet, same reporter who wrote that President Trump is not fit for the job. Are you?
- [34:23]
David Pakman
Yeah. I mean, obviously, you know what's deceptive is the article she's holding up. It's. It's relevant to Biden tripping. Like, is his leg okay? Is his foot okay? That's all that article is about, about. Caroline Levitt wants you to believe that it's about something different.
- [34:36]
Caroline Levitt
Kidding me? You all see him almost every single day. He is the most accessible president in history. He is taking meetings around the clock. Another one Biden declared, quote, healthy and vigorous after his first presidential physical.
- [34:49]
David Pakman
Hmm.
- [34:50]
Caroline Levitt
I don't see headlines like that too often about this president. Again, same report.
- [34:54]
David Pakman
I see him all the time in what his doctors put her.
- [34:57]
Caroline Levitt
Same outlet who wrote falsely over the weekend that President Trump is. Is not fit for the job. I can assure you he absolutely is. You all see that with your own eyes on a daily basis. And the president's position has now given you all three detailed reports on the state of the President's house.
- [35:13]
David Pakman
Is everybody happy with that? And by the way, what Caroline Levitt held up and read also was not the assessment of the New York Times, it was just a quote from Karine Jean Pierre, the press secretary at the time. And what's so funny about that is Caroline Levitt wants you to believe that statements like that can't be trusted. Well, she is now in the position of Karine Jean Pierre and she's using almost the exact same language about Donald Trump. If we should have been skeptical then about Biden, then of course we should be skeptical right now as well. I don't even think we need to listen to what Caroline Levitt says. I think we only need to look at Trump and listen to Trump and. And that tells us most of what we need to know. Let me know in the comments. What do you believe the MRI was really about? Make sure you've liked this video. Hit that subscribe button as well. Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're refreshing, framing it so it all sounds a little more palatable. And that is why I use Ground News. This is a news comparison tool, doesn't just feed you headlines. It shows you, here's how different outlets, left, right, center, are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias catch stories that your usual sources might downplay or not cover it all on everything from immigration policy to economic shifts. If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, Ground News is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And Ground News is offering my audience 40% off their top tier vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to Ground News, slash Pacman or enter the code Pacman in the app to to get started. The link is in the description. Every year there's that one person in the family who somehow gives the perfect gift. Our sponsor, Aura, is basically the hack for becoming that person. A couple of years ago, I preloaded an Aura frame for my mom with baby pictures. She loved it. It was one of those gifts that really stole the moment everybody stops what they're doing to look at the photos. It's still there in my mom's living room after all these years. She loves it. You can preload photos onto the frame before gifting it. Even if you have Aura send the frame directly to the recipient, it's easy for everybody. And then you and the recipient can keep adding photos from anywhere using Aura's app. Every frame comes in a premium gift box. It feels like a polished, thoughtful gift, whether you're handing it over in person or having Aura ship it directly and you'll get $45 off the best selling Aura Carver Mat frame. When you go to aura frames.com and use the code PACMAN at checkout, it's Aura's best sale of the year and the link is in the description Speaking of Trump's behavior, you've got to see this. Last night and overnight, Donald Trump went on one of the wildest Truth social tirades that we have ever seen. Hundreds of posts, hundreds of posts. This is not normal behavior for anyone. This is not normal behavior for someone who has nothing to do. This is the guy with the nuclear codes who is president of the United States, spending hours from 7pm to midnight last night, flooding, just flooding his Truth social feed with endless posts. This is. These are all of Trump's posts. Scrolling, scrolling. This entire time. I'm scrolling. Attacking Gavin Newsom, attacking Nancy Pelosi, attacking in Ilhan Omar, attacking Barack Obama. Multiple reposts of the same thing. Who knows what the hell is going on here? It's like 2016 or 2020 all over again. I'm still scrolling. Post after post. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. Well, they. Okay, a couple hundred posts shared. Make Christmas, Christmas great again. Videos shared AI videos of different people shared his cameo in Home Alone 2. And then of course, the conspiracies kick in. Trump starts reposting Alex Jones. He starts praising various radicals, plans for clearing the United States of migrants, and all of this crazy stuff. He calls Mark Kelly, the senator, a traitor. I'm still scrolling, folks. These are Trump's posts from last night. Going and going and going and going and going. I'm still going. It's scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. It also included the typical, you know, the media is stupid sort of stuff. It includes stuff about, oh, soldiers should just know that any order I give is legal, no matter what. He's advocating for the release from prison of Tina Peters, a disgraced election official. And folks, I am still scrolling. I'm still going and going and going. This is still from between 7pm and and midnight. I'm not going to keep going because, I mean, I would just be scrolling endlessly. Couple of notes. Number one, he also did include posts about make sure you vote in Tennessee's 7th district special election today. We talked about that earlier. Trump is panicked about that. Trump knows if Democrats win a district that he won by 22 just a year ago, it is a very, very bad sign for Republicans next year. He also added some strange messages like Truth Social is the best. There is nothing even close. So rounding out a completely Looney Tunes cocoa for Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Cocoa for Cuckoo Puffs probably better said performance overnight. Now let's step back for a second stable genius binge. Posting conspiracy theories until midnight and then bragging about your social network before 6am is not stable genius. It's not a campaign strategy. It's not political messaging. It is merely a meltdown. When a president spends his nights spiraling online like a new inductee into Q Anon who has just gotten a wi Fi connection for the first time, we have a problem. The leader of the United States raging at imaginary enemies, praising felons, pushing AI hoaxes, mainlining right wing propaganda right into his brain at warp speed. And Republicans are silent. I don't think Republicans think this is fine. I think they're just terrified of them. I think they realize, man, 200 posts and none were about me. I should shut my mouth and hope Trump doesn't notice me. The presidency has become a guy losing a Facebook argument with his friends and relatives. That's, that's, that's the presidency at this point in time. And he is getting worse and worse and worse. Now let me give you a sort of devil's advocate, different perspective on this. There are those who say that the more Trump is posting to the Internet, the less he is doing as president, all of which would be bad. So for every time Trump posts about Truth Social to Truth Social, that is a minute that he didn't spend doing some authoritarian, horrible thing. I am increasingly skeptical of that perspective during Trump's first term where there was a lot of posting and golfing and just kind of doing nothing. Maybe that was a more viable and prescient argument. But there are so many people around Donald Trump right now, and especially in Donald Trump's diminished capacity. We know that it's, you know, it's Stephen Miller, it's Bannon, by the way. We're going to talk about Bannon later this week. It is those people who are increasingly making decisions. And so right now, Trump posting doesn't mean authoritarian stuff isn't happening because other people are doing it. And so this is utterly terrifying. And just be honest with you. Allow yourself to be honest. If Biden posted 160 times overnight, would anybody be looking away the way that Republicans are currently looking away as Donald Trump does it? Not only would Republicans be losing their minds, I think Democrats would also be saying, this is erratic behavior, this isn't normal, this has to be stopped. This is globally embarrassing, but it's Trump. So they just look away. Let's look at what I believe is one of the clearest admissions yet, that the immigration promises of extreme vetting that this administration has promised have always been a complete and total joke. Listen to this one. The Secretary of Homeland Security is Kristi Noem. I know that in and of itself is funny and terrifying, but that's not the punchline here. The Trump administration, through Kristi Noem, has announced that they are going to start extreme vetting of people coming into this country. Now, you might say to yourself, wait a second, David. They said that they were doing extreme vetting during Donald Trump's first term. They said that they restarted the extreme vetting in January when Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term. But here is Kristi Noem telling us we are really going to start doing extreme vetting. So you're acknowledging you were never doing it, Christie. Now, the context here is that after the National Guard Thanksgiving shooter was identified as someone who was given asylum status by the Trump administration in April, initially Kristi Noem said, well, the vetting had been done by the Biden administration, or better said it hadn't been done. So they're really responsible. Right. But you approved it. The Trump administration approved it. If you are so skeptical of Biden's vetting, why didn't you do your own vetting? Why did you just accept Biden's vetting? Their new thing is, listen, now we're really going to start the extreme vetting. Got it. So you weren't doing it all along?
- [45:41]
Kristi Noem
Yeah. Well, Greta, you asked how many people came in. We think up to 100,000 people. People came in under Operation Allies welcome that may be here, that we don't know necessarily who they are or why they came to this country, if they came here truly maybe for asylum, or if they were someone who had nefarious ideas on how to attack Americans or to undermine our way of life. What I would say on the vetting process is that has to happen before they ever come here. They have to be vetted before we allow them to get on a plane and come to the United States of America so that we know know what their intentions are and who they are. And in order for us to do that, I know from the Department of Homeland Security standpoint, we have to have another government and another country that cooperates with us, that shares information with us, that will help us check dates of service and collect biometric information and data. That wasn't done by Joe Biden, it wasn't done by his administration. They, they did a vetting process but it wasn't thorough. They didn't to want look at.
- [46:37]
David Pakman
So that's very exciting. And then Kristi Noem also tweeting out. The Biden administration let in 100,000 Afghan nationals into our country during Operation Allies welcome, many of them military aged men with zero front end vetting. Under Trump, DHS is overhauling the vetting process for aliens. We are requiring the country of origin to cross reference biometric data and criminal history, expanding our vetting to include social media screening and directing individuals to check in every year. There's a little problem with all of this and I know you guys know what it is. They said they were doing this all along. They said they did it during Trump's first term. They said they've been doing it now. We're finally vetting people again now that Trump's president again. But now we are told, oh, Trump's going to overhaul the vetting process and they're going to expand it and do all of these new things. Isn't that what you were doing before? Or if not, what the hell were you doing before? Trump bragged about it constantly. We're vetting people and Kristi Noem just admitted Trump never really did it. They never really had extreme vetting in place. It was all talk. And this is really sort of the danger of surrounding yourself with people whose job is to worship you, eventually they get sloppy and they tell the truth. And now in an effort to show that DHS is serious and we're finally going to start, we're really going to make sure that this doesn't happen again. We're going to start doing extreme vetting. We all realize. So you've been lying about the extreme vetting all along. Now the truth is that Trump's immigration agenda has really just been a marketing campaign. It's it. He's done barely anything. It's the promise and that's all that really matters. As long as I say I'm going to do it. But the policies don't really matter. And we should also mention another lie by, I mean, listen, I don't know how many people care about the details. I tend to. Biden's Operation Allies welcome initiative did involve vetting. We brought Afghans who put their lives on the line helping American troops to the United States. And at the time, Republicans cheered it. Republicans said this makes sense. And now they pretend that these are dangerous military aged men as it should have been obvious to us that these people were going to go cuckoo. It appears as though this particular individual was radicalized, radicalized here in the United States. And remember that it was the Trump administration that approved his asylum claim. So great news guys. The extreme vetting is finally going to start as year six of Trump's presidency is about to begin. It just so happens they told us this started six years ago. You've probably heard me mention AG1 before. It's part of my morning routine. Just gives my nutrition a daily boost. The team behind AG1 has now created a nighttime option. It's called Ag Z. It's just a drink designed to help you unwind before bed and get better rest on the nights that you need it. AGZ is non habit forming. It's a blend of herbs, adaptogens and minerals. No melatonin. Each serving provides 250mg of highly bioavailable magnesium. That's over half of your daily value along with other carefully selected ingredients. The idea here is support, relaxation, improve sleep quality. Very simple concept. Just like AG1 helps you get more out of your day, AGZ can help you get more out of your night. If you want a tool you can reach for when you want to calm your body and your mind, recharge and wake up. Ready? This could be it. Go to drink ag1.com/pacman Get a free frother with your first purchase of AGZ. The link is in the description. An absolutely bloodthirsty Megyn Kelly delivered what I think is one of the sickest rants I have ever seen. And I want to look at this on two fronts. Number one, what exactly are Megyn Kelly's ethics and morals? But number two, do we just not give a damn about the law anymore? Do we not give a damn about due process? Do we not give a damn about the Geneva Convention or the Constitution? Do we? Do these people care about anything that the law says? So let me set this up. We're going to listen to the clip and then I'll give you my thoughts about it. Megyn Kelly weighed in on her podcast about the recent alleged war crimes in which after an initial bombing was done of a boat off the coast of central South America, survivors were in the water and there was a second bombing done. The White House initially denied it they have now acknowledged that this took place. This appears to be a war crime. Now, a couple of people wrote to me and they said, david, why are you saying it appears to be. Why are you just saying it is a war crime? Well, I think it's always important to say, based on the information we have, it appears to be that way. It hasn't been adjudicated as such. It might never be. That's one of the problems we have. But it, by all, by all measures, it appears that it was indeed a war crime. Megyn Kelly says, hey, you know what? Not only do I want them killed in the water, I want them to suffer. I want them to bleed out for a while and then die. I want you to listen to the bloodthirsty nature of this, but importantly, ask yourself, what does the law say about any of this stuff?
- [52:08]
Megyn Kelly
So I really do kind of not only want to see them killed in the water, whether they're on the boat or in the water, but I'd really like to see them suffer. I would like Trump and Hegseth to make it last a long time so that they lose a limb and bleed out a little. Like, I'm really having a difficult time ginning up sympathy for these guys who 10 seconds earlier almost got taken out by the initial bomb, but because they managed to get ejected, you know, a little too soon, had to be taken out in the water. I realize legally it may make a difference, but truly, Mark, this is a tough case to really gin up the sympathies of the American people.
- [52:46]
David Pakman
Now, that is a Christian. I know, I know it might, you might not have been able to notice, but that is a Christian. And I don't exactly know which part of the New Testament that ideology is espoused by, by, by Jesus and. Or by whoever wrote the New Testament, but that is, that is a Christian. Now, importantly, Megyn Kelly isn't talking about terrorists attacking Americans or terrorists attacking the United States or terrorists attacking troops abroad or enemy combatants. She's not talking about battlefield combat of any time. Megyn Kelly is talking about suspected drug smugglers in a non international armed conflict that the US has basically invented. Alleged narco traffickers on a boat in international waters. People who, according to reporting from the BBC and from congressional sources, were wounded and trying to survive in the water. After a strike, they were hit again, which is a war crime. And her reaction is make them suffer. Make it last. Could we find a way to make them lose a limb and sit there in the water as the limb bleeds out and then they die. Why not for convicted drug smuggling, which, by the way, already would be cruel and unusual punishment, but for alleged drug smuggling? And even the allegations in some cases seem a little bit shaky. Megyn Kelly is comfortable. She's a lawyer. She's comfortable calling for illegal extrajudicial killings, which are obviously anti American in a generic sense. They are unconstitutional. They're forbidden under the laws, the laws of armed conflict. They contravene the Geneva Convention. And we are talking about war crimes. Do we care about that? People like Megyn Kelly used to claim that they did. They used to say, we are constitutional conservatives. Even in war, we have rules. If someone is wounded and out of the fight, you detain them and you provide care, or at minimum, you don't kill them while they're helpless in the water, treading water, you do not fantasize about torturing them. Or if you do, you certainly don't act on it. You know, she says, I don't have sympathy for these people. Sympathy is irrelevant. Let me give you an analogy. And I remember the jury instructions when I was a juror. A juror in a trial, the judge will often tell members of the jury as it's time to deliberate. You have your jury instructions. You have your definitions of the relevant laws and statutes. Any sympathy you have for any party should play no role one way or the other. What I mean by that is, as jurors, we were told you are here to apply the law to the facts as they have been entered into evidence. You shouldn't consider your feelings about any of the parties involved. You shouldn't consider what the punishment might be. The punishment will be determined by the judge later. You were simply to decide guilty or not guilty by applying the law to the facts. The foundation of American law is the government doesn't have the right to torture and murder people outside of due process just because it feels righteous or because you lack sympathy for the people that are being tortured. Megyn Kelly wants you to believe that because she doesn't feel sympathy for these people based on being, at the end of the day, alleged drug traffickers, that vengeance and torture, removing a limb and allowing to bleed out, that is somehow justice. And that the cruelty of it projects some kind of strength. And that if we're angry enough or if we lack sympathy for people, the laws become optional. And so it's almost like a conservative idea to apply. Do we care about the law or don't we? Now, Megyn Kelly on this total jumping of the shark that she's been on for the last six months, she has made a choice. She wants a country whose military is driven by bloodlust, not by the law, not by domestic law, not by the Constitution, not by international law. This is another example, by the way. Megyn Kelly is a woman. But this. And later in the week, we're going to do a segment on the perversion of what it means to be alpha, an alpha male, and how the people now in charge want you to think that they're alpha males, but by their own standards, they're extraordinarily beta. I apologize. Not language I use, but I'm kind of using, using their language. This is another example of not, not masculinity, because Megyn Kelly is not a man. But it's another example of what counts as strength in the current delusional and deranged MAGA movement. Strength could mean we foster a community of respect and raise others up and work with allies to improve conditions because we are the strong and wealthy United States and we can make not only our country better, but help improve other countries so that people don't end up trafficking drugs to our country and really show that we have strength to spare. Strength in this kind of perverted scenario means we don't sympathize with alleged drug traffickers and we want to see them bleed. Look at how strong I am. Look at how tough I am. And it's all supposedly in the name of national security, but it fails to actually make us any safer. All right, this is bad even for the Trump people. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who admitted that she killed her own dog, is now out there sounding like she's having a full blown meltdown. So let's put up the screenshot. Here's what Kristi Noem tweeted out. Quote, I just met with the President. I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches and entitlement junkies. Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and unyielding love of freedom. Not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to Americans. We don't want them. Not one. Kristi Noem is proposing a travel ban on every damn country. It's unconstitutional. It's physically impossible. The United States relies on immigration for the labor force, for innovation, for the economy. A zero entry policy would cripple this country within weeks. And they don't care. It would also, by the way, they also don't care about the law. It would also violate multiple US laws, international agreements, and basic reality. You can't trap 340 million Americans inside the borders of the United States and tell the rest of the world, no visiting, no business, no trade, no tourism. It would be a siege from within. One of the dumbest ideas I've heard. Listen to the words she uses, the dehumanizing language. Killers and leeches and entitlement junkies. This is straight out of the authoritarian playbook of dehumanization. When you describe an entire population as parasites, you're not talking about policy anymore. You're talking about ethnic cleansing as a vibe. And also, by the way, our forefathers were the foreign invaders. They didn't apply for a visa before wiping out indigenous people. And the historical ignorance might be a little bit funny if it weren't the foundation foundation of an extraordinarily dangerous agenda. Now, the Supreme Court barely upheld Trump's much narrower Muslim country travel ban, so I don't think that this has any shot in the Supreme Court. This goes a lot further. And the minute someone would try to implement such a total ban, lawsuits would be flying. It would bury it. I assume before the ink even dries, economists would be screaming and Republicans who understand business would be saying, this will end the country. This is what happens when you give power to people who not only have no understanding of how the country works, but also don't really give a damn and just want a virtue signal to the worst authoritarian instincts that they have. So we might say Kristi Noem proposed a plan. She's proposing the end of the United States of America as a functioning country. Understand that a lot of the, quote, ideas that these Republicans put forward, if they were able to do it, would mean the end of the United States of America as a functioning country. I think to some degree they know they would never get away with this crap and therefore they don't really have to worry about the legality. Now on the bonus show today, we are going to talk about who will be the next Fed chair. We will talk about a new secularist law in Quebec and we will also talk about whether James Comey is going to get indicted again. Supposedly that could happen within the next week. Where will it land? What will happen? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Listen folks, we have so many free ways you can support the work that we do. Subscribe on YouTube. Costs nothing. Get on my substack newsletter. It's free. Leave a Comment Like a video Share a video we also depend directly on your support as we are getting ready to go into the next midterm season through membership and Substack Premium subscriptions. So if you've got just a few bucks to spare, consider going to join Pacman Dotcom to get yourself a membership or substack.david pakman.com to get yourself a Substack Premium subscription. There is no phantom source of money here. It's your dollars that keep the show going. I want the show to be bigger than ever in 2026. I want you to be a part of it. I'll see you on the bonus show. And of course, I'll have a new show for you tomorrow.