BONUS: Sandwich thrower stands trial, Mexican president sexually assaulted, White House ordered to use ASL interpreters

Summary

---

The David Pakman Show — Bonus Episode Summary

Episode: BONUS: Sandwich thrower stands trial, Mexican president sexually assaulted, White House ordered to use ASL interpreters
Date: November 8, 2025
Hosts: David Pakman (A), Pat (B)

---

Episode Overview

This bonus episode features David Pakman and co-host Pat diving into three headline-grabbing stories:

1. The bizarre trial of a protester for throwing a sandwich at a U.S. immigration agent
2. The sexual assault of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum during a public appearance
3. The White House being ordered by a federal judge to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters at press briefings

With a mix of humor and sharp analysis, the hosts address the larger social and political implications of these incidents, emphasizing themes of accountability, accessibility, and the shifting boundaries of public discourse.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The "Sandwich Assault" Trial

[00:00–04:16]

• Incident Recap:
  A D.C. protester is on trial for throwing a sandwich at a U.S. immigration agent, who described the event as “an explosion” and testified about the pervasive smell of onion and mustard on his uniform.
• Response to the Testimony:
  • Both hosts find the situation “cartoonishly funny” but affirm that any physical assault, even with a sandwich, is inappropriate.
  • Discussion of the mock-seriousness in the officer’s testimony and the court’s decision to perform a reenactment despite clear video evidence.
  • Granting that no one was hurt, the hosts reflect on how even symbolic or minor confrontations can be used to “frame protests as violent” and caution against giving authorities any ammunition.
• Notable Quotes:
  • David: “Describing this as an explosion, the testimony is sort of funny, I have to admit.” [00:57]
  • Pat: “Crimes are almost never funny. But I feel like this is the exception because we know that nobody got hurt here. It's just the officer's ego that got assaulted here.” [01:17]
  • David: “Thank goodness... Subway markets the footlong sandwich as being a foot long—they're reportedly only 11 inches… This was far less dangerous because it was not a full footlong.” [02:44]
• Broader Point:
  This case is a reminder not to escalate protests into physical confrontations, as even minor incidents can be weaponized against legitimate movements.

---

2. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Assaulted

[04:16–08:57]

• Incident Description:
  A man groped Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum during a public appearance, leading to national controversy and scrutiny of presidential security.
• Analysis of Security Failures:
  • The president's predecessor dissolved the presidential guard in a populist move, increasing vulnerability.
  • Pat: “You got to protect the president… I think you can still appear to be a person of the people… while having security.” [05:27]
• Gender Dynamics & Cultural Issues:
  • David discusses the double standard faced by women in power, questioning if a male president would face similar risks.
  • The hosts reflect on how alcohol is often given as an excuse for inappropriate behavior, but underlying tendencies may matter more.
• Broader Social Context:
  • Pat points out that “groping women on subways” is an under-addressed problem in Mexico, and the president pressing charges sends an important message.
• Notable Quotes:
  • David: “As a woman… would people do this to a male president? I think it’s a fair question.” [04:56]
  • Pat: “This could be the type of thing that this guy does on a daily basis, honestly.” [08:01]

---

3. White House Ordered to Use ASL Interpreters

[08:57–13:38]

• Summary of Legal Decision:
  A federal judge has mandated the White House provide ASL interpretation during press briefings, after the Trump administration ceased the practice.
• Accessibility vs. “Wokeness”:
  • David distinguishes basic accessibility from “DEI” (diversity, equity, inclusion) debates:
    “ASL interpretation to me, has nothing to do with DEI wokeness… This is just a basic issue of accessibility.” [08:57]
  • Hosts mock the tendency for conservatives to conflate accessibility with political virtue signaling.
• Social & Political Implications:
  • Pat jokes about the difficulty of ASL interpreters having to translate “the terrible things that Trump and Caroline Levitt say.” [12:03]
  • David draws parallels to normalized accessibility like handicap parking, scoffing at those who frame such changes as unfair or political.
• Notable Quotes:
  • David: “Is a wheelchair access ramp… DEI? I mean, it is inclusion, but it's not a political thing in the way that some Republicans are arguing.” [11:04]
  • Pat: “It's just common courtesy for people. And it's something that we used to all be able to get behind, but now… everything is so polarized.” [12:03]
• Memorable Moment:
  • David recalls the infamous “nonsense sign language interpreter” during Obama’s South Africa visit as an example of security gaps and ASL faux pas.
    “He was just making random hand gestures. It kinda links two stories from today…” [12:35]

---

Notable Quotes (By Timestamps)

• David:
  • "Describing this as an explosion, the testimony is sort of funny, I have to admit." [00:57]
  • "This only diminishes the...perspective of those of us who are against this presence. You just shouldn't do it." [03:16]
  • "ASL interpretation to me, has nothing to do with DEI wokeness… This is just a basic issue of accessibility." [08:57]
• Pat:
  • "Crimes are almost never funny. But I feel like this is the exception..." [01:17]
  • "You got to protect the president. Right. It's a very vulnerable situation..." [05:27]
  • "It's just common courtesy for people. And it's something that we used to all be able to get behind..." [12:03]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Sandwich Assault Trial: [00:00–04:16]
• Mexican President Groped: [04:16–08:57]
• White House ASL Ruling: [08:57–13:38]

---

Episode Tone

The episode is rich with dry humor, clear progressive political analysis, and a steady flow of banter between David and Pat. They maintain a balance between irreverence—especially when mocking the absurdity of the sandwich trial—and seriousness when discussing gender-based violence and accessibility rights.

---

For New Listeners

This episode is an excellent primer on the show's blend of political news, in-depth discussion, and witty, humanistic commentary. The stories, while sometimes absurd, are used to spotlight larger structural and cultural challenges in contemporary politics, protest culture, security, and inclusion.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody. David here. What you're about to hear is an episode of the bonus show. We do a bonus show every day for our members and for a limited time, we will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up@join pacman.com here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to the bonus show. This is a wild story. A U.S. immigration agent has testified that despite wearing a ballistic vest when that infamous sandwich was thrown at him by a DC protester, he could feel it. And that the sandwich exploded and that the smell of onion and mustard pervaded his uniform. You know, Pat, when we covered this incident to begin with, I said I am not in favor of going and assaulting officers. Right. And even if it's a sandwich, it is still an assault and I am against it. But describing this as an explosion, the testimony is sort of funny, I have to admit.

[B]

Absolutely. I mean, crimes are almost never funny. But I feel like this is the exception because we know that nobody got hurt here. It's just the officer's ego that got assaulted here. And that's what this story is over. The fact that this guy was humiliated because he had a sandwich thrown at him. And the Trump administration, more broadly, has been humiliated by this incident. I understand why the grand jury refused to return a, an indictment for felony charges against this man, and this is just now being prosecuted as a misdemeanor. But there's a whole bunch of interesting details to it, including how this guy had to testify about the smell and how they did a reenactment in court about the incident. Even though why would we need a reenactment when there's video clear as day as to what happened? So it's just a bizarre story, but, you know, you can't be throwing sandwiches at people. I think that is true.

[A]

You can't. The, the reenactment, despite having video, is a really funny thing. Also, can you imagine if that sandwich had had hot peppers on it? We would be talking about a whole that then it probably would be a felony.

[B]

May have created some third degree burns for that officer. Honestly, if there's a crime that took place here, a serious crime, it's the fact that that guy decided to spend money on Subway in the first place. Now, maybe he bought that sandwich knowing he wasn't going to eat it because he was going to throw it at someone, in which case, okay, that's a little bit more acceptable, but if he purchased that sandwich from Subway intending to eat it later, I think that's a crime in and of itself.

[A]

There's another aspect to this, which is thank goodness that even though Subway markets the footlong sandwich as being a foot long, they're reportedly only 11 inches, or sometimes 11 and a half, depending on how much. How much compression the bread has experienced or stretching. This was far less dangerous because it was not a full footlong.

[B]

It was a full footlong sandwich. It likely would have punctured the officer's bulletproof vest.

[A]

Yes, exactly.

[B]

Then felony charges would have been warned.

[A]

Anyway, I think if we zoom out to be serious for a second, you know, I. One of the things that we always say is, let's not give them any opportunities to frame the protests as violent when. When they are not. This was not no kings. This was like an acute incident when ICE officers were, you know, out there carrying out whatever sort of task they were trying to carry out it. I still am of the mind that, like, we don't want to give them anything. This is just so cartoonishly funny that it just does feel less serious. But it still is. We still need to take the same position, which is like, this only diminishes the more the. The. The perspective of those of us who are against this presence. You just shouldn't do it.

[B]

Yeah, I'm with you there. But if there was one instance of someone going over the top and doing the type of thing that we don't want to see our side engaging in, this would be the way to do it. Right? The sandwich throw. Because it is funny and no one got hurt.

[A]

All right, this. I don't know if you saw this video, Pat. I saw it on TikTok. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum was groped. There is a bizarre video. And honestly, I don't know how this happens. And I know that presidential security is different in different countries, and sometimes you're sort of, like, allowed to get closer than in other places. She was standing there talking to people on the street, and a guy walks up right behind her and sort of like. I don't want to call it an embrace, because an embrace makes it sound consensual. He non. Consensually kind of puts his arms around her, and she kind of, like, repels him. And then security swoops in, and a couple of things are going on. Number one, she's pressing charges. She says that it's important as. As a woman who, you know, would people do this to a male president? I think it's a Fair question. I mean, part of. Part of this even being something that occurs to people, I do think, is because she is a woman. She said it's important because this is a guy who was completely drunk and behaved inappropriately, and I've got to do that. This is also raising major questions about her security, which of course is being tightened. But apparently I am not the only one, Pat, wondering, how on earth did this person even get up to her?

[B]

Well, it's because, in part, her predecessor, Amlo Lopez Obrador, decided to get rid of the presidential guard in a gesture to make him look like more of a man of the people and to show that government wasn't wasting money on things like this. But you got to protect the president. Right. It's a very vulnerable situation that she was in. And I don't think that it would be this big waste of money or whatever to have some protection around her and defend the head of state. I think that makes all the sense in the world. I think you can still appear to be a person of the people and you can still engage in those crowds and that sort of thing while still having security. So that I think that is an important thing to gather from this, that. That would make a lot of sense, especially in this case. Also, I'm wondering what. What the hell, what the hell was this guy thinking? Right? Because, you know, obviously it's terrible to do this in any instance, but against the president of a country, and you thought that you were going to get away with it. Was this guy so drunk he wasn't thinking through that? Or is he so used to groping strangers that he felt emboldened to do it to even the president? Like, what the hell was going through this guy's mind?

[A]

Yeah, I keep thinking of this thing of, you know, when Mel Gibson was pulled over drunk and by Beverly Hills police. Or was it, I think it was Beverly Hills police, and then started saying to the officer, are you Jewish? And started yelling about Jews and all this different stuff. And later it was like, oh, it was the alcohol acting. And, and we talked about this a number of times, Pat, where it's like, if certain things aren't deep down inside of you, you're not going to say them, no matter how drunk you are. In fact, you would probably pass out from drinking before you start using the N word. For example, like, there's no amount of alcohol I could have. Where I'm going to start using the N word. It's not part of my vocabulary with this stuff. Is this the same or is it different because some are saying the alcohol is really not relevant. There are certain types of people who would go and touch individuals even without a sign that they want to be touched, and the alcohol might disinhibit them, but it doesn't create that. Whereas, on the other hand, there are some who go, no, you know, this sort of embrace, it's completely inappropriate and unwanted. But there are people who are just huggers who, with the alcohol might think that the hug is appropriate in a situation when it's. When it's not. It's not like he would have actually attempted, you know, forcible sexual assault or. But so I don't know. Some people say this is different from, like, I was drunk, so I said the N word type of stuff.

[B]

Yeah. My sense is, when it comes to this case, this guy probably does this sort of thing, whether or not he's drunk, because it's the type of thing that honestly, is a huge problem in Mexico City with people groping women on subways and just feeling as though they can get away with it because there's just not a lot of attention paid to it. There's not a lot of resources to go after the crime. So. So this could be the type of thing that this guy does on a daily basis, honestly. And, yeah, maybe he was drunk in this instance and that is what led him to attack the president. Maybe he otherwise wouldn't have attacked the president if. If he wasn't drunk. But this is certainly something that seems to be part of this guy's behavior, and the alcohol just inhibited him that much more. And all of a sudden we have this attack. And I think it's great that she's pressing charges, by the way, because, you know, you want to send a message that this is not acceptable, and this is the type of thing that presidents need to take the lead on.

[A]

A federal judge is ordering the White House to immediately start providing American Sign Language interpretation at its press briefings when Trump is speaking or when Caroline Levitt is speaking. The White House stopped doing it when Trump's term began. This is really, you know, here's one of these things, Pat. This has become. We have a mishmash of what is just basic accessibility and what is sort of like political virtue signaling. Dei. Exactly. American Sign Language interpretation, to me, has nothing to do with DEI wokeness. Like you can debate that stuff. I'm not even taking a position. This is just a basic issue of accessibility. Many countries do it. I guess part of the thing you might be saying, well, why can't they just do closed captions. There is some reason why I don't actually remember what it is when these live press conference press briefings are going on. I don't remember what the explanation is. Or maybe it's just that it's much simpler to have someone doing the asl, but like the anti DEI stuff has really gone too far where the Trump administration is like, we're not even going to do ASL and a court has said, no, you've got to do it. These are government communications at the end of the day.

[B]

Right. These are completely different things. Maybe it's because we've seen the growth of ASL on TV in that bottom corner around the same time that people started to complain about dei.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Because they came up at the same time people started to associate the two things. Also, funny enough, like you could say, in a sense that ASL would fall under the DEI category because it's inclusion. Right. You're trying to include people who are hard of hearing. So it's sort of one of those things where conservatives are obviously going way over the top when it comes to this. But it also goes to show why we should have inclusion, why we should have policies like this.

[A]

Well, it's sort of like if there are, if there are handicapped parking spots in a parking lot, is that die? I mean, like, it is inclusion, but it's not a political thing in the way that some of these Republicans are arguing.

[B]

Right. But people are used to those handicap parking spots by now. Right. We've had it for generation or two, however long. Whereas when it comes to asl, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was commonplace to see some ASL interpreter in the bottom part of the screen 20 plus years ago. Right. That's something that's come up more recently. So people aren't used to it. They see the change and they think it must be woke.

[A]

This is an example of when leveling the playing field to some is seen as simply helping others in a way that is unfair. Right. It's sort of like putting everybody at the starting line looks like it's unfair when you're used to standing way ahead of the starting line. And it's just so idiotic that this is something that they have a problem with, but they do. And I think that this is going to manifest in other ways. You know, is a, is a wheelchair access ramp or what about at TSA allowing people in wheelchairs to go to the front of the line or like it's not DEI in the sense that they are using the term.

[B]

Absolutely. It's just common courtesy for people. And it's something that we used to all be able to get behind, but now with everything being so political, everything being so polarized in our country, this is the type of thing that people take issue with. I'd be interested to see if, in an ironic twist, the ASL interpreters who now have to show up at the White House revolt in their own way, if they maybe start their own lawsuits, because they're going to have to interpret the terrible things that Trump and Caroline Levitt so say, and those things are often incoherent. That's going to make it a very difficult job for those people who have that role.

[A]

I still laugh all the time about when that, when Obama was in South Africa, I think it was when the nonsense sign language interpreter got up there and was signing nothing. He was just making random hand gestures. It kind of links two stories from today, someone that wasn't properly vetted, getting close to a president. And also the ASL stuff that is just wild, wild stuff.

[B]

Can we perhaps tie it in with the sandwich story as well, which is that it's like something that he shouldn't have done, but it's also not so egregious and there's a funny aspect to it that you want to laugh it off.

[A]

Yes. I think that that is another way it really ties together all, all three of the stories. So, listen, the White House is being ordered to do this. This is also a question of do we have the power to enforce that in the sense of a court has now ruled this. Are they actually going to do it? Because sometimes Trump just goes, yeah, we're not going to do that.

[B]

Doesn't seem like the battle that you want to fight if you're the White House. Right. Pick a different battle. But who knows with this White House? I'm sure they'll try to delay, delay, delay as much as possible on this.

[A]

All right, slightly shorter bonus show today as I've got to get to the airport. Wish me luck. A lot of chaos at airports these days. We'll have a new show and a new bonus show for you tomorrow.