Are you ready for the next invasion?

Summary

The David Pakman Show

Episode: Are you ready for the next invasion?

Date: May 4, 2026
Host: David Pakman

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, David Pakman dissects several major stories that are dominating—and in some cases, being ignored by—the American news cycle. The main theme centers on dangerous normalization of political extremism, lack of transparency and accountability in the Trump administration, threats of war, the erosion of truth in political discourse, and the unraveling of the right-wing media ecosystem. With biting wit and thorough analysis, Pakman exposes contradictions, cowardice, and outright lies both among political leaders, judicial nominees, and right-wing media personalities.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Crackdown on “Seashells” and the 8647 Indictment

• The Context:

  • Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted for posting a photo of seashells spelling out "8647" (interpreted as "86" = “get rid of” and "47" = Trump as the 47th president).
  • Merchandise and social posts proliferating with "8647" exist, yet only Comey indicted.
  • Attorney General Todd Blanche struggles to justify the double standard (02:45).

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • Points out the hypocrisy: mass commerce and casual posting of "8647" are fine, but targeting Comey is political theater (03:38).
  • Dissects GOP attempts to tie "86" strictly to violence, even mischaracterizing the term’s restaurant origins (05:16–06:23).
  • Calls out the prosecution for “punishing” Comey for unrelated matters—a reversal of true law and order (07:23).

• Notable Quotes:

  • “You can sell 8,647 merchandise on Amazon and that’s no big deal. You can post 8647 to social media and it’s no big deal. But something else James Comey did or said made it a crime, but they won’t tell us what.” – David Pakman (03:38)
  • “When you 86 in order, you get rid of the order. Right, but you’re not actually… killing the food.” – Interviewee (06:23)

---

2. Trump’s Casually Announced Plan to Invade Cuba

• The Context:

  • Trump, after returning from Iran, mentions in a speech—almost as an afterthought—that he will “take over” Cuba (10:56).
  • Media and the political world largely shrug at the prospect.

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • Highlights the alarming normalization of hyperbolic threats from political leaders (11:16).
  • Draws parallels to historical foreign policy disasters (Bay of Pigs) and warns about the real-world consequences.
  • Suggests Trump is floating “trial balloons” to gauge public reaction (12:10).
  • Emphasizes the “extremism as background noise” problem, where outrageous statements no longer invoke shock or oversight.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “The way he says it, as casually as I might say let’s stop at that great empanada place on the way back … now I think we’re going to invade Cuba.” – David Pakman (11:16)
  • “What does he mean by take over or invade Cuba? … Is it US troops landing on Cuban soil? … Is it an immediate international crisis?” – David Pakman (11:51)

---

3. Cowardice and Contortions: Judicial Nominees and the 2020 Election

• The Context:

  • Judicial nominees and GOP officials refuse to answer basic questions about the 2020 election and term limits:
    • “Can Trump run in 2028 if he wins this year?” (19:45–21:23)
    • “Who won the 2020 election?” (22:19–27:03)

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • Ridicules the absurd non-answers; points out that the 22nd Amendment is “a question a seven year old could answer” (21:23).
  • Frames the evasion as both “pathetic” and “cowardly,” and exposes the broader collapse of honest discourse in judicial and political arenas.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “These are judicial nominees to lifetime positions who will not answer these simple questions.” – David Pakman (21:23)
  • “[They] think they’re being clever. He was certified. This is the linguistic game.” – David Pakman (22:53)
  • “Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election. Look at how simple that is.” – David Pakman (27:03)

---

4. Right-Wing Media Tumult: The Fall of Ben Shapiro & The Daily Wire

• The Context:

  • Ben Shapiro’s YouTube views have plummeted 85%. Daily Wire facing massive layoffs.
  • Pakman compares left vs. right media reach; right-wing messaging now fragmented (56:48).

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • The collapse of central agenda-setters leads to loss of message discipline and increased escalation for relevance (58:11).
  • Frames this as an “opportunity—not a guarantee—for the left.”
  • Notes algorithm-driven radicalization risk in a fragmented ecosystem.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “When Ben Shapiro’s audience is collapsing like this, you can’t set the agenda because you’ve got almost no audience.” – David Pakman (58:00)
  • “This is about who controls the conversation on the right and who sets the agenda.” – David Pakman (58:24)

---

5. Tucker Carlson: Caught Lying—Again

• The Context:

  • NYT's Lulu Garcia-Navarro confronts Tucker with his own quotes suggesting Trump is the Antichrist; Tucker falsely denies.
  • Pakman analyzes both the denial and the alibis used to dodge the truth (38:17–39:52).
  • Also, Tucker offers a dubious timeline for his Nick Fuentes interview, contradicting known facts (40:46).

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • Dissects the professional liar’s strategy: “deny the obvious,” and “give non-explanations as alibis.”
  • Gives a detailed breakdown of why Tucker’s excuses about the Fuentes interview are nonsense.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “He gives a non-explanation for why he couldn’t possibly have said it… but what difference does it make? You said it.” – David Pakman (39:51)
  • “Tucker is a professional liar and he seems to have met his match here very powerfully with Lulu Garcia Navarro.” – David Pakman (42:51)

---

6. Gas Prices, Oil Supply, and Political Gaslighting

• The Context:

  • Gas hits multi-year highs; the Trump administration blames everyone but themselves.
  • Scott Bessant interviewed on gas prices—evades giving concrete answers, instead spews jargon about futures markets (29:08–30:16).

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • Explains why futures markets are not predictive for voters at the pump (30:16).
  • Argues that direct questions of economic consequence are evaded because truthful answers would be politically damaging (31:01).
  • Reinforces the rarity of presidents truly affecting gas prices, except for disruptions caused by war—precisely what Trump has done (52:27).

• Notable Quotes:

  • “It’s not a crystal ball. Prices may be lower, they may be higher. In fact, sometimes futures are lower specifically because the market is tight right now…” – David Pakman (30:16)
  • “Voters can easily compare and contrast. I go to a gas pump, and I’m paying more than I’ve paid for almost four years.” – David Pakman (52:27)

---

7. Speculation over Trump’s Health: Diapers, Bulletproof Vests, and the Hazards of Secrecy

• The Context:

  • Viral image of Trump with a mysterious bulge—sparks rumors of diapers and/or bulletproof vests (45:49).
  • Trump brushes off reporters’ questions with comments about not wanting to “look 20 pounds heavier” in a vest (46:52).

• Pakman’s Analysis:

  • Explains that rampant speculation is the natural outgrowth of pathological secrecy and misinformation.
  • Criticizes the administration’s lack of medical transparency, reinforcing an environment of distrust (47:21).

• Notable Quotes:

  • “Speculation fills that gap. And honestly, this isn’t really about whether any particular rumor is true or false. It’s what happens when you have a public figure at this level…with obvious questions, and we just don’t get any consistent or credible answers.” – David Pakman (47:21)
  • “Image is still the most important thing to Donald Trump. Clarity of communication is not the most important thing. Reassuring the public that he is up to the task, safety, none of these.” – David Pakman (47:30)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00 – Episode Preview: Seashells indictment, Trump invasion comments, chaos in right-wing media
• 02:45 – Attorney General’s incoherent defense of Seashells indictment
• 05:16 – GOP’s mischaracterization of “86” and attempts to criminalize common language
• 10:56 – Trump’s offhand announcement about invading Cuba
• 19:45 – Judicial nominees refuse to answer on Trump term limits
• 22:19 – Nominees’ evasions on who won the 2020 election
• 38:17 – Tucker Carlson denial and being confronted with his own words
• 45:49 – Trump’s diaper/bulletproof vest speculation fueling distrust
• 52:27 – Record gas prices, political implications, and evasive administration rhetoric
• 56:48 – Collapse of Daily Wire/Ben Shapiro audience and the right’s media identity crisis
• 58:11 – Analysis on message discipline and algorithm-driven escalation in right-wing media

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “These are judicial nominees to lifetime positions who will not answer these simple questions.” – David Pakman (21:23)
• “The way he says it, as casually as I might say let’s stop at that great empanada place…he says ‘let’s invade Cuba.’” – David Pakman (11:16)
• “Tucker is a professional liar and he seems to have met his match here very powerfully with Lulu Garcia Navarro.” – David Pakman (42:51)
• “Direct question, cloud of jargon…That is the pattern with these people.” – David Pakman (30:16)
• “When Ben Shapiro’s audience is collapsing like this, you can’t set the agenda because you’ve got almost no audience.” – David Pakman (58:00)

---

Tone & Delivery

David Pakman maintains his signature direct, sardonic, and incisive style, balancing humor and bite with detailed, rational argumentation. His language is simultaneously accessible and cutting, punctuated by moments of deadpan mockery, especially when exposing hypocrisy, cowardice, or deception by political figures and media personalities.

---

Summary

This episode of The David Pakman Show is a tour de force of political commentary, exposing the dangerous absurdities and evasions in American politics—from performative prosecutions and casual threats of war, to the collapse of right-wing message discipline and media credibility. Central to the episode is Pakman’s argument that opacity, dishonesty, and normalization of the extreme are eroding democratic accountability—and that this transformation is both a challenge and an opportunity for those demanding truth, clarity, and rational policies in the public sphere.

Transcript

[A]

An administration official makes a huge mistake trying to defend their crackdown on Seashells and really admits that the whole thing makes no sense. You can sell it, you can buy it, but post about it in the wrong way on Twitter and suddenly you're getting indicted. Also not getting nearly the attention it deserves. Donald Trump casually mentioned on the way home from Iran, we're going to invade Cuba, as he said it, and barely anybody reacted. Almost no corporate media attention. We'll break down why it matters, what it actually means when a president talks this way. Plus, Republicans unraveling when asked a very simple question, who won the 2020 election? Can Donald Trump run again in 2028? They can't say it or they won't say it. And the videos are just brutal. And then chaos in the right wing media ecosystem. Ben Shapiro's views are down 85% as he is hemorrhaging subscribers. And the Daily Wire has gone through massive layoffs. What a show. My sense is we actually publish this one. This won't be one of the ones that we record and then delete because it's so bad. Let's do it. They are indicting people for Seashells, but when they are asked to defend it, they can't do it. I have completely humiliating, pathetic, cowardly video to show you that is going to remind you why these MAGA Republicans are the worst people in the world to be in charge of anything, especially this country. James Comey, former FBI Director, was indicted for having posted a picture to Twitter of Seashells, arranged to make the numbers 8647, 86. Of course, the restaurant term for we're out of something. 86. French toast. Right. And 47, meaning the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump, 8647. He has been indicted on the pretense that that was a violent uprising against Donald Trump. Todd Blanche, the Attorney General, was interviewed by Kristen Welker just hours ago and she points out, you've got messages of 8647 being posted all over social media. You've got dozens of products on Amazon that are 8647. If that's violence, then are you going to indict all of those people? And Todd Blanche goes, oh, no, that phrase is used all the time. Then why are you indicting James Comey? Let's take a look.

[B]

Well, the image, excuse me, is part of what led to this indictment. It is worth noting that on Amazon.com we look this up, there are dozens of products with the Same terminology. We're showing it right here. 8647 being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying 8647 merchandise be concerned that they're going to be prosecuted by the doj? This isn't about a single incident. Okay? This isn't. I mean, of course not. That's posted constantly. That phrase is used constantly.

[A]

Oh, wait a second. It is.

[B]

There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in indictments. Of course, there are facts that there are circumstances. There are investigations that have to take place. And we have charged dozens and dozens of men and women this year with threatening President Trump and others.

[A]

So this, they've. They've charged dozens with threatening Trump, but not with seashells on Twitter spelling out 8647. Think about that. What is the other aggravating information where for James Comey, it is indicative of a crime, but for everybody else it's not. You can sell 8,647 merchandise on Amazon and that's no big deal. You can buy 8,647 merchandise on Amazon and it's no big deal. You can post 8647 to social media and it's no big deal. But something else James Comey did or said made it a crime, but they won't tell us what. And laughably, they said last week that it took somewhere between nine and 12 months to investigate James Comey's post before deciding the totality of the evidence is a crime here. What other evidence do you have that James Comey planned to partake in or was encouraging violence against Donald Trump? He arranged seashells or took a picture of seashells that had been arranged. Now, all of these people that are being asked about it are reacting differently, and they are all taking a sort of different approach. Congressman Mark Alford, a Republican congressman from Missouri, said, listen, James Comey is smart. He knows what 86 means, and it means kill the president.

[B]

What seashells, though? This is about the picture that he put up of the seashells that say 86 47, where he wrote in the caption, cool shell formation on my beach walk. Is that sea serious enough to merit?

[A]

He ended up taking that down and

[B]

saying he didn't realize. Why did he take it down? He said that he didn't realize some folks associated it with violence and that he opposed violence of any kind. Well, James Comey is a very intelligent man. I would assume he knows what the term 86 means I was a waiter for some time when.

[A]

Oh, so it is about restaurants. Got it. That's what we've been saying.

[B]

86 in order. You kill the order. When you 8645, that is tantamount to saying killing is President United States.

[A]

I hate to be pedantic, but that's not even what 86 means at restaurants. He wants you to believe that we've got an order for, you know, three cannelloni and two beef Wellington and three side salads. 86, kill the order. No, it's the way they say after the last order of something, we don't have any more of it. 86, pork chop. Oh, okay. Don't take any more pork chop orders even. Even if we want to really get into the weeds, as they claim. It means kill it violently. Kill the order. What? Means we don't have any more. Don't take any more orders for that.

[B]

He should have known that when you 86. In order, you get rid of the order. Right, but you're not actually. I mean, you're not killing the food. I just want to be clear. When you kill the order, when it's the same principle. Brianna, we can. We can.

[A]

I hear killing the order and killing the president, it's all. Brianna, it's the same thing. Don't act like you don't know what we're talking about. Everybody. And then the next attempt at defending this is brilliant because it's brilliantly evil. They love to talk about how they are the party of law and order. And Jim Banks, another Republican Congressman, says there are other reasons Comey should have been indicted. So this is fine. That's not the way the justice system works. The justice system doesn't work where you go, listen, the person did all of this other stuff wrong, and to punish them for that, we're going to indict them for this different thing that is quite literally the opposite of law and order. But that's what Jim Banks says.

[B]

Well, James Comey deserves to be indicted for a lot of reasons. He totally abused his power. The way that he used that power against President Trump had driven drastic and negative effects on this country. Everyone knows what that post meant. 864-8647. Everybody knows what that means. He knew what that meant as well, and he should be held accountable for it. I'll defer to the justice system.

[A]

And did you notice that he was abusing power previously, and so it makes sense to indict him for this? That's not the way the justice system works. If he abused power criminally before, he should have been indicted for abusing power criminally. This is actually reminding me of the O.J. simpson thing. And the late O.J. simpson, actor, former football player, who was acquitted of killing his wife and her then partner, was later found guilty for participating in an attempt to like steal back some of his memorabilia, I guess. And there was the sense that he was over sentenced for that. And a lot of people said, listen, he got away with murder, not figuratively, but literally he got away with murder. And so now we got him for that with this new thing that may be acceptable socially, but it's not the way the justice system works. And so banks of the law and order party is saying he does deserve to get indicted for something else. So it's okay that we got him on this bogus Seashells thing. Finally, we, whenever we need a calm and rational voice, I say, let's bring in Tulsi Gabbard. And she comes in and she goes, well, I won't even tell you what she says. Here's what she said to Gabbard, the

[B]

Director of National Intelligence. Are you buying that the former FBI director didn't know what 86 Trump meant? Absolutely not. Jesse. That that is a ridiculous and insane statement to make, certainly within this context, but especially coming from a guy who's the former director of the FBI, a guy who spent most of his career prosecuting mobsters and gangsters, people who know and execute other humans and use this exact lingo of 86.

[A]

Yeah. Tulsi is truly one of the worst people in American politics, one of the most dishonest clinger ons. And Comey knew what it meant. Yes, it means get rid of this individual as president. He shouldn't be our president. And that is what just about everybody who buys this paraphernalia or regalia means by it. They are screwing up because they are making themselves look ridiculous with the claims about this 8647 thing. I believe Comey will never, never be convicted on this. Donald Trump just announced that he will be invading Cuba and he said it so casually that it is barely making news. This is supposed to be the anti war president. And he was in Palm beach speaking to a group of people and he said on the way back from Iran, why not will invade Cuba? What the anti tool. But Tulsi told me this is the anti war. She said it. And he's doing war after war, generally

[B]

a place called Cuba, which we will be taking over almost immediately. What we'll do. On the way back from Iran, we'll have one of our big, maybe the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, the biggest in the world, will have that come in, stop about 100 yards offshore and they'll say thank you very much, we give up.

[A]

But I thought, sir, that you were the anti war president. Oh, don't worry about that. But is this another illegal invasion with no congressional authorization? Don't worry about that. Just shut up and vote for Republicans in November. But what is this going to cost? Because you said that you would pay off the entire national debt during your first term but it explode. Don't worry about that. Shut up and vote in November for Republicans despite nearly $4.50 a gallon gas prices. But isn't Cuba a sovereign country of around 10 million people? Who gives a damn? On the way back we'll invade Cuba. The way he says it, as casually as I might say let's stop at that great empanada place on the way back with the spicy chimichurri. He says it I think we're going to invade Cuba on the way back. Now I do think it's worth asking another question. What does he mean by take over or invade Cuba? Is it US troops landing on Cuban soil? Because he talks about the aircraft carrier, as he says, 100, 100ft offshore. But does it mean U.S. troops on Cuban soil? Does it mean armed conflict with Cuban military forces? Is it an immediate international crisis? Is it another economy destroying, ill thought out scheme from a guy whose only concern is how can I look as the biggest strongest boy in the world? And what sort of retaliation would we expect? And would we expect Iran to assist Cuba? Would we expect Russia to assist Cuba? We don't know. But it's the anti war president is what we were told who won't get involved. He won't be getting us into quagmires the way Killery would or Biden or Kamala Harris. It's only Trump who will keep us out of this crap. Understands. Trump does. We were told how these silly, misguided forever wars and mis military entanglements are and how bad they are for the American economy. And then he talks so casually about the next invasion while he's still involved in the previous one. There's no thinking. There's not a framework, there's not a strategy. The coalition, forget about a coalition. And so is he the guy who is anti war or is he the guy casually proposing military takeovers? I don't know which it is at this point. Now let's talk about the reaction because this is arguably the biggest part of the story when something this serious gets said and it barely even registers, it is a reminder of how dumb the political environment has become. No emergency hearings over yet another invasion plan by Donald Trump. No wall to wall outrage, the way we probably should be having on 24 hour cable news. 0 accountability. And by the way, I know some of you will go, well, David, he was kind of kidding. It was just a joke. We are now okay with the president, who is in the middle of an invasion, joking about another one. What reason do we have to think that it's a joke? We, we might suspect someone will distract Trump with the next shiny object and he won't end up doing it. But there's not really any accountability for the seriousness of what Donald Trump is saying. So. So what we're seeing is that the more extreme the statement, the more it shifts what feels normal. And it's now take over Cuba. That kind of gets a hem and a ha. Tomorrow it's maybe something even more extreme and it sounds just as normal because we just had I'll invade Cuba and everybody just kind of looks around and shrugs. I don't know. It shouldn't be forgotten. I would add that the United States already tried to take Cuba and there's a kind of a long sordid history of that. If you look back and it was called the Bay of Pigs invasion, it was a complete and total disaster for the United States. Complete overconfidence that was not justified. Terrible planning and it blew up internationally. That is the closest real world version of what Donald Trump is now ringing the war bells about. And it failed within days. And it's part of what pushed the United States towards the Cuban Missile crisis. So listen, I'll just ask you, do you believe Trump was kidding when he said that? And we probably even need to define what he means by kidding because with Donald Trump, kidding often means it's a trial balloon to see what kind of a reaction he gets so that he can then decide whether this is something he does or doesn't want to pursue. So leave me a comment as you do so hit the subscribe button on YouTube so we can get to those 4 million subscribers. Or send me an email info@david pakman.com we will have more on the belligerent pro war nature of the supposedly anti war president on my substack, which you can find at David pakman.com/substack. Debt has a way of getting out of control even when people are trying to manage it responsibly high interest rates, constant feedback fees compounding balances. This can all turn credit cards, personal loans and medical bills into something much more difficult to escape. And the longer it drags on, the more expensive it becomes. That's why I want to tell you about our sponsor, PDS Debt. PDS Debt helps people with unsecured debt by creating a personalized plan based on their real financial situation. There's not a minimum credit score required. They just focus on reducing what you owe, paying it off faster and stopping the waste of money on interest and fees. They are A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau. They have thousands of five star reviews and have already helped hundreds of thousands of people get out of debt. Every month you wait costs money. The best time to start was yesterday. The second best time is right now. So don't wait another month. Take back control. In 30 seconds you get your free personalized assessment at PDS debt.com/pacman the link is in the description if you use one of the mainstream AI chat bots, they monitor everything you put in the app. Stuff about your personal life, your work projects, medical questions. All of that info stays in the system forever. To train the AI, they build a profile about you based on what you input. If you care about privacy and bypassing censorship, I recommend using Venice instead. Our sponsor, Venice, lets you use all the biggest and best AI models. They do not store your prompts. Your prompts are encrypted and stored only locally in your app or browser. Not used for training data. Venice also offers completely uncensored chat bots and image generation. You can ask it anything and it will answer. It is finally AI you can completely control. None of the conversations are tied to your identity and you use Venice exactly like the mainstream chat bot app that you're already used to. The interface will feel really familiar. You'll also get 20% off a pro plan at Venice AI/Pacman with the code PACMAN. The link is in the description Republicans are so terrified of Donald Trump that they won't even say no, Trump can't run for a third term. They are too afraid to say, yeah, Trump lost in 2020. These people want you to believe that they are the truly manly men, the alpha males, the strong ones. And they are so cowardly they won't even say, hey, you know what? Trump won in 2016. He won in 2024, but he simply lost the 2020 election. Judicial nominees were asked by a number of senators, can Trump run for a third term? Here is the profile in Cowardice that these people engaged in. If you're eating, I would put the fork down and step away from your oatmeal because this is vomitus.

[B]

Mr. Mark, if I might just. Tell me about the 22nd amendment. What does it provide the 22nd amendment? Senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution. I haven't had an opportunity to to use that one specifically. Anyone able to help on the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution? I believe it is the amendment that deals with a two term limitation. Correct. States no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Mr. Mark, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028? Senator, with it, without considering all the facts and and looking at everything depending on what the situation is this now, now, now.

[A]

The only facts are Trump is in his second term. That's it. He can't run again. But they aren't willing to say it. They're terrified.

[B]

To me, strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be not a hypothetical. Has President Trump been elected president twice? President Trump has been certified the President of the United States two times. Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution? I would have to review the. All I need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no, he is not eligible to run for a third term. Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term? Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd amendment?

[A]

Nope.

[B]

Nobody.

[A]

These are questions a seven year old could answer. Let me show you how easy it is. Hey, is George W. Bush eligible to set to serve another term? No, he's not. He served two. Is Barack Obama eligible to serve another term? Nope, he served two. Is Joe Biden eligible to serve another term? Yes, he only served one term. Is Donald Trump going to be eligible to serve another term after the end of this one? No, because this is the second one. These are judicial nominees to lifetime positions who will not answer these simple questions. Senator Blumenthal tried a different question. Who won the 2020 election? They go, oh, that's a political question. What, what?

[B]

Who won the 2020 election? Senator, I wanted to be mindful of the canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings and it's become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So with that, I'd say that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election. He won the election. Is that your response, Senator? I think my Response is he was certified as the winner. By counting the election, though you're unwilling to say he won the election.

[A]

He was certified. This is the linguistic game. They think they're being clever. He then Blumenthal did try to more specific approach. Okay, who won the popular vote in 2020? You don't have to weigh in on winning and losing. Simply who got more of the popular vote. They're still not willing.

[B]

Who won the popular vote in the 2020 election? You're right, Sandra.

[A]

I have been asked that by one

[B]

of your colleagues already. And as I explained, the popular vote is not part of the Article 2 or the 12th Amendment. There's an Electoral College that meets in December of an election year for president and that gathers to cast the electoral votes. Who won the 2020 election? The person who became president in January 2021 was when Congress certified.

[A]

In other words, you're not going to answer. You're going to give me the same

[B]

same wrote, rehearsed answer, which frankly makes you look ridiculous.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Not pathetic.

[A]

Oh, yeah. It's pathetic, too. It's more than pathetic, it's cowardly. These are pathetic people, but they're also cowardly. Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh triggers Elizabeth Warren when she tries to ask an equally simple question.

[B]

And your courage. We'll start easy, Mr. War. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? We try to keep politics. If I'm confirmed out of the Fed. I'm just asking a fact.

[A]

Okay, folks, we're going to go back. This is, this is infuriating. If I asked you who was the first President of the United States, you would of course know that that is not a, a political question in the sense of generating political controversy. We all know the first President of the United states was Paul McCartney. I'm sorry, was George Washington. And we would move on with that. Similarly, who won the 2020 election is not a political question. It's just a question of the historical record. But they want to pretend like it's a political question.

[B]

Trump lose the 2020 election. We try to keep politics. If I'm confirmed out of the federal. I'm just asking a factual question. I need to know. I need to measure your independence and your courage, Senator, I believe crazy that

[A]

courage comes down to just saying who won an election, that this body certified

[B]

that election many years ago. That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, did Donald Trump lose in 2020? I'm suggesting you in 2020, the Fed made your huge inflation problem and you certified the election. So. So Let me ask another. Out of monetary policy in our meeting. Monetary policy out of politics.

[A]

Disgusting people. Truly disgusting people. One more clip. Here is Senator Welch asking a Republican witness who won the election? And he goes, I'm not a pollster. That's a political question.

[B]

Who won the 2020 election?

[A]

You know that.

[B]

That's a political question. Obviously, in the Constitution, the determination of who won is delegated to the electors and is a vote in the House. I would also point.

[A]

I would really suffer if I answered this question in a logical and sane way. So I'm going to talk to you about random things now that throughout American

[B]

history, there have been contestations of who've won.

[A]

I've. I'm asking specifically who won the 2020

[B]

election, and I'm taking your non answer to be consistent with everyone else who came in. I'm not. I'm not a pollster. But I will tell you this, that I'm not asking you.

[A]

And of course, we're not asking to tell us poll results. We're asking you to give us election results about a pollster.

[B]

I'm asking who won the election. Biden was elected president. Okay. Did he win? He won under the constitutional mechanisms we have to determine.

[A]

This guy is the worst of all of them because he's kind of like, yeah, he basically did. But I got to figure out some way to not really say he won under the mechanism through which we claim someone gets to be the president of the United. Come on, guys. Vote no on every single one of these people. Not a single one should get a yes vote unless they can just say that's what it is. Listen to me. Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election. Look at how simple that is. Did I vote for her over Trump? Yes, I did. Do I believe she would have been a better president? Yes, I do. Do I think we'd be in a war with Iran right now and maybe soon in a war with Cuba if she had won instead of Trump? No, I don't. But she didn't win. It's very simple. It doesn't mean that I agree with the choice or that I like it, but she didn't win. These people are disgusting. There are professional liars in the Trump administration, and they tried to lie to you again over oil and gas prices, which you know are at their highest point in basically four years. They think you're stupid. And I don't mean that as an insult to you. It was such a simple question to Scott Bessen. Do you think oil prices will be lower because by the midterms a question of significant political consequence because we know voters vote based on their perception of the economy. And $4.50 gas prices, which is roughly where we are right now, almost a four year high, don't engender warm fuzzy feelings for the people in power. And Scott Besant talks about oil futures and all these different things that don't answer the question this only works or it only theoretically they believe would work because they believe you're stupid.

[B]

Yeah. So in other words, more oil on the market is simple supply and demand. You're thinking that this is going to help the case on oil prices. You've got the UAE no longer needing to follow quotas from opec. They'll put more oil on the market and that adds to the oil on the market to send prices. You think oil prices will be lower before the midterm elections? I think oil prices, we can see in the futures market that oil prices are already lower three months, six months, nine months out. But again, Maria, there are hundreds of oil tankers waiting in the Gulf to come out. The US is only blockading Iranian ships. And we will see. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see more of those ships coming out. You know, the Iranians, it reminds me they're kind of like the Keystone cops here. Reminds me of Baghdad Bob, back during the Iraqi War. You had the guy kind of spouting nonsense while the, while the tanks were driving around behind him. And the Iranians are like this. They're not tolling the strait.

[A]

Okay, so Bessant chooses rather than to answer the question, yes, prices will be lower by election time, which he really can't say yes to because they very well may be even higher. He says futures are already lower. So, so there you go. Now, if you're sitting at home or you're listening to me in headphones as you are pumping gas right now, you might be saying, okay, but how is that helping the price of gas? Futures do not necessarily predict future prices. Futures are contracts. That's ultimately what is being traded. And they reflect what people are willing to buy or sell oil for at a future date right now. So when somebody says, well, the three month future is lower, what that means is that there are people who are willing to buy oil at a cheaper price in three months. It doesn't mean oil prices will be cheaper. It's not a crystal ball. Prices may be lower, they may be higher. In fact, sometimes futures are lower specifically because the market is tight right now and it's about supply conditions. And storage and hedging and refiners and all these different things. It's not an answer to will prices be lower before the midterms? He didn't answer the question. Now it would be acceptable and far more respectable for him to say, I have no idea, Maria. Depends on a lot of things. We got to see what happens with Iran. We've got to see what happens with the Strait of Hormuz. Price. Gas prices and oil prices go up during the summer because of demand for road trips and all this. He could just say, we don't know the answer to that. But instead he goes, well, they kind of are lower in the sense that futures are lower already. This is the pattern with these people. Direct question, cloud of jargon. Did President Trump lose the 2020 election? Well, Joe Biden was certified, right? But did Trump lose the popular vote? Well, I'm not a pollster and that's a political question. Okay, but can Trump run again? Well, that's a theoretical question about something that it's the same thing. Will, will oil and gas be lower? Futures are already lower right now, but clearly Bessant perceives that it would be politically dangerous to just go, we really don't know. Could be lower, could be higher. Oil prices, importantly, are not an abstract concept. It's just like, what is the price of a barrel of oil? And gas prices flow literally and figuratively from the price of oil. And then the price of gas affects inflation more generally because it affects transportation costs and then that affects elections. And so the reason that they are so cagey about this and so visibly scared is that they know these are the core economic questions voters face feel every single day or however often they fill up their oil tank in their basement if they have oil heat or fill up their car with gas if they have a gas powered vehicle. They can't even be straight with you about it and it tells you everything. It's not a complicated policy debate. Are they willing to tell you the truth, which is they don't know if oil and gas will be lower and it could be higher. Or instead, do they just talk past you? I think a lot of the American people, people, even many who voted for Scrumps, are smart enough to realize they aren't answering the question for you. They think you might not notice that you're not getting a real answer to this question. And it only works if some of the audience accepts it. And it depends on people going, oh, that sounded technical. I probably don't totally understand it. But he must be telling the truth as opposed to now. I'm smart enough to know he's not answering the question now. There's also a power dynamic at play. The more opaque the answer is, it is harder to challenge it and it puts the speaker in control and everybody else is left trying to decode what was said and before you know it, the interview's over. The bigger point is that this isn't about oil markets or futures contracts. It's are Trump public officials seeing their role as informing people or managing for personal benefit? And it is obviously not their view that they are there to inform people. If they were, we would get straight answers 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 of5.5 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 fifteen hundred dollars, including an AI prompt bible, a monetization RE roadmap, and a personalized toolkit. Availability is limited. Grab your free seat using the link in the description One of the weird things about getting older is realizing how many photos never go anywhere they sit in your phone, even when they are great pictures that matter. And this is why an Aura digital picture frame makes a great Mother's Day gift. Our sponsor Aura, makes digital frames that turn photos into memories that can be enjoyed every day. I gave one to my mom years ago for Mother's Day. It's so easy. You can preload photos before the frame even arrives. You can keep adding pictures and so can other people. I can add pictures of the baby any time I want, even though we don't live that close to each other. These frames look like real prints. They blend right into the room's decor and it's a great way to stay connected with your mom or other family members or Friends, and keep those pictures from disappearing. Aura is giving my audience $25 off their bestselling carver mat frame. Go to Aura Frames.com use the code PACMAN. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description. Tucker Carlson was caught in endless lies by New York Times reporter Lulu Garcia Navarro. And this is a pleasure to watch. He had these lies thrown right in his face during this interview. Lulu Garcia Navarro was very well prepared, excellent at this. This is how you have to interview these people. Tucker Carlson on his show has suggested Donald Trump may be the Antichrist. And Tucker Carlson, when confronted with that, says, I have not said that. And. And Lulu Garcia Navarro reads the quote to him, which pushes Tucker to have to retreat and go, I didn't say that. And I certainly didn't mean what maybe you think now in this clip, they have actually cut in the video of Tucker saying it. That was not played to Tucker at the time. I think this confused some people when they watched. They were like, wow, they played the clip for him. They didn't play the clip for him. They quoted him and then cut the clip in for us. This is excellent. And Tucker has no choice but to do his confused face. We all know which one that is what I was saying, which is, you cannot mock other people's gods and put yourself in their place, period. That is a deal killer for me. That's worse than the war with Iran, in my opinion. Yeah. But I ask because, you know, you've

[B]

been talking on your show about whether

[A]

Trump is the Antichrist. I have not said that.

[B]

On your show, the day after Easter,

[A]

you noted he did not put his

[B]

hand on the Bible during his swearing ceremony as president.

[A]

You said, and I'm quoting, maybe he

[B]

didn't put his hand on the Bible because he affirmatively rejects what's inside that book. And then on a recent show, you went further, saying, here's a leader who's mocking the gods of his ancestors, mocking the God of gods and exalting himself above them. Could this be the Antichrist?

[A]

Oh, now, you might have watched up until this moment and said, he trucked. He can't get out of it. There's no way Tucker can get out of it. He's caught. She has a quote. But Tucker is a professional liar. And so he'll just look at you with a straight face and go, I never said it. So she made up the quote. Tucker, is that what you're arguing? I actually did not say, could this be the Antichrist? So now we are going to get the clip that this is Drawn from here's a leader who's mocking the gods of his ancestors, mocking the God of gods and exalting himself above them. Could this be the Antichrist? Well, who knows?

[B]

I don't know where that comes from, but I know that those words never

[A]

left my lips because they quite literally did. We just saw the video, didn't we? I'm not sure I fully understand what the Antichrist is. If there's just one. I, I actually tried to understand it. I, I, I, I may have said some are asking that I'm not. He, he didn't say that. He didn't say some are asking. He said, could Trump be the Antichrist,

[B]

weighing in on that?

[A]

Because I don't understand it. And just to be.

[B]

No. In revelations, obviously.

[A]

One of the funniest parts about this is that Tucker does something that a lot of liars do when they are caught in these situations, which is he gives a non explanation for why he couldn't possibly have said it. And sometimes these things do make sense. And sometimes these things don't make sense as alibis when we think really what these are, are alibis. You know, if you were asked, did you on this day, I believe that you on this day slapped this person at a bar in Brooklyn? And then you go, no, I couldn't have done that because I have proof that I was in San Francisco. Oh, ok, that, that's a, that's a real alibi. You couldn't physically slap someone in Brooklyn. And if at the same time you're on camera walking down the street in San Francisco, not possible. Tucker tries an alibi that is not really an alibi where he goes, I never could have said that because I don't really understand what the Antichrist is. But what difference does it make? You said it. And you clearly have some notion that whatever it might be to be the Antichrist, Trump might be it. It's an alibi of no meaning whatsoever. It's sort of like if you were asked by police, we, we believe we have you on camera slapping someone in Brooklyn and you go, oh, no, I couldn't, couldn't have done that because I don't wear shoes. Then we would go, okay, but that it's not really related. It's not responsive as an alibi to the sub. You go, you could be wearing shoes or not be wearing shoes and have slapped someone. You might understand what the Antichrist is or not understand it and still have said, Trump might be the Antichrist. Tucker is a professional liar. And this is one of the Best preparations for that, arguably, that I've ever seen. Another really interesting moment, and this one I want your help with. Okay. In sorting this one out. At another point during this interview, the subject of Tucker interviewing white nationalist Nick Fuentes comes up and Trump says, I'm sorry, Trump. Tucker says he actually regrets doing the interview, but says, I believe what he's saying here is, I wanted to talk to Fuentes about the war with Iran, but the war with Iran wasn't going on at the time. So it appears as though Tucker is caught in yet another embarrassing lie. But let's listen to exactly what he meant here. I wish I hadn't done the Fuentes interview because, really, yeah, it was totally not worth it. I mean, it was, like, kind of interesting, I guess, but it was used. As I added to the distraction, what I really wanted to talk about was where we were going in this war with Iran. And I spent, like, a month getting calls from people being like, you're a Nazi.

[B]

Okay?

[A]

And I wish I hadn't done that. Not that it didn't imperil my soul. So there is a little bit of controversy here. The interview that Tucker did with Fuentes was six months ago. In fact, I have the exact date I can pull up here. Tucker interviewed Fuentes in October of 2025. Now, I believe what Tucker is saying in this interview is what he really wanted to talk to Fuentes about was where we were going with the war in Iran. And of course, any of us would go, that's crap, because there was no war with Iran at the time. Now, there are a couple defenses that could be levied. One defense would be, Tucker meant, rather than interview Fuentes at all, he wanted to talk about where we were going with. With Iran. The problem with that is nothing would stop Tucker from doing the interview with Fuentes and then doing a segment or a story or a podcast about Iran. So it's not that that defense is not really a good one. The other possibility is Tucker met where we were going after the June bombing of Iran that Trump did. Why? That would be the topic so many months later that he would rather do instead of Fuentes. And it still doesn't really make sense. So I'm being upfront with you that on this one, my initial reaction was, this is obviously a lie because he interviewed Nick Fuentes months before the war in Iran. How. How would he have preferred to talk to Fuentes about Iran when there was no war in Iran? There are these two defenses I can conceive of, which is what he meant was instead altogether or about the bombing in June. Neither really makes sense because first, he's the interviewer and he could have talked to Nick Fuentes about that or is he not in control of the interview? And number two, because he's on YouTube, it's not like I have 50 minutes and that's all I can do. You can do one and also do the other. None of it makes sense. Tucker is a professional liar and he seems to have met his match here very powerfully with Lulu Garcia Navarro. Let me know what you think. Rumors that Donald Trump is wearing a diaper have gone absolutely viral after a bizarre image showed something vivid, very strange going on with Donald Trump and more so after Donald Trump said he is not going to be wearing a bulletproof vest. I will explain the connection in this segment between two seemingly unrelated events. Trump diaper and Trump bulletproof vest. Donald Trump recently sat down with 60 minutes. And aside from his really strange sitting stance, Trump sitting very strongly, as you can see here, there was some kind of unusual bulge right above his waistline. And listen, when you look more closely, I have to admit this does look exactly like what my 9 month old looks like when she sits with the diaper. The sitting position kind of tightens up the diaper and it creates exactly this kind of bulge when she sits up. Now, I am not bringing this up to be funny. There have been claims about Donald Trump's supposed fecal incontinence for years. This is a medical condition. It's not a joke. It's not funny. What is serious here is that there is simply zero medical transparency about Donald Trump. He's having tests they say nothing or little about. He's on medications that they only reluctantly talk about. When we figure out he may be on a medication, they talk about an MRI for two months that he never had. It turned out it was a CAT scan. He's got hand bruises, ankles swollen like tree trunks, hands then swollen like Argentinian chorizo. And now after this picture comes out, Trump was asked about wearing a bulletproof vest after the incident at the White House correspondents shooting. And he had the following to say

[B]

about the security changes is there talks about you potentially wearing a bulletproof vest moving forward given you have now been shot at. I don't know if I can handle looking 20 pounds heavier. These guys, they look so good. Some of these guys, some of these guys are physical specimens. Some of these guys are trouble. I don't want to be near him.

[A]

All right? So he says, I don't want to look heavy I don't want to look heavier with a bulletproof vest. So you might be saying, well, what's the connection here between the diaper and the bullet? I don't get it. On the one hand, there's the rumor that the real reason Trump can't wear a bulletproof vest is he's already wearing a diaper. And quite frankly, I have no idea if he can't wear both. You know, it's probably not super common. You've got a Venn diagram picture, people who wear adult diapers, people who wear bulletproof vests. I don't know how much overlap there is in those groups. I don't know if you can wear both a diaper and a bulletproof vest. The other rumor is, and this is where it gets more complex, Trump is already wearing a bulletproof vest. And that's what's making the strange bulge in Donald Trump's suit and pants. But the bulge doesn't seem to be rigid. So I don't really have any idea. Maybe it's fat coming out from underneath the bulletproof vest. I don't know. The point here is when there is zero clear information, people start connecting dots. The dots might connect, the dots might not connect. Now add this other piece to it. He's asked about wearing a bulletproof vest, and his answer is basically, I don't want to look 20 pounds heavier. That also tells you something, which is that image is still the most important thing to Donald Trump. Clarity of communication is not the most important thing. Reassuring the public that he is up to the task, safety, none of these. How he looks is the most important thing. And this is a pattern we're very familiar with. Everything is filtered through the prism of how do I look? I want to look strong. I want to look alpha. How does it play on television? How does it look in a video clip? What does it do to my brand? So when people, we see something unusual and we get no explanation, speculation fills that gap. And honestly, this isn't really about whether any particular rumor is true or false. It's what happens when you have a public figure at this level, at Trump's age, at Trump's weight and size, with obvious questions, and we just don't get any consistent or credible answers. And they get caught lying about everything. How sick was Trump with COVID during the first term? Was Trump on oxygen when he had Covid during the first term? We never get good answers, and only after the fact. They sort of, like, concede, yeah, you may not have gotten all the information at that point. You don't control the narrative anymore. And the Internet kind of takes over when it becomes clear that you've been deceptive. And then it's not about just one picture where it looks like maybe he's wearing a diaper or a bulletproof vest. Who knows? It's, can we trust this guy? And we know we can't. And there's a growing consensus in the United States, although among Trump supporters it's growing relatively slowly, that what we are being told is simply not reflective of reality. It is really hard to get straight answers about even basic things. And so that's really the story. Trump wearing a diaper, I don't know, you know, fecal incontinence. It's a thing. There's rumors that Trump suffers from that. All right, but what is his health status? What. What is the what. What precautions are being taken, both on the health, health side and also the security side. And the environment of opacity combined with deception is putting us in the position of looking at these images of Donald Trump almost like the Zapruder film. And I don't believe the speculation is going to die down if they remain this opaque about what Trump is up to. Identity theft and targeted scams often start long before the breach. When bits of your personal life, addresses, emails, relatives, your work history are scattered around the Internet on these data broker sites and that information is sold or reused, our sponsor, Incogni, will get that stuff removed for you. Not from just a single type of website. They will work to take down your personal information or wherever it shows up online, shrinking the pool of info that bad actors rely on. Incogni automatically handles removals from hundreds of known sites, but their unlimited plan goes even further with custom removals where, if you find your info anywhere, paste the link to Incogni and they will get to work removing that for you. This matters because a single overlooked listing can be enough for a scammer to impersonate you or even open accounts in your name. Incogni's data removal process is independently verified by Deloitte, which adds a layer of trust. You can get 60% off when you go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description. Ryan Reynolds here from IT Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today I'm told it's super easy to do.

[B]

@mint mobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only then full price plan options

[A]

available, taxes and fees extra full terms. @mint mobile.com Gas prices today have hit a nearly four year high. If you go and get gas today, you would pay a higher price than you paid at any time in 2026-2025-2024-2023. You would have to go all the way back to July of 2022 almost four years ago to find higher average gas prices than today. I have the chart on the screen as you can see up to 450 a gallon today. And you've got to go back really far. This is a four year chart we're looking at to see a spike. Even that spike was sort of a global phenomenon. It wasn't because one president decided to go to war with one country that controls 20% of the global oil trade. It was because we were finally coming out of the pandemic at the same time that the summer driving season was starting. And, and even then you have to go back to that to get to a higher price. There's even more bad news. For example, if you look specifically at Michigan, you find that the average diesel price in Michigan has never been higher.599 a gallon that was yesterday. Reporting today is that diesel in Michigan is even higher now and has surpassed $6 per gallon. Now I don't do the thing on this show where I don't give you context or leave out critical details when we talk about gas prices over a period of years. If we're going to be honest with each other, which I hope you're being honest with me, I'm going to be honest with you. We do have to talk about inflation and what I mean by that is we have to consider we're comparing nominal gas prices. In fact, over the weekend I had a funny conversation with some of my, my friends. We were reminiscing about the, this very short period after we got our driver's licenses when we were mostly like 16 and a half. There was a few day period where I remember a particular gas station where I was growing up where gas was under a dollar a gallon. It said 9, 9 9, 99.9 cents per gallon. And when we brought this up we said, you know, I wonder if we adjust for inflation, like how much would that be today? And it would be close to $2 a gallon. So we're like, okay, so, so when we think back, gas is now 4,5450 a gallon. We had the 99 cent gas. In today's dollars or inflation adjusted, it would be like two dollar gas. It's still a lot cheaper, but it's not as cartoonishly cheap. Same thing for 45 today. For a gallon of gas is not the same as 445 in 2022 because of inflation. It would be like about $5 today. Still, we have to remember who we're dealing with here because when Trump lied about gas being A$87 when he left office, not only was he lying, he was not contextualizing even what we're talking about by doing inflation adjustment. When Trump promised we're going to get gas under $3, he wasn't considering the effect of inflation. When Trump pounded Joe Biden relentlessly during Biden's presidency, comparing gas prices to when Trump was president, he didn't mention, by the way, we have to consider the effect of inflation on these nominal prices. But if we put aside the arithmetic for a moment, what I want to tell you is what this means politically. People do not seem to be motivated to vote one way or the other by gun safety regulations. It just, everything we know suggests gun safety regulations are not a strong voting issue. People don't seem to be motivated to vote or not vote or for vote for one person versus another based on trans sports and their position on transports just doesn't seem to be a voting issue for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Fine. Gas prices do seem to move the needle for voting. And gas prices are sky high right now. Sky high. And voters can easily compare and contrast. I go to a gas pump and I'm paying more than I've paid for almost four years. But I remember that Trump promised really cheap gas. We're not getting it. That's a promise that wasn't kept. The same voters who were told I alone can fix it by Donald Trump are now paying more than they did under the guy Trump blamed, Joe Biden. So look at how quickly the excuses are rolling in. We've already seen over the weekend, I didn't pull these clips. I could have, but I didn't. People in the Trump administration going on TV and saying, well, listen, we are still dealing with the chaos that Joe Biden left us and it's the Fed and it's Jerome Powell's fault and global markets and all this different stuff. Everything other than any accountability. Now, I want to remind you, I have a pristine record. Pristine of over a decade of being very upfront with you about gas prices. For the most part, gas prices don't depend on what the President of the United States does. Gas prices depend on global conditions. They depend on supply. They depend on black swan events like Covid and others. For the most part, there is very little American presidents can do to affect gas prices. But the biggest thing American presidents can do to affect gas prices is to choose to get into a military conflict with a country that either controls supply or transit of oil. And that is exactly what Donald Trump did. So it's not. David, you know, you spent all these years saying Biden couldn't be. No, no, no, no, no. I was very upfront under Bush, under Obama, under Trump won under. But the president does very little. They can do a gas tax holiday. They can release a little oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has a temporary impact of about 15 cents per gallon. Or the big thing presidents really can do is exactly what Trump did with Iran. So now we are going to see what effect this is going to have in November. We had video of Scott Bessant earlier asked, are gas prices or oil prices going to be lower in November? And he said a whole bunch of stuff that was not yes and it wasn't no. The simplest test of political claims is you said prices would go down and they went up. That is really easy for people to understand, even people loosely connected to the political space. And we're going to find out very soon. We're now just what, six months, not even six months almost to the day from finding out, are voters going to fall for this crap or are they going to say, here's what I was promised, here's what's happening. I'm not voting for you clowns. We will see. We have an incredible situation with Ben Shapiro. 85% of Ben Shapiro's YouTube audience has disappeared very quickly and they are not coming back. As the right wing media network, the Daily Wire is in free fall with massive layoffs. This is a disaster for right wing media. It is terrible for Ben Shapiro, it is terrible for the people who work at the Daily Wire. Now I'm going to go over the numbers with you and tell you why this really matters for upcoming elections. The numbers are as follows. Since the middle of 2023, Ben Shapiro's average daily viewership is down every 85%. Isn't it possible that everybody's viewership is down? Because that was a very interesting period. No, that's not. We. In fact, we keep growing. A lot of left Wing media keep growing, and some right wing shows are growing very quickly as well. But not Ben Shapiro and not the Daily Wire. In fact, the Average day on YouTube for Ben Shapiro right now is about 800,000 YouTube views. While we are averaging closer to 2.5 million YouTube views per day, our channel is now typically more than doubling Ben Shapiro's YouTube channel and sometimes close to tripling it on many days. Shapiro used to get 170 million views per month. That's down to 28 million million views. Last month we had 75 million. Think about that. Now, there was a report that came out that the Daily Wire fired half of its staff. That is disputed by a Daily Wire spokesperson. Daily Wire spokesperson said, we have done some restructuring. There were some layoffs. The cuts were largely concentrated in Nashville. But it's not nearly 50%. And this is all going to be very useful and helpful for us. Okay, well, the, the other aspect to this is that Shapiro's YouTube channel is also losing subscribers. That's never a good sign. Now where this becomes an issue is that the Daily wire had roughly one to 200 employees or more. There are conflicting reports about their peak number of employees. That is a lot of employees. Now they've got a ton of shows, that's true, but that level of employment is simply not sustainable with your flagship show getting 800,000 YouTube views a day. I mean, we have five full time people on this show, myself included, and we are doubling and sometimes tripling the views of the Ben Shapiro YouTube channel. Now let's step back for a second because this really isn't about Ben Shapiro's views dropping. This is about something I spoke with Tim Miller about on Substack last week. Or was it the week? Last week? Yeah. Who controls the conversation on the right and who sets the agenda? For a long time, it was really clear Rush Limbaugh would set the agenda and the tone for conservative media. Then Fox News sort of took over that role. What they focused on became what Republican voters cared about. Now, more recently, outlets like the Daily Wire, built around people like Ben Shapiro, have tried to do the exact same thing in the digital space. And the goal was, let's do more than just have an audience. Let's, let's really set the agenda. Let's be the people who direct the conversation. For the American right wing, when Ben Shapiro's audience is collapsing like this, you can't set the agenda because you've got almost no audience. And when that agenda setting power breaks, you lose viewers, but you also lose a central voice. That is there to direct the right and tell them, here's what matters, here's what you need to be talking about posting about on social media. And this gets back to the point I discussed with Tim Miller, which is that when you don't have a dominant agenda setter, everything kind of fragments. And you get a lot of smaller creators. Sometimes with viral clips, you get these algorithmically driven spikes. One person is up, another person is up, all with different messages. And that causes two important problems. Number one is incoherence of the message. Because when it's like today, this creator went viral and here's their message today, that creator went viral, they have a completely different message about what the right, which should care about that creates a total lack of coordination and it weakens the right. I'm glad about that. I'm telling you that this is great for the left in terms of the opportunity that it presents. The other thing that happens is that it will sometimes cause escalation when no one is consistently the agenda setter for the right or the left. But right now, this is what's happening on the right. You get the sort of knock of opportunity where creators will say, wow, no one is really agenda setting. If I become really extreme and outrageous, maybe I can start to get the attention of that agenda setting power which just radicalizes the right. And in the past, when Fox News or Rush Limbaugh would push something, it would move through the entire ecosystem. It would be Rush. Now Fox News is talking about it. Republican senators are talking about it. Republican congresspeople are talking about it. Everybody online is talking about it. That's broken now. And it is not just, oh, Ben Shapiro is down. It's that the right used to have this very sort of organized system where here's where the messaging comes from. We amplify it. Oh, now it's the War on Christmas. They don't want religious freedom. They don't like people saying Merry Christmas. Stupid concept, but it would trickle all the way through. And by the nighttime, it's on Bill O'Reilly when he was on Fox News. It's on Sean Hannity, it's on Greta Van Susteran, who used to have a show on Fox. That world is gone. And when you lose that coordination, you are weaker. And it is an opportunity, not a guarantee for the left, but it is an opportunity for the left to be able to take back some of that agenda setting power and to prevent some of these really silly narratives from ever becoming as dominant as they become. Now on the bonus show today, we will talk about a governor busted helping the rival party win for a very petty reason. I think you're going to like this story. We will talk about California starting to give tickets to driverless cars that violate traffic laws. And Trump's disapproval hits a record high. We'll tell you why and what it means. We have a bonus show. And you know what, Alex Jones may be gone from the broadcast, but he still hates the bonus show.

[B]

The bonus show where you want to make money, everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad.

[A]

Right? We are going to do it on the bonus show. You can sign up instantly at join pacman.com and make sure to get my daily deep dives. That's Triple D, right on my substack. David pakman.com/substack. I'll see you then. See you on the bonus show. See you back here tomorrow.