← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
9/25/25: Trump DOJ will indict Comey as Kirk shooting theory goes viral
01:00:14
-- On the Show: -- A viral video by RangeDayBro presents supposed evidence that Charlie Kirk is shot from behind, contradicting the official account naming Tyler Robinson -- Donald Trump directs his Justice Department to pursue an indictment of...
Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:08]
A
Today, I want to start with a new viral video making absolutely bombshell claims about the killing of Charlie Kirk. The video is by a YouTube channel called Range Day. Bro. This is like a gun enthusiast of some kind. The video is called Kirk Assassination. New video evidence changes everything. And this video has quickly amassed millions of views. As of this moment, nearly 6 million views. Now, this was not something I necessarily planned to cover, but dozens of you have asked me about the video. You've looked at it, and many of you have said, david, I can't really find any holes in what this guy is saying. And unlike other challenges to the official story, I think it's at least worth covering. Now, I'm going to be honest up front. There are claims in this video that I cannot definitively refute. But it's really important as we look at these things to ask ourselves, can I definitively refute this versus is this proof of what the person in the video is alleging? And those are two very different things. Sometimes we end up, you know, in religion, we call it the God of the gap. Sometimes we come up with something we can't yet explain, and there is a group of people that say, oh, I've got the answer. The answer is God or an intelligent designer. And of course, just because we don't have an answer to something doesn't mean that the answer has to be whatever the next person proposes. So I want to go through it. There is one primary claim here and then a subsequent one that I'm going to look at. Now, I want to also, I want to do this with care. I don't want to show live action video of Charlie Kirk getting shot or the gory parts of the shooting video. So let's give it a shot and kind of see where we can get to. Now, the official story, of course, is that Charlie Kirk was shot by Tyler Robinson, who was positioned. If you're looking out, sitting the way Charlie Kirk was, Tyler Robinson was positioned across and slightly to Kirk's left on a rooftop. So we've got an image from the Guardian here which shows where Charlie Kirk was sitting. That's the bottom left of the image. And where the shooter was on a rooftop across the quad slightly to the left as Kirk as he looked out at the crowd. So, like, if you were in the crowd looking at Charlie, this would have been over your right shoulder, but Charlie Kirk was of course, facing out. It would have been ahead and slightly to Charlie Kirk's left. Now, that diagram that coincides perfectly with, with the location of this horrible gory Blood spurt of Charlie Kirk's from a bullet that was on the left side of Kirk's neck. Right. In other words, if the shooter is ahead of me, to my left and shoots at me, it makes sense that that would hit the left side of my neck. I'm kind of reenacting the angle here. However, what this new video argues is that this penetration is in the front of Charlie's neck, on the left, was not actually where he was shot. What this video is arguing is that that in fact was the exit wound. And the claim is the bullet entered the back right of Charlie Kirk's head, exited out through the front left of his neck. Now, that would be a completely different scenario than the official story. And in the video, and we're going to look at, it's really frames of this. At this point in time in the video range, Daybreaux slows it down, zooms in, and identifies what appears to be an artifact. He says it's the bullet entering, hitting Charlie Kirk in the back right of the head. So as I play this, you will see that there is a moment where the red circle is drawn around something to the back right of Charlie Kirk's head. Head. And the argument is that is the bullet entering. And if you continue moving the video forward, you ultimately see in the bottom right of the screen, it's sort of covered by these YouTube elements. You see a. Let me see if I can even show you this more accurately. There it is. You see the. What. What we thought was the entry wound of the bullet coming from Tyler Robinson range. Daybrough argues that that is actually the exit wound. Now, first and foremost, does this contradict the official story? Yes, it does. For the bullet to exit from the left front, it has to come from the back right of the head, which would contradict the location of Tyler Robinson on the roof across the way. Now, you all know that I look for the differential diagnosis. I'm going to play devil's advocate, and there are a bunch of different questions here. Could it be that the artifact behind Charlie Kirk's head in the video is not really the bullet? Well, yeah, I think. I think that is possible. And I'm going to suggest to you in a moment that that may actually be the explanation. Could it have been a ricochet? Could it have been an unexplained but unrelated artifact in the video? All of these are possibilities, for sure. However, I did find another video. This is a video from a YouTube channel that is called Lifting the Veil. It has only a thousand subscribers. Okay. And in this video, what you see is that indeed, that artifact by Charlie Kirk's right ear, which Range Daybreak claims is the entry of the bullet, looks like something completely different. And this is very slowed down. And you will see, there it is. In these two frames, you see that whatever that thing is by Charlie's right ear sort of goes up and away. I believe that whatever that is is what Range Daybre is claiming to be. Claiming to be the entry of the bullet. Okay. I believe that this in the red circle that we're looking at in the Range Daybreak video is the exact same thing, this vertical white line that you see in this video. And I hate to sort of be gruesome, but you also see in this video that the bullet appears. I'm not going to play it a bunch of times. You can kind of. It's just starting to get gruesome, but you can go and look, and you will actually see what appears to be the bullet entering from the front, as is the official story, and then sort of lodging itself seemingly in the back of Charlie Kirk's neck. So from this angle, it seems to contradict what Range Daybreaux is arguing. I don't know if that thing we see flying off of Charlie Kirk's right ear is an earpiece. I don't know if he wore an earpiece during this event. These events. I don't know what it is. But when we analyze something like this, we have to ask ourselves, okay, what was the official story? What is the assertion that someone else is making? In this case, it's Range Daybro. And is there another interpretation? Range Daybreak presents this as if there is no question. The artifact behind Charlie Kirk's right ear is the entry point of the bullet. The neck wound we ultimately see is actually the exit wound. We at least have one other video which would suggest. No, that's not what it is. That artifact is. You know, I don't know if it's shirt fibers. I don't know what it is. But I am telling you that I can't definitively say what Range Daybreak is saying. Makes ultimate sense to me. So this is now for you to investigate and for others to kind of think about. Now, I want to talk about one other thing related to this video. Later in the video, Range Daybreau points to something that others have mentioned, which is that if for a second, we were to. To. To imagine that rather than being shot from the front across the quad by Tyler Robinson, that this bullet did come from behind or sort of to the right at a backwards 45 degree angle from Charlie Kirk, there are people who have pointed to what appears to be a plant. It's sort of in the. At the top, middle of Range Daybreak's video here. And there are individuals who have said, that is not a plant. That is a person sort of dressed like a plant. It reminds me of the San Francisco Bush Man. This is a guy who used to dress like, or maybe still does, dressed like a plant on the Embarcadero in San Francisco, the Fisherman's Wharf area. And people would walk by and the plant would jump up and would scare people and it would lead to viral videos. The idea, I think, from some is that this is actually a person disguised as a plant. And Range Daybreaux actually goes further and suggests that you can sort of see the outline of someone holding a long barrel rifle with a scope. I do not have any reason to think that that's what this is. And again, something being blurry and being unable to say exactly what that is can't immediately suggest to us that it is a hidden shooter. And I'll be honest, even though there is this general idea that if Kirk were shot from behind, this is roughly where the person would be, I don't even really know that the angle adds up. Now, am I convinced of any of this? No, I'm not. But what I am doing is dozens of you wrote in and said, what's your thought about this? It seems so open and shut. I don't know that it does. And the questions that I have are, number one, that we see this artifact kind of fly off and away from Charlie Kirk's ear in other videos. And it certainly does not look like a bullet entry wound. And in fact, from this video, from behind, you see that there is no entry wound on the back of Charlie Kirk said it would. It would seem to debunk Range Daybreaux claim. Although I'm open to having my mind kind of changed here. And then with regard to, you know, the plant person, I just think it's not dispositive one way or the other. I mean, look at the plant behind me. And just because of the lens that I use, which has an F stop of 2.8, that plant, which is just a little bit behind me, is blurry. Here we are talking about a plant that is hundreds of feet away and completely out of focus. I could, you know, even the plant behind me could hide things or look different at the level of blur that it is. But just because you say, David, I think you've hidden a Game Boy in there. I don't think that we could definitively say that one way or the other. So that's my view about this viral video from Range Day bro. I think that much like with the claims from Nathan Taylor and the Election Truth alliance, the first step is always understanding what are the claims. The second step is verifying whether we agree as to what the evidence or exhibits are. And then only then can we go to the third step of saying is this the obvious and only way to interpret this evidence in the context of the claim. With the Range Daybreaux claims, I I certainly don't find myself convinced and I think the primary issues are different Angle shows no entry wound in the back of Charlie Kirk's head. I don't even know for sure. I want to say one other thing. I think just here very quickly. I don't even know for sure that if the bullet did enter where Range Daybre is arguing that it would exit where we saw the neck wound. I don't even know that that's actually the right physics and angle of it. So that's where I'm on it. I want to hear from you. Leave a comment if you like this sort of, you know, we've done the Election Truth Analysis investigation earlier this week. Now we're looking at the claims about Charlie Kirk. If you like this sort of analysis of I don't want to call them conspiracy theories, let's call them alternatives to the official stories that we're getting. Leave a comment like the video, Let me know info at David Pakman Dotcom if you deal with PDFs a lot, you know that they can be a huge pain. Contracts, e books, research papers and forms. Editing them in Adobe Acrobat just isn't efficient. It's complicated. It can be expensive. And this is why millions of people are switching to updf. This is the next generation AI powered PDF editor. One lifetime plan covers every device Windows, Mac, iPhone, iPad, Android. You can work anywhere seamlessly with upf. Editing PDF files feels just like a word processor. Change text, images, fonts, layouts right inside the PDF's conversion is flawless. Send the PDF to Word, Excel, PowerPoint without wrecking the formatting. If you're scanning something updated, smart OCR makes it instantly searchable and edit editable in over 38 languages. And where UPDF really leaves Adobe Acrobat behind is the built in AI. You can summarize, translate, create mind maps, chat with the documents. All powered by GPT5. And all of this is part of the lifetime plan that Costs less than two months of Acrobat simple, affordable and and smarter. Try UPDF for free at David pakman.com/ungraded PDF. The link is in the description. You know I'll often talk to my friends about what do we really think is private on our computers and on our phones. And many people believe that their emails are genuinely private. And it turns out that that a lot of the email services are looking at your emails and can look at your emails even after you have deleted them. Which is why I recommend our sponsor Start Mail, a trusted name in secure email for more than a decade. Start Mail is based in the Netherlands. Netherlands is known for very strong data protection laws. Your emails won't be scanned, your emails won't be tracked. Start Mail will block those invasive tracking pixels so you won't be monitored by companies and by hackers. And when you delete an email in Start Mail, it is gone for good. Your data stays private. They are all in on this. With a ton of features including aliases to keep you anonymous, strong encryption with your emails, it is super easy to move to Start Mail. It's a few clicks. Migrate your emails, migrate your contacts, you really can't go wrong. Try Start Mail for yourself completely free for seven days at start mail.com/pacman, which will also give you 50% off your first year. The link is in the description. The David Pakman show continues to be funded primarily by our audience as an independent progressive media show. I invite you to sign up@join pacman.com and instantly get access to the daily bonus show, the commercial free audio and video feed of the show and so many other things that we offer our members. Also, you can support us by being a paid substack subscriber@substack. David pakman.com each has its own benefits. These are separate options to support the work that we do. And then next week on the 30th, the last day of the month, we are doing our biggest single day membership discount in in years. It will mark three years, three months, three weeks until the end of Donald Trump's term. And we will be doing a 333 based membership special. We want it to be the most successful single day of membership signups that we've ever done. If you'd like to be notified when that special goes live, all you need to do is get on my free newsletter. It costs nothing. And on the 30th you'll be notified about what we're up to and how to take advantage of advantage of it. You can go to Substack Dot David Pakman Dotcom to sign up. Donald Trump's favorite boogeyman during his campaign was an imaginary Biden controlled Department of justice, which was turned into a political weapon and wielded against Donald Trump and maga. Trump said Biden is weaponizing the doj. He is puppeteering investigations and indictments that are politically motivated against Trump and others associated with him. And Trump was warning they're going to do show trials. You've got federal prosecutors on strings that Biden is controlling and the Justice Department is going after anybody, MAGA and blah, blah, blah. But now that Donald Trump is again holding the levers of power, it's not Biden doing those things. In fact, Biden never was. It's Donald Trump. The new target is former FBI Director James Comey. And, and we have learned that as soon as this afternoon. It may have already happened by the time you listened to today's show or watch this video. James Comey is going to be indicted by Pam Bondi, Donald Trump's sycophantic loyalist, brown nosing, pathetic Attorney General. Now, before we get into the details of this, I just want to remind you, when the Justice Department was investigating Joe Biden's son, Biden got out of the way. He got out of the way and he allowed that to continue. And he didn't interfere, do you think? Actually our friend Adam Mockler said it well last night on cnn. Do you think Pam Bondi would ever be allowed to investigate Don Jr. And of course, Trump's claims that Biden was weaponizing the DOJ were just an admission that Trump's plan is to weaponize the doj. So the target is now James Comey. The multiple reports indicate that the Justice Department will be seeking an indictment of Comey in the Eastern District of Virginia over allegations of lying to Congress. Now, we are days from the expiration of the statute of limitations on that. This allegedly took place on September 30, 2020. There's a five year statute of limitations. So as of today, we are five days from the expiring of that statute of limitations. The exact lies that Comey told on that day, per the doj, we are not aware of at this point in time. The natural question if he's going to be indicted for lying during his September 30, 2020 testimony would be what lies did he tell? I don't have the answer at this point. Now, once again, by the time you listen to this episode, we may know the answer to that. The, the indictment may be out and it might actually include the statements made by Comey that are alleged to be lies. Maria Bartiromo on the Comey allegations. This might not surprise you. She believes that this is the biggest scandal anyone has ever seen. I thought the biggest scandal was Obamagate, which I still don't understand. But okay, take a listen.
- [19:17]
B
Here's Even if you poll Democrats today.
- [19:19]
A
They will tell you 30% of them will say that they believe that Trump.
- [19:22]
B
Conspired with Russia in the 2020 election. It's completely and absolutely false.
- [19:27]
A
It's just extraordinary, Congressman. Truly extraordinary. I mean, this is the biggest scandal that anyone has ever seen, followed by the Joe Biden mental capacity scandal and the auto pen use. But right. The two biggest scandals now are Comey lying to the DOJ in September of 2020, even though we still don't know what the lies are. And also the auto pen. Those are the big. Well, at least it's supplanted Obamagate, if nothing else. Now, the difference between Trump and Biden on this issue really couldn't be clearer. Biden never ordered anyone to indict Trump. In fact, he said, I'm staying out of it. Biden never ordered anyone to stop investigating his son Hunter. He allowed it to go on. The indictments of Trump came from independent grand juries, career prosecutors. Because Trump committed crimes, he was convicted of those crimes. In Trump's case, you have the president directly replacing prosecutors with loyalists, Rinse, repeat, until he gets the outcome that he wants. And earlier this week, Donald Trump was able to engineer the ouster of Eric Siebert, the US Attorney in Virginia, who is looking at this whole Comey thing and going, charging Comey. What are you talking about? And instead, Trump installed Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney, no criminal track record, to take over. And now all of a sudden, we are hearing that under Pam Bondi's doj, Comey is getting indicted. This is revenge politics. If your argument is we need the rule of law, we need due process, we need to go back to the constitutional way of doing business, this is not it. And don't forget that this really goes back to 2017 because Trump fired Comey back then for refusing to pledge personal loyalty. Comey wouldn't bend the knee. And good for him. Remember, Comey is a Republican and, and Trump had him fired. And now it's eight years later. Hard to believe it's been this long. And Donald Trump is circling back to settle the score. So if you think, oh, well, we're going to see justice served now, we're going to see an example made out of a guy who wasn't willing to do Trump's bidding. And the most chilling part, and you know how Trump goes, oh, if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone. They do do it to anyone. If Trump can dig up shaky allegations from five years ago to charge the FBI director who crossed him and dared to say, I'm not going to do your bidding, what message does that send to every single career DOJ and law enforcement official? It tells them, you'd better toe the line or you could be next. You could go from the inner circle to being prosecuted. And it completely just corrodes the independence of the justice system. And that's another theme of this administration. Jerome Powell and the Fed, supposed to be independent, supposed to be immune from political pressure. They're not even supposed to receive political pressure. And Trump's been just hammering on him since he got into office. You got to lower rates, you got to lower rates. You got to lower rates. Jerome Powell finally does a 25 basis point cut. Trump says it's not enough. He's too late. It's too late. Jerome Powell. And once again, here we have the same sort of situation where the DoJ is supposed to be independent, it's not supposed to be political, and this is where we find ourselves. Now, I want, obviously, I want to evaluate what are the lies Comey supposedly told. Surface level, the case looks very weak. And the reason that Comey wasn't already indicted is because prosecutors were warning internally, we don't really have evidence here. Like, there's just no way in hell we could get a conviction. Conviction. But the important thing to remember is that when the full force of the federal government's prosecution apparatus comes after you, just being indicted can be enough to ruin your life, ruin your career and ruin you financially. So you don't need. We look at it and we go, oh, it's a weird decision to charge Comey because there isn't really evidence here for a conviction. Doesn't matter. The whole point here is just make Comey's life miserable. I don't believe if they're able to get away with this, I don't believe this will be the last one. And what it really is is a declaration that in Donald Trump's America, and we knew this, the prism is loyalty. The law doesn't matter so much. Being right doesn't matter so much. Doing, doing what's morally or ethically, ethically correct doesn't really matter. Personal enemies override institutional norms. Of any kind. Prosecutors are merely tools of the presidency, pawns for Trump to push around his personal chessboard. And the bitter irony here is that Trump campaigned on, we will end the weaponization of the DOJ that Joe Biden did. The truth is, there was no such weaponization until now. And Donald Trump is now doing exactly what he warned us Joe Biden was going to do. All right, this next one is brutal for Democrats, just absolutely brutal. According to the latest Reuters Ipsos poll, Americans don't love Trump. We know that. But when you dig in issue by issue and look at 11 different issues, Republicans are more trusted than Democrats on roughly two thirds of issues. That is a disaster. And when you look at the details, it only gets worse. So Donald Trump's overall approval rating is just 41%. We know his approval rating is a disaster. But you look on specific issues, Democrats are less trusted than Republicans. On just about everyone. And even the ones on which Democrats are more trusted, the margins are pathetic. Let's go down the list. Crime. Republicans are twice as trusted as Democrats, 40 over 20. On immigration, Republicans are nearly twice as trusted as Democrats, 40 over 22. On foreign conflicts, Americans trust Republicans more. On the American economy, Republicans are trusted more than Democrats. On gun control, it's close to split. But Republicans are more trusted. On political extremism, Democrats are less trusted than Republicans. On respect for democracy, just barely, Democrats eke it out. How do we have a world in which Donald Trump tried to steal an election he lost and incited an insurrection to try to prevent Joe Biden from becoming president? And by only a 2 point margin, Democrats are more trusted. Is this a failure of education? Is this a failure of messaging? Is this a failure of the media? Is. Is this a failure of intelligence? The answer is yes. Yes to all of the above. On corruption, Republicans are slightly more trusted. And then on health care, women's rights, in the environment, Americans do trust Democrats more, but not by a big margin. I mean, look at, look at health care, where Republicans in 2017 tried to pass a bill which, if passed, would have led to tens of millions of Americans losing health care. And Democrats passed Obamacare, which is by no means perfect, but it was at least an improvement. And Democrats want to make sure everybody's covered. And only by nine points do Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans. On that issue, women's rights, Democrats only win 38 to 25. I mean, it's just unconscionable stuff. So why is this? What's going on? Obviously, many of these numbers make no sense. Republicans tanked the economy with tariffs, blew up the deficit with taxes, tax cuts for the rich. During Donald Trump's first term, they have no real plan for cost of living, no real plan on housing, and yet they are still more trusted. The answer is that perception is reality. We learned that big time during Donald Trump's first term. We learned that big time during Joe Biden's presidency and his initial attempt at reelection, and subsequently Kamala Harris's. Even if you show people the facts, inflation's down, stock market's up, job creation is doing well, we've gotten out of the COVID recession, so on and so forth, things are pretty good. If people don't feel that and believe it, it doesn't matter, because perception is reality. And right now, the perception for voters is that Republicans are stronger on seven of these 11 issues. Now, this is not a new problem for Democrats. And this gets to the exact issue that I've been talking about with elected officials for a long time. In 2010, after the financial crisis, Republicans were able to ride this wave of anger into Congress by branding themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, even though they were the ones that created the crisis. They cheered on the mortgage deregulation that precipitated to a great degree the 2008 financial crisis. And then they came in and said, this is so terrible. Democrats are so bad. We're going to fix all of it. Vote for us. We've got this thing called the Tea Party. And they rode that wave to victory in 2010. In 2016, Donald Trump convinced voters that he would drain the swamp, that he understands trade, and he's going to fix it. Even though it was all smoke and mirrors and we knew that it was all smoke and mirrors. And so over and over, Democrats get crossed, crushed. They let Republicans define the narrative, they pay the price electorally. And you look at what happened in 2024, voters came in just simply not believing the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris and Tim Walls are going to be better. For the average working class person, their policies would have been better, but their policies were explained inarticulately in a way that didn't really connect with the average person. And Republicans won. Now, we also have to talk about the media's role in this legacy in corporate media does not help because Republicans have really mastered these simple, repeatable phrases. The border crisis, the failure of Biden nomics, radical left extremists, and then you've got Fox News and talk radio and social media, by the way, social media, most platforms being skewed to the right in terms of the messages that dominate. And they just hate hammer it every single day. And Democrats write, I, I joke about the strongly worded letters. I just saw a damn interview with Hakeem Jeffries yesterday where he was asked some question about how will you fight this or that? And he goes, well, Senator Schumer and I just wrote a letter, we sent a letter. Dear God, kill me with the letters. We are not going to win like this. And so we've got, you know, Democrats rolling out policy papers and acronyms and charts and all of this stuff and it is just not working. So we just have to, you know, what, what's that? We've heard like you, the football analogy is you get on the field with the defense you have, not the defense you wish you had. The military one is you fight wars with the military you have, not the military you wish you had or something like that. We, we have to deal with the situation as it is, not the situation as we wish that it were. And a lot of people may lack confidence in Donald Trump's performance and they're increasingly realizing that the economy is a mess and they believe that the country is on the wrong track. But absent something really indicative of, oh, I get how Democrats are actually going to help me here, absent that, a lot of people are going to default to the old tropes. I think Republicans are better on the economy. I guess I'll vote for Republicans. And for as long as that happens, Republicans are going to keep Democrats in this position of serious, serious trouble. It's perception. Unless Democrats figure out how to change the story, they're going to lose again. Now, we're going to do everything we can in the progressive independent media ecosystem to explain what the stakes are and do everything we can. But the Democratic Party is going to have to do something too. It can't just be up to us. We're going to have much more about this on our full hour podcast. Remember that this, if you're listening to this clip on YouTube or on one of the platforms where it's just like an eight minute clip, we have a full hour podcast every day. It's on Spotify, it's on Apple, podcasts, it's everywhere. I would love for you to subscribe free to the one hour podcast. There was a time when public education meant learning math, science, history. But now we are seeing Bible verses in biology class, we're seeing 10 commandments on the wall, religious chaplains taking the place of trained counselors. And it's all funded by taxpayer money through voucher. Programs that are sending public dollars to private religious schools. This is part of a broader effort to inject religion into public education. I'm against that and it often is coming at the expense of real academic standards and the well being of the students. Now our sponsor, the Freedom from Religion foundation, is fighting back. FFRF defends constitutional principles, takes legal action when schools cross the line, and protects students from religious coercion in public classrooms. If you believe in facts and in protecting education and keeping religion out of public schools, I can tell you this is an organization very much worth supporting. To get involved, go to ffrf.org school or text David to 511-511- Message and Data Rates may apply. The link is in the description. We now have a hidden camera video of a senior Justice Department investigator, Glenn Prager, admitting that Donald Trump is protecting a lot of people by not releasing the Epstein files that he promised to release during his campaign. Now, I want to say up front, the provenance of all of this is James o' Keefe of Project Veritas. He has previously released deceptively edited tapes. We have to decide, could this be deceptively edited? Prager, the subject of this, said that he believed that this was a casual conversation. Later learned that this was a misrepresentation and that he had been recorded. This was personal banter and doesn't necessarily reflect the position or evidence. Sort of saying like, hey, these are just kind of my opinions. But the plain interpretation here is that Glenn Prager is saying Trump is covering up the Epstein files deliberately because he knows that their release would be very bad for people he knows. Let's listen to a little bit of this.
- [34:10]
B
It's not talked about yet, but it's soon come out that he was a CIA.
- [34:15]
A
He was a CIA.
- [34:16]
B
He wasn't a CIA. I think he's protecting a lot of other people. It's not, he's not protecting himself because there's nothing there, but he's protecting a lot of people because Trump's now saying it's a hoax of the case. Like a hoax or something.
- [34:28]
A
Come on.
- [34:28]
B
You know it's not a hoax. He's been on the plane many times.
- [34:32]
A
So Trump is. What Prager is saying is Trump knows it's not a hoax. Trump has been on the plane many times and Prager goes on to say, but Trump didn't do any of this stuff with underage girls.
- [34:44]
B
It's just he's never on plane with the kids. I've seen the itineraries and I've interviewed all of the Victims. There's never been an instance where Trump was on a plane with these kids and it reoccurred, heard. But that can't be said for Clinton and it can't be said for others. While the Clintons. While the plane. While Clinton was on the plane, there were rapes that occur over.
- [35:05]
A
Now, Prager is not saying that Clinton participated in any, quote, rapes. He's saying that no, I guess sexual assaults or rapes occurred while Trump was on a plane, but that some did occur while Clinton, presumably Bill Clinton was on a plane. Now, these are just all assertions to be clear, and we should all be sort of healthily skeptical of anything that James o' Keefe puts out. But let's, let. Let's interpret this based on Prager's direct, at least believed direct knowledge of the circumstances. This whole Epstein thing, that's like going.
- [35:44]
B
I worked in that case. I used to interview all the victims, and my picture was 20 to 30 victims in Palm beach that I was interviewing and dealing with. And then we go ready to go to trial. And they would flip. Epstein would just pay them off. And they were just like these little kids. They pay off their family. They're all broke kids and poor families. So you pay them off like anywhere from 150 to $500,000. Nothing in that kind of smart.
- [36:15]
A
Prager there describes how the victims that he interviewed. We're all right, so. And I'm less interested in the, you know, editorializing of. Of James o', Keefe, but let's get to another section of this and see exactly where we land with it. I want to get it the right spot Epstein list to protect the Clintons.
- [36:38]
B
They claim that, you know, that Trump's involved in the rapes and all that stuff. He wasn't. I've seen the agendas, I've seen the itineraries, and I've interviewed all the victims. There's never been an instance where Trump was on a plane with these kids and their rape occurred. But that can't be said for Clinton and it can't be said for others. I remember that it was being killed because I know Clintons were on there.
- [37:02]
A
And the Clintons were on there 100%.
- [37:04]
B
And while the Clintons were on the plane, while Bill Clintons, I. Rapes that occur. And I'm saying Trump, although as many flights as there were and all that kind of stuff and on the island and all stuff, there's. He was never there during a single alleged rape. But for sure. And that's where the big cover Was the department.
- [37:24]
A
All right, so this is a guy who says he interviewed the victims in the Epstein case. He claims that victims would just be paid 150,000 to $500,000 to kind of go away and, and take back, recant on their claims. And the allegation from Prager is Trump's not covering up for himself, he's covering up for others. He's shielding others. Now he lists Clinton and others, and you might say, well, politically, why would Trump be trying to cover up for Bill Clinton? Wouldn't it be great for Trump for Clinton to be caught in this scandal? Well, but there's a whole bunch of other people. Now, I think what's important to consider here is that we know Trump's frame is personal loyalty. And so when we start hearing, wait a second, Trump doesn't really care about other people in a direct way. Trump cares about how it's going to affect him. My assumption would be, as I've said before, if Trump is doing this to cover up for others, it must be that he has come to believe he being Trump, has come to believe that he's helping himself by covering up for others. I don't know Trump to help other people simply for the sake of helping other people. It just doesn't seem to be who Trump is. We've now got a decade of Trump in public political life where he doesn't really seem to care about other people. He'll, he'll help you if you're loyal to him, and he'll try to help you if he thinks you being in trouble could be bad for him. So my assumption, if it is indeed true what Prager says, that Trump himself was not a perpetrator of any of these heinous acts, which, by the way, I have said from the beginning, we do not have evidence that Trump is a perpetrator of the heinous acts. We have evidence that Trump was friends with Epstein. We have evidence that Trump's been on the plane, but we don't have evidence that Trump committed these heinous acts. If it's true that Trump is covering up for others, there must be something in it for him. By protecting these others, it must somehow be good for Donald Trump. That would be the, the only difficulty in believing that Trump is simply helping others, that I don't know Trump to be a person who simply helps others for just for the sake of it. So it's James o'. Keefe. There's a number of, of if, ands, buts and caveats here. But plainly the video Seems to be what it is. The counter we've heard from Glenn Prager is he was not speaking in the most, maybe we would say legally precise way because he believed this to be a casual conversation banter, as he said, and that the individuals he was speaking with misrepresented themselves. This is all that we know right now. This is going to be evaluated and considered and we will see how high it goes. Let me know what you think. Info@david pakman.com we may be heading towards a fascinating nightmare for Trump on the Epstein files. It's clear that Trump doesn't want the Epstein files coming out, whatever the reason is. Is it because Trump's personally implicated? Increasingly, it seems like the answer is maybe not. Is it because Trump's friends or political allies are implicated? Increasingly, it seems like the answer is probably yes. But Trump is panicking right now because something just happened that could mean there will be no stopping the release of the Epstein files. At least I hope. We have big news out of Arizona that affects this. Adelita Grijalva, the daughter of the late Congressman Raul Grijalva, has won the special election to fill her father's vacant House seat. She's not wasting time. She has already said she will sign the petition to force a vote on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files. That one signature is the missing piece that Democrats need. The petition now has the numbers to move forward. Now remember, this is not a vote on releasing the files. This would be a vote on voting whether to release the files. The point being, it will then put every member of the House of Representatives on the record. Do you want the files released or don't you? And if you don't, why not? Now, the reality is this should have happened weeks ago. Democrats lost time because of their own vacancies. Too many seats held by people well into their 70s and 80s hanging on until tragedy strikes or illness or whatever. Raul Grijalva was 77 and battling cancer when he passed. Now, I think he was a phenomenal member of Congress, but the reality is clear. If the Democratic Party had a younger, healthier representation in place, this would be further along. And arguably a number of other issues would be further along. We've talked about that before. Ok, Adelita Grijalva is now stepping in to fill that gap. What happens now? Once she's sworn in, expected next week, she's going to add her name to the petition. This will force the House of Representatives to schedule a vote. And the math looks pretty straightforward. You've got all the Democrats plus five Republicans who have Already signed the petition. That's enough to approve releasing the files on paper. It's a done deal. You probably know that in Washington, D.C. nothing goes that smoothly and is anything really a done deal. So there's going to be a circus to derail this. It's about to get big, big, big. In the attempts to derail this, pressure campaigns on those five Republicans who have crossed party lines to say we want the documents out. There will be procedural tricks to try to delay the vote. There will be claims that no matter what the vote determines, the release of these files would be a national security risk, so it can't be done. And then also don't rule out somebody just getting cold feet once it's real, because Republicans are famous for talking tough when their vote doesn't matter. And all of a sudden, when their vote does matter, when every single vote does matter, they get cold feet. Trump. World's rattled reports say that Trump is warning allies in Congress that this is a hostile act, which means he knows there are bombshells in there. Glenn Prager, the former DOJ or the DOJ investigator into this, said Trump does know and he's deliberately covering this up. And so I wouldn't be surprised if there will be attempts to spin up distractions, maybe even ensuring that some key documents disappear before anybody sees them if it starts to look like this vote is going to go forward and be approved. But the point here is, even if the petition is signed to force the vote, which I think it will be, even if the vote happens, which I think it probably will, even if the result of the vote is release the files, which I think is a plausible outcome, I do not expect a clean dump of every name and details. Remember when Trump was enamored with the massive dumps on election night? I don't know that we're going to get the massive dumps as cleanly as some people believe we will. Now, politically, this is a nightmare for Republicans because for years they have been screaming, release the files. Release the files. It's been a rallying cry. But now that Democrats are the ones forcing the issue, Republicans are in the position of, I guess we have to go with it. Even though Trump doesn't want these files out, or we say we're not going to vote in favor of it and we're exposed as hypocrites. The upside for Republicans is that MAGA voters don't seem to care about hypocrisy and double standards. Bottom line, Adelita Grijalva's win is a big deal. It doesn't really close the chapter. It kicks the door open and now we have to see who's going to walk through it. So the vote is coming. Trump is sweating for the first time in years. The Epstein files fight is live and real and active. But my question to you, and I'd love for you to leave a comment. Do you believe that before Trump leaves office in presumably In January of 2029, we are going to get the files? Leave me a comment and remember to like this video and subscribe to the YouTube channel as we make a courageous and defiant push to 4 million YouTube subscribers. Can you believe it? I can't. A lot of people think identity theft is something that only happens when someone hacks into your account. But the truth is that it usually starts with your personal information being posted online by data brokers where anybody can find it. Our sponsor, Incogni, is a service that helps protect your privacy by forcing the data brokers to delete your information. This includes your name, address, phone number, even sensitive things like property records or your political affiliation. And now, with their custom removals feature included in the unlimited plan, you're not limited to just the list of 250 plus brokers they work with. By default, if you find any site exposing any of your private information, even one they've never seen before, you can send a link and Incogni's team will work to get that removed. This is serious protection for you and your family against identity theft, against fraud, doxing, harassment, and Incogni's data removal process is the only one independently verified by Deloitte. Get 60% off an annual plan when you visit incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description. I have a massive scandal to tell you about and because of everything that's going on and just the way the news cycle works, this is not going to get even 5% of the attention that it deserves. But this is a huge scandal. This is one of those stories that should be blowing up everywhere, but because of our media ecosystem, media ecosystem and sort of what determines what goes viral, I think a lot of people are never going to hear this, but this is nutty stuff. Trump's been out there claiming that pregnant women risk giving their kids autism if they take Tylenol. Now, this was not like Trump ranting at a rally. They did a press conference. They had Dr. Oz and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Standing behind Donald Trump. The White House is now pushing it as official health guidance. His FDA Commissioner stood at the press conference and said, yes, pregnant women should avoid Tylenol, but. But the entire claim was built on sand. And we found out that the scientist, the one scientist that Trump's team is leaning on, was paid $150,000 to testify against the manufacturer of Tylenol. This is like an alarms blaring red alert scandal, but it's not really getting much attention. Now, before I even tell you what happened, I think it is important to remind you that we have seen a whole bunch of actual studies that completely contradict the idea that moms taking Tylenol makes kids autistic. We have seen autism diagnosis rates go up as Tylenol consumption has gone down in certain countries. We don't even see a correlation between countries where more Tylenol is taken and autism rates. We have all of these reasons to believe that what Donald Trump said is bogus. But put all of that aside for a moment. The Harvard scientist that the Trump White House is leaning on, Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, was paid $150,000 to testify in a class action lawsuit against Tylenol's manufacturer. He admitted that under oath. And the outcome is that a federal judge throughout his testimony saying, it's unreliable, it's incomplete, it's misleading, it is not designed to enlightened, to enlighten, but it is designed to obfuscate. In other words, it is not what we would call objective science. It's junk science that, when scrutinized, collapsed. But instead of moving on from a debunked courtroom expert, the same testimony was repackaged into a review paper. The paper is what Trump's FDA commissioner is now citing as evidence. And it quotes Baccarelli directly, as if he's some kind of unimpeachable authority. So understand again, Baccarelli's paid $150,000 to testify in a class action lawsuit against Tylenol. The judge says this testimony is unreliable. They take the testimony, repackage it into a paper and say, here's why we believe Tylenol causes autism, and here's why the White House is now saying, don't take Tylenol. It is not science. It is recycling rejected arguments and dressing them up as new findings. Now, meanwhile, the actual scientific record, as I already told you, points the other way. The biggest, most rigorous study that we have, 2.5 million children in Sweden, found no causal link between Tylenol consumed by pregnant women and autism. And when researchers looked at siblings, one exposed to maternal Tylenol during pregnancy and one not the supposed link between Tylenol and autism disappeared. That's how you would know it is other factors, not Tylenol. Now, Baccarelli's paper cherry picked smaller studies, some of which didn't even measure symptoms of autism. I mean, that's how sick this entire thing is. And other scientists have looked at this and said, this is completely biased. It's, this is me now editorializing. It sounds similar to what the disbarred Dr. Andrew Wakefield did with his infamous MMR vaccine autism paper, which I hesitate to even call it a paper. It's been completely retracted. And so over 250 autism researchers have now put out a public statement saying the claims from Donald Trump are alarming to them. The data doesn't support them. And when you push this idea, you're giving people fear without really giving answers to families. The bigger question to me is why is this administration so obsessed with autism? Because for Trump's long history of flirting with the anti vax stuff, we've now seen it combined with RFK and repeated packaged into this obsession with autism where they claim they're finally going to get us a definitive answer. But it doesn't really seem like they're interested in the truth. It doesn't really seem like they're interested in science. They're interested in weaponizing autism as a talking point, no matter how misleading this is because it gets attention and it plays into the distrust of medicine and it plays into distrust of vaccines as well. In this case, they're focusing on Tylenol, but often the focus has been vaccination. So the bottom line here is a guy who was paid six figures to mislead a court, per the court is now shaping health policy under Donald Trump. This is really a scandal of the first order. And the fact that this is not dominating headlines makes it even more dangerous. And we actually now have even more reason to be suspicious of what Donald Trump has said, which is that Dr. Oz himself is taking a step back and basically saying you should do what was already the medical advice. Let's discuss that. Dr. Oz is now saying, you know, maybe the truth about Tylenol and pregnancy and autism isn't so much what Donald Trump said in that whacked out Gong show press conference. Maybe it's just what doctors have said all along, which is don't take anything unless you really need it. And it seems that when doctors tell pregnant women take Tylenol that the benefits outweigh the risks. So let's back up a little bit. Donald Trump did this whole riff claiming pregnant Women should not take Tylenol. He linked it to autism. He said acetaminophen, which he aceda. Whoa, wait, how do you see aceta acid? Anyway, Trump said that acetaminophen, which is the active ingredient in Tylenol, if taken by pregnant women, significantly increase increases the probability that the child will ultimately be diagnosed with autism. Trump also said the Amish have no autism. That's not true. Trump also said Cuba has no autism. That's not true. Cuba has a very slightly higher rate of autism than the United States. But the conclusion from Trump was quote, with Tylenol, don't take it. Don't take it. Now, standing right behind him was Dr. Mehmet Oz. He is now running Medicare and Medicaid, and he was nodding along like a bobblehead. Or was he? Because there are some who said, you know, the look on his face, if we are to interpret body language, was, maybe this isn't so good. Well, the next day, Dr. Oz went and talked to TMZ and he kind of walked it back. He said, if a pregnant woman has a high fever, taking Tylenol to bring it down makes sense. Use it when appropriate. And what's fascinating about this is that Trump makes this statement. Oz makes this statement. And if you really are listening carefully, what Dr. Oz is saying is, what was the existing medical guidance? If you talk to an OB gyn, they will tell you the normal guidance is don't take anything unless it is appropriate. We have different categories of drugs for. For pregnant women. I just went through this. What antibiotics are okay to take, or what if I need an eardrop or an eye drop. These are all categorized as a general principle. And by the way, this isn't just for pregnant women. You should really only take a medication if you need it. You know, I know people who, who this. It's funny. This. It's kind of like I don't. I can't speak to other countries, but in Argentina, there's sort of like this cultural thing of like, oh, no, I'm kind of like on a regular dose of Tylenol. Like, my. My back feels better or whatever, and I'm just kind of like, I don't know that that makes any sense at all. You really want to be taking any medication. Once you've evaluated the risks, you've determined if it's appropriate for the symptom or condition you have, you've consulted with a doctor, and when the benefits outweigh the risks and you've received informed consent, that's what Dr. Oz is saying, take medications when appropriate, based on symptoms in consultation with your doctor. It's not really anything different from what there was before. Dr. Oz is effectively saying, what we were already doing with Tylenol is what makes sense now. Medical organizations did not mince words on this. The ACOG, the American College of OB GYNs, it reaffirmed Tylenol is the pain reliever and fever reducer of choice for pregnancy. Use it judiciously at the lowest effective dose for the shortest time, coordinating with your clinician. That's what Dr. Oz is saying. Dr. Oz has now quietly agreed with, with what was already the prevailing medical wisdom from the association, the American College of obgyn, which means that he is saying effectively, don't do what Trump said. The old guidance was the right one. And it wasn't just Dr. Oz. We also heard from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy. I was going to play the clips. I'm not going to do it. Bill Cassidy is a physician and he said, if you have new data on Tylenol and autism, then show us the data. But the preponderance of evidence right now doesn't support the claim. And that is a, that is an actual doctor that is saying this, not a slip of the tongue. So the White House says, don't take Tylenol. Trump botches even telling you a sheet a cedar. And then meanwhile, doctors and medical associations say, actually, that's not the case. So now let's like put on our adult hats for 30 seconds. Fever in pregnancy can be dangerous. High fever especially. This is why doctors have long recommended Tylenol for fever when needed. You use the lowest effective dose, you take it for the shortest period of time, as is always the case with any medication. You know, after, after my famous appendectomy, the appendectomy that shook the medical world to its core, as many of you remember. You know, when I remember when I woke up from surgery, they gave me an opiate painkiller. I don't even know what it was. I was completely out of it and I took it. And then they gave me 30 of these pills or something. Actually, no, I think I got 30 pills for my wisdom teeth being. I think I only got like 8 or 10 pills because by the time of my appendectomy, I think a lot of medicine had come around to, let's not give someone this huge supply of the opiate painkillers. And they said, listen, you can take this. You can also just take Advil, or you can take nothing, depending on how you're feeling. My preference is to take the minimal drug for the minimum period of time I didn't need. By the time the, you know, Novocaine or whatever wore off and the opiate they gave me in the recovery area wore off, I wasn't really feeling that much pain, I was exhausted, I was tired, etc. But I took a couple of Advil and then that's all I needed. It was the lowest effective dose for the lowest duration of the least impactful drug. This is the status quo. There is, there is quite literally nothing new here. So we really need to consider who we want to get our medical advice from. And even Dr. Oz, who has been propagandized to a great degree and has said a bunch of wacky stuff that I don't agree with over time on this one. He is reverting back to the prevailing medical wisdom if you're keeping score. The science still says vaccines don't cause autism. There's no evidence that Tylenol leads to autism. And what we really don't want is presidents improvising for political gain with RFK Jr standing behind them. We've got a phenomenal bonus show today. They have replaced Biden's portrait with a picture of an auto pen in the Trump White House. It's extraordinarily stupid, but this is the sort of thing that the Trump White House loves. We're also going to talk about the mass firing preparations that are taking place in advance of a possible government shutdown. And there was this statue of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands that appeared in Washington, D.C. it's already been removed. We will tell you all about it, hear all of those stories or watch them on today's bonus show by signing up at Join Pacman Dotcom. And remember that on the 30th. Which, what, what day is the 30th? Tuesday. Yeah, Tuesday is the last day of the month. We are doing a one day membership drive. It will be three years, three months, three weeks until the end of Donald Trump's presidency. We will be celebrating that with a 333 themed membership discount. It'll be the largest membership discount we've offered in years. I would love for you to partake. If you would like to be notified on the 30th, simply get on my free newsletter, substack.davidpakman.com I'll see you on the bonus show. I'll be back tomorrow.