The David Pakman Show: BONUS FREEBIE – Epstein Victims Making Their Own List, CEO Snatches Hat from Kid at Tennis Match

Date: September 6, 2025
Host: David Pakman
Co-Host: Pat
Episode Type: Bonus Show (free sample for podcast listeners)

Overview

In this bonus episode, David Pakman and co-host Pat discuss two striking stories: the ongoing pursuit for Jeffrey Epstein’s client list—now with Epstein's victims considering releasing their own—and the viral scandal of a CEO snatching a hat from a child at the US Open. The discussion blends sharp political analysis, ethical concerns, and reflections on public shaming in the social media era.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Epstein Victims Consider Releasing Their Own "Client List"

(00:45–06:58)

• Context & New Development:
  The hosts explore a recent hearing where Epstein’s trafficking ring victims revealed they could compile and potentially publish their own list of clients—those who abused or trafficked them.

  • David: “There is a new possibility here… the victims may be able to put together a list.” (01:27)
  • Victims claim, "We know the list. We are the victims of the people on the list.” (01:10)

• Potential Impact and Credibility:

  • Debate over whether a victims' list would be seen as credible as one released officially by the government (02:41).
    • Pat: “Some would argue that it would actually be more credible... victims seem to have a lot of credibility in this. Certainly more credibility than the government.” (03:09)
  • Legal concerns for victims: risk of lawsuits, NDAs, and emotional turmoil (03:26).

• Media Focus & the Forgotten Victims:

  • David notes the media’s preoccupation with politicians (Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell, etc.) has minimized the perspectives of the actual victims.
    • David: “There’s been very little discussion of the victims. That really is at the core of this.” (03:58)
  • Public victim statements have already moved key Republican politicians and could push Congress to release the official list.

• Political Ramifications:

  • Republican defections: Nancy Mace, Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene have been swayed by meeting the victims (05:21).
    • Pat: “Nancy Mace walked away from a meeting with the victims in tears, clearly moved by what they had to say.” (05:25)

• Potential Backlash:

  • David cautions that victims making a list public could subject them to character attacks, echoing tactics seen during the MeToo movement (06:01).
    • David: “If the victims put together a list… it’s conceivable they will start attacking the character of the victims.” (06:01)
    • Pat: “They’ll go back to their old playbook. But I just don’t think it’s going to work because this story has taken on a life of its own.” (06:28)

Trump Administration’s “Founders Museum” and PragerU’s Role

(06:58–11:59)

• Background:
  The Trump administration has unveiled an exhibit—82 paintings and 40 AI-generated videos—celebrating the Founding Fathers, created in partnership with right-wing nonprofit PragerU.

• AI “Resurrecting” Founders:

  • David expresses concern that AI-generated videos could sow confusion over historical realities (i.e., people believing there is real video of Washington) (07:58).
    • David: “I’m concerned this is going to lead to… people going, ‘No, I saw video of George Washington.’” (08:18)
    • Pat: “People will believe that that was actually George Washington… Especially with AI technology getting better and better every day.” (08:44)

• Revisionism & Right-Wing Messaging:

  • AI videos have figures like John Adams saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” (Ben Shapiro’s catchphrase).
    • David: “I can assure you that Andrew Jackson…did not say ‘facts don’t care about your feelings.’” (09:15)
    • Pat: “If you have John Adams…saying facts don’t care about your feelings…then all of a sudden we have a real problem.” (09:53)
  • Concerns about PragerU’s expanding influence under the guise of nonpartisan educational activism (10:43–11:59).

• Memorable Moment – Quip about Online Degrees:

  • Pat: “If you had to get a degree, degree in quotation marks, from either PragerU or Trump U, which one would you go with?” (11:59)
  • David: “I guess I would get [the Trump U certificate] on the premise that it might be worth marginally more perhaps.” (12:06)

Viral Outrage: CEO Snatches Hat from Kid at Tennis Match

(12:26–18:07)

• The US Open Incident:

  • Viral video shows Peter Cesarek, a Polish CEO, snatch a hat signed by player Kamil Majchrzak from a child. Public outrage ensues after the video spreads.
  • Cesarek apologizes publicly: claims he thought the hat was intended for him, “not the kid,” and has since returned it.
    • David: “It enraged millions and millions of people. …He has said he made a mistake.” (12:36)
  • The tennis player said there was “some confusion” and did not realize the hat had been snatched from a child.

• Authenticity of the Apology:

  • Pat: Skeptical, urges that any reasonable adult seeing a child wanting the hat would do the right thing.
    • (Paraphrase) “Even if the player handed it to the guy… it would be evil… to not give it to the kid...” (14:11)
  • David debates whether this was an honest mistake or just PR damage control.
    • “On the one hand, it’s really hard to imagine he had no idea there was a kid there… I struggle to believe it.” (14:31)

• Why Do Adults Want Such Memorabilia?

  • Pat: “I just don't understand why adults want these sorts of things anyway… But as a grown adult, why do you care?” (15:11)

• Public Shaming & Outrage Culture:

  • David references Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed,” connecting the hat-snatching incident to wider debates about internet-driven punitive action.
    • “It’s kind of interesting to hear the different stories where sometimes these things do involve genuinely despicable people. Sometimes… it’s a misunderstanding…” (16:44)
  • Both hosts discuss the balance between giving people the benefit of the doubt and believing your own eyes.
    • Pat: “The video looks pretty conclusive in my eyes.” (17:52)
    • David: “The video doesn’t look great… let me know what you think.” (18:07)

Notable Quotes

• David Pakman: “We know the list. We are the victims of the people on the list. …That could open up a serious can of worms.” (01:10)
• Pat: “Victims seem to have a lot of credibility in this. Certainly more credibility than the government does.” (03:09)
• David: “There’s been very little discussion of the victims. That really is at the core of this.” (03:58)
• Pat: “They’ll go back to their old playbook. But I just don’t think it’s going to work because this story has taken on a life of its own.” (06:28)
• David: “I’m concerned this is going to lead to… people going, ‘No, I saw video of George Washington.’” (08:18)
• Pat: “If you have John Adams…saying facts don’t care about your feelings…then all of a sudden we have a real problem.” (09:53)
• David: “It enraged millions and millions of people. …He has said he made a mistake.” (12:36)
• Pat: “The second you see that some little kid is there who clearly wants it, you do the right thing and you give the hat to the kid.” (14:11)
• David: “It’s kind of interesting to hear the different stories where sometimes these things do involve genuinely despicable people. Sometimes… it’s a misunderstanding…” (16:44)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Epstein Victims and Possibility of Their List: 00:45–06:58
• Discussion of Political & Media Response: 03:58–06:58
• Trump’s “Founders Museum” & PragerU Involvement: 06:58–11:59
• Right-Wing Revisionism and AI-Generated Videos: 09:15–11:00
• PragerU vs. TrumpU Degree Quip: 11:59–12:26
• US Open Hat Snatching Incident & Public Reaction: 12:26–18:07
• Public Shaming in the Social Media Age: 16:07–18:07

Overall Tone

The conversation is analytical, occasionally sardonic, and candid—balancing concern for justice and the truth with skepticism of political and media motivations. The playful banter (e.g., fake degrees from PragerU or Trump U) blends with serious critique about the weaponization of AI in politics, shifting cultural norms, and lingering questions about justice for victims.

This summary covers the main substance of the episode, avoiding ads, intros, and outros. Listeners come away with a full understanding of the episode’s depth, wit, and ongoing storylines.