Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (4:18)

Fox News alert. The president says, based on the request of Pakistan and other countries, we have mutually agreed that while the blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the agreement can be finalized and signed. We suspect the President is letting the Iranians save face.

David Pakman (4:41)

We suspect the President is letting the Iranians save face. Wow, what an interpretation.

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (4:48)

The enemy just yesterday said they controlled the strait. That was obviously a lie. And watching the Americans escort ship after ship out of the Gulf and them not being able to do anything about that was going to be humiliating. Not only were they going to lose whatever military prestige they had left in the region.

David Pakman (5:08)

I hope people understand what Jesse's arguing. Jesse is arguing that Trump is doing this. Trump is chickening out because he's so nice. He didn't want to embarrass the Iranians by crushing them so badly. Does anyone believe Trump wouldn't want to embarrass his enemies? That's Trump's primary goal.

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (5:28)

Their negotiators weren't going to be able to fight for their position after they lost their last bargaining chip. The commander in chief must believe that the Iranians are serious about surrendering.

David Pakman (5:40)

Right.

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (5:41)

If he's going to pause Project Freedom for the sake of a deal. Because you could also continue Project Freedom during the negotiations. You know, you do want to get these foreign ships moving. The president must know what he's doing.

David Pakman (5:55)

He must know what he's doing. This must be the explanation. This is quite literally cult behavior. What happens in cults is that it's called special pleading. The leader can contradict themselves. Predictions that they make fail. They behave abusively towards the cultists. They violate previously espoused moral rules. They live in obvious hypocrisy. They are weak even though they proclaim to be strong. And the followers are trained to explain it away rather than reevaluate the leader. So you see patterns like, oh, he did something that seems like weakness, even though he claims to be strong. It can't possibly be that he's not actually strong. That's not a possibility. It must be that he has a deeper plan so sophisticated that we can't understand it. The leader is operating at a higher level. So even though it seems like he's acting moronically and pathetically and cowardly, that can't be it because he's the leader. It must be that there is a higher level we are not able to understand on which the leader is operating. What might seem immoral? Oh, the leader said that X is immoral, and then the leader did X. It must have been necessary in this particular case because the leader, by definition, would never do anything immoral. Criticism of what the leader is doing proves that he is a threat to the system and they're scared of him. Nobody criticizes the leader because the leader is doing something wrong. People criticize the leader because they are scared of the leader, because the leader is so strong and the leader is so smart. The failure is actually a success in disguise. And it is disguised so that the leader's enemies don't realize this is special pleading. Every single time I've used this analogy before, someone goes, hey, there's an invisible purple tiger in the room with us right now. And you look around, then you go, well, I don't see it. And they go, well, it's invisible. You go, all right, well, listen, let's spread baby powder on the floor. So when this invisible purple tiger walks around, we'll see the paw prints in the baby powder that will prove that it's here. And they go, now it's not only an invisible purple tiger, it also hovers over the ground so you wouldn't see it disturb the baby powder. Okay, well, listen, the invisible purple tiger that hovers above the ground must need to eat. So let's put some beautiful stakes right in the corner. And when the invisible purple tiger goes to eat the steaks, we will see the steak being consumed. They go, nope, it's an invisible purple tiger that hovers over the ground and doesn't require food. Every single time that it appears as though there is a contradiction, they come up with a special plead as to why it is not really a contradiction. What really happened here? Very simple. Trump chickened out again and hours later claimed that the war is wrapping. But is it really? That's what we're going to talk about. A disoriented Donald Trump took to Truth Social this morning and said it is all over Truth Central. That's right. Announcing it on Truth Social. I can't believe it. Trump is really ending the war that he started. Except is he? Let's take a look. Donald Trump posting to Truth Social just hours ago. Quote, assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to. Oh my God, we're already in grammatical hell. Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is perhaps a big assumption. Oh boy. The already legendary epic fury will be at an end and the highly effective blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be open to all, including Iran. If they don't agree, the bombing starts and it will be sadly at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.

Donald Trump (10:07)

Ladies and gentlemen.

David Pakman (10:09)

Right, thank you for your attention to this matter. President Donald J. Trump. If Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is a big assumption. Oh boy, oh boy. Trump is desperate. And Trump is desperate to say that he has ended this war. Now, at some point, I hope the war will end. What is important to remember is that Trump started the war. If I set fire to your house and and then half of it burns down and then I put the fire out, am I a firefighter or am I still the arsonist? I would argue that I'm still the arsonist. The law would argue that I'm still the arsonist. And Donald Trump is now scrambling to claim this is all wrapping up, even though he started it, to take credit for ending another war. Now, call me naive or skeptical, but I don't know that I believe this. Officials say that a one page memo might be what ends the war, but importantly, nothing has actually been agreed to as of right now. Now stock markets are reacting as if the war is over. Before the markets opened when this was posted by Trump, dow futures jumped almost plus 450. And we don't actually have reason to believe that this really is over. Now Trump, I guess is acknowledging that by saying in his post, assuming Iran agrees, but the details really matter here. Now, the most fascinating part of all of this is that once again Trump is best case scenario putting in place a weaker version of the Iran nuclear deal that he said was terrible. What is in this one page memo that is currently being negotiated includes Iran would commit to A moratorium on nuclear enrichment. The United States would agree to lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds, which when that was part of Obama's Iran nuclear deal, people like Trump said they're giving them money. And the Obama administration said, we're just releasing their money that we were locking up. And the Trump type people said, no, this is treason. And Trump would allow the exact same thing. Trump would release money to Iran and both sides, as part of this hypothetical deal, would lift restrictions on transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is now hyping the possibility of an Iran deal that would be weaker than the Obama nuclear deal, which Trump said is so terrible, I have to destroy it. Think about that for a second. Now, in comparison, you look at the Iran nuclear deal with Obama, which, remember, was terrible. We've got to end had a functioning nuclear component to it. Trump tore it up because Fox News hated Obama and MAGA hates Obama. And Trump just wanted to cancel everything Obama did. So Iran resumed enrichment. Logically, I don't want Iran having a nuclear weapon. But if the US Gets out of the nuclear deal, why wouldn't Iran start resuming enrichment to then have leverage for future negotiations? It destabilizes the region. It makes Trump threaten bombing, which he does in June, and then now it gets us into a war. And all of it, all of it. Think about it. Think about the money you're paying for 55 a gallon now on average, when Trump is trying to reconstitute a crappier version of the deal he got out of the deal that he destroyed. Now, in reality, I don't think this is even close to a done deal. And even the White House is acknowledging that the Iranian leadership is very divided about this. It may be hard to forge consensus. I hope that this war ends. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if even by the time this show is out, 90 minutes from now, Iran has said, we're not doing this. That doesn't make any sense. And according to Axios, a lot of American officials are very skeptical that a deal is going to be reached. Now, meanwhile, in the same breath as Trump is talking about war, he can't stop talking about the ballroom. He also posted the Truth Social moments before the Iran Post. Quote, the White House ballroom is going up rapidly on the east side of the White House. The only reason the cost has changed is because after deep rooted studies, it's approximately twice the size and a far higher quality than the original proposal, which would not have been adequate to handle the necessary events, meetings and even future inaugurations. The original price was $200 million. The double sized, highest quality completed project will be something like $400 million. Oh boy. It will be magnificent. Safe and secure. This was a necessary change. It was done long ago. But the fake news failed to report it. Trying to make it look like there was a cost overrun. It's ahead of schedule and under budget. And you know what? If you believe that, I have two bridges to sell you. Trump in the same breath. Ballroom, Iran. And you know what? I think he cares more about the ballroom than he cares about Iran. Marjorie Taylor Greene may have exposed something far bigger than she intended. Dropping a massive bomb on Donald Trump, Claiming that Trump orchestrated the government shutdown a little while back specifically to prevent the Epstein files release from being voted on by Congress. Think about that. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke recently and said that that government shutdown wasn't dysfunction, it wasn't budget chaos, it wasn't the inability to strike a deal. That it was specifically meant to shut down government so that it would not be voted on, that the Epstein files would be released. Take a listen to this.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (16:05)

When it comes down to victimizing some of the most innocent people in America, these were young girls that were teenagers that desperately wanted to be models one day. They wanted to be seen as beautiful, they wanted to be rich, they wanted to be famous. And of course, every teenager wants things like that. And they were victimized by Ghislaine Maxwell and others. And they were victimized by the richest, most powerful men, not only in our country, but in the world. And they were used by Jeffrey Epstein as sexual tools for his own satisfaction and his friends satisfaction. To actually be asked by the President of the United States to back off and not help these women. That's when MAGA died. That's when the entire thing shattered for me. So I kept my name on. Then we spent eight weeks shut down. Remember that? We spent eight weeks shut down, by the way. That was to stop the Epstein resolution from getting a House vote. That's what that shutdown was about. Finally, they reopened the government and a brand new Democrat member of Congress was sworn in. And we got the 218th signature released. The resolution passed it overwhelmingly, which was hilarious to me watching all these Republicans. Oh yeah, all of a sudden I'm voting to release the Epstein files, which, what a pathetic joke.

David Pakman (17:36)

Think about how insane this claim is. One of Donald Trump's, you know, formerly most loyal and powerful and strong defenders, saying he orchestrated this entire thing simply so we wouldn't vote to release the Epstein files. And what is amazing here is that MAGA world more and more creates these moments where conspiracy theories point inward. They've always been conspiratorial, but typically the conspiracy theories go out. It's Obama, it's the Jews, it's whoever. But they now are having conspiracy theories that point in. Trump staged one or both assassination attempts. It was Trump who orchestrated the Epstein vote. Not happening with a government shutdown. And in some general sense, they have spent a decade arguing that there is a hidden network of powerful elites protecting each other. And it seems like they still believe that, but they increasingly believe that they are the perpetrators, they are the elites. And the evidence and the speculation and the suspicion is all circling around Donald Trump himself. Now, the Epstein story became very useful politically when the right was able to frame it as the elites are protecting each other. And that's not us, it's other people. But all of a sudden it's, well, Trump seems to be one of those elites, and Trump seems to be working to protect people who were potential perpetrators in the Epstein network. And the whole energy of that shifts. And you've got people like Marjorie Taylor Greene who at least are making claims that it does point inward in this way. Now, there is this sort of like, is this a distraction question with the Epstein files? The timing is suspicious. It's politically motivated. It is inherently a political story. And there is often an attempt to dismiss the facts of a story by saying, oh, that's they're making it political. Well, it may be an issue of. Of law, and it may be an issue of politics as well. That doesn't delegitimize it. And Marjorie Taylor Greene claiming this doesn't prove that it was true. There's no proof that Trump orchestrated that shutdown. But certainly we were extraordinarily suspicious based on what Donald Trump was saying about Epstein at the time. And so you've got this growing paranoia that is fracturing maga. And the fracture has already pushed out Marjorie Taylor Greene and others. And you end up with these MAGA factions, or formerly MAGA factions, trying to explain the contradictions. And it's harder, harder and harder to ignore the contradictions between what they say publicly, Trump about the vote, Epstein, the shutdown, and what Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying. Someone is lying. There's no question. Now, if we zoom out and think about Trump, Trump has been trying to portray himself as, I am not one of the elites. I will go after the elites. I am not corrupt. I will expose the corruption. I will drain the swamp, all of this stuff. But the truth is, and we knew it, and many of you knew it, Trump was one of the wealthy, corrupt elites all along. He was the epitome of the wealthy elite. Born rich in Queens, in Manhattan, spent decades socializing with celebrities and billionaires and financiers and wanting to be in that orbit. And then he built a political identity out of something totally different. I'm Christian now. I'm anti abortion. I'm against the elites, and I'm certainly not one of them. And the movement can only survive for as long as people are willing to hold these contradictory beliefs. Trump is the billionaire, anti elite outsider. Wait, that doesn't really make sense. What are you talking about? Trump is the powerful leader who is the biggest victim in the world. Wait a second. That doesn't really make any sense. Trump is in charge in the most powerful position, arguably in the world, but he is secretly being sabotaged by everybody around him who's just so mean. What? And those contradictions are exploding because they require conspiracy logic to believe them. So the theme goes, there's a secret strategy, there's a hidden negotiation, there's a deeper plan. And what looks suspicious is actually genius. And what looks like guilt is actually innocence. And what looks like corruption is actually just completely necessary. And people like Marjorie Taylor Greene are done pretending that they fall for it. And the reason I say pretending is I don't know that these Republicans are really falling for it. I think the voters have fallen for it. But I would be shocked if Marjorie Taylor Greene's perspective on this wasn't actually the predominant view among Republicans. Most of them are just too pathetic and too cowardly to come out and say it. I'm excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the pocket hose Ballistic. I used to go through cheap hoses all the time because of the kinks and the leaks and the tangles. This is on another level. The pocket hose ballistic is tough, reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, so it'll handle wear and tear. It's also really lightweight. It's easy to carry, easy to store because it expands with water pressure and shrinks right back down when you turn the water off. Also comes with the pocket pivot, giving you smooth 360 degree movement right at the spigot. Honestly, it just makes using a hose a lot less annoying. And now, for a limited time, when you get a new pocket hose ballistic, you will get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Just Text pacman to 64000 message and data rates may apply. The info is in the description.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (23:30)

One of the most common career problems is not knowing how to make a change without blowing up your life and

David Pakman (23:38)

everything you have going on. A lot of people reach a point where they don't necessarily hate their job. They want more direction, growth or maybe

Sponsor/Ad Voice (23:46)

confidence as far as what the next

David Pakman (23:48)

move is, even if on paper everything

Sponsor/Ad Voice (23:50)

is sort of okay. Our sponsor, strawberry.netme is a career coaching platform built for this exact situation. Success often does not happen on its own. It takes clarity, strategy, execution and most people who make meaningful progress are not doing it all by themselves. And that is where a coach at Strawberry Me can really help. A coach can help get you unstuck,

David Pakman (24:17)

uncover what you really want, identify obstacles that might be holding you back, and

Sponsor/Ad Voice (24:22)

really put together a practical step by

David Pakman (24:24)

step plan for where you want to go, whether you are trying to grow in your current role, make a career

Sponsor/Ad Voice (24:30)

change, turn a goal into something real. Having some outside perspective can make a really big difference. So go to strawberry me/pacman to find out if career coaching is right for you and get 50% off your first session. The link is in the description all

David Pakman (24:50)

of the things Donald Trump told you somebody else would pay for, you are paying for. You were told you'd get a wall with Mexico and Mexico would pay for it. You were told China would pay for the tariffs and they would be good for you. You were told Naito was going to pay their fair share and then come to do whatever Donald Trump told Naito to do. And now you're being told, or you were being told donors will pay for Donald Trump's ballroom. Except it always ends up the exact same way. You pay out of your own pocket. Let's go back, I guess, to the beginning of this long, sordid national nightmare. Mexico will pay for the wall and it will get built by the way, neither of which happened.

Donald Trump (25:41)

We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall.

David Pakman (25:57)

Except not exactly. The wall, alas, was never built and Mexico didn't pay for the couple of hundred miles that were built, some of which were just replacements for older pieces of wall or fence or call it whatever you want. Another promise broken by Donald Trump. Well, what about tariffs? There were a number of promises made about tariffs. The tariffs will be paid for by other countries and also that we will get rid of the income tax because of all the money that we would take in on tariffs.

Donald Trump (26:37)

And as time goes By, I believe the tariffs paid for by foreign countries will like in the past, substantially replace the modern day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love.

David Pakman (26:56)

And Trump got a bit of a standing ovation from Republicans when he said that during a State of the Union. But of course it was all a lie. You pay for the tariffs, not China. And we still have an income tax and it's not going away. And everything got more expensive because of the tariffs which is why companies are getting refunded the tariffs now that they've been found to be illegal. If it was China who paid for the tariffs, it would be China getting a refund for the tariffs they paid. But of course it's not. It's un American companies filing for tariff refunds. That's the way it works. The ballroom, which was only going to cost 150 million to start with and then 200 and then 225 and then 250 and then 300 and now we're at almost $400 million. Remember that we were told donors are going to pay for all of it. Here was Donald Trump explaining that to Laura Ingraham. Not, not that long ago.

Donald Trump (27:56)

You know What? They waited 150 years. And the public is paying for nothing. The public is paying for absolutely nothing. It's all being done by donors.

David Pakman (28:09)

It's all being done by donors. Except since the White House correspondents dinner, opportunistic Republicans have started to shift this. Well, we need a much bigger project we're going to immediately file to have taxpayers pay for it. Lindsey Graham has a bill that he has presented in the Senate. And so if it gets built, it looks like you will be paying and I will be paying. It will become a taxpayer funded project. And finally Naito countries have to pay up. It's time for them to pay because they've not been paying the their fair share. You won't pay. Naito will pay.

Donald Trump (28:51)

I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. But 23 of the 28 members, member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years.

David Pakman (29:33)

The only problem with this entire framing is that NAITO members don't pay fines or debts if they're below 2%. The 2% figure is a Voluntary target for how much each country spends on its own military. Not a payment to Naito, and certainly not a payment to the United States. And countries that don't hit 2% aren't delinquent, and they don't owe money to anyone. And so the whole concept, this is how it relates to you will pay for it. Trump then goes into Iran and he goes, oh, now that they close the Strait of Hormuz, we're part of Naito. Naito nations come in. Trump ordered and defend us from the problem we created. And nobody's coming in because that's not what the NATO Shared Defense Treaty is. It's if a country is. If a Naito ally is attacked. We would see other nations come to the defense of the United States if it were the United States. But that defense can be cyber help or it can be strategic. It can be with regard to supplies. But Trump's like, no, no, no. Now they're closing the Strait of Hormuz and everybody needs to come in. France needs to come in. Not the way it works. You know who's paying for all that? It's you, it's me through taxes. Another one of these wars that we are almost into, week 11 of that was going to last three weeks. The entire thing is a farce. We ended up paying. Are you happy that Donald Trump put in place tariffs so that we paid those into the Treasury? Do you think you've gotten value out of the tariffs you've paid by buying stuff that costs more? I don't think so. Do you think that it has been worth it to pay more for gas if you don't have an electric vehicle? Because Donald Trump very strongly and powerfully, as Sean Spicer tried to argue to me yesterday, went in to Iran in a completely optional war. I don't think I've gotten value out of Trump's war in Iran, and I don't think I'm going to. So this is the way it always works. Other people will pay for the thing, and then it ends up being you and me that pay. We got to hold these people accountable, folks. And independent media is going to be part of that. This really is the time to support the shows that you value. We have probably the most critical midterm election I've ever covered since I started doing this six months from now. Let's do it. Let's send them back to where they don't have any power. Donald Trump's EPA administrator was asked a single real question by a reporter, and he was reduced to a sputtering mess, deer in the headlights look mumbling and stumbling through a bizarre, meaningless answer. And this keeps happening in Trump world. Someone asks a very simple, very direct, just a fact based question and suddenly the Trump tool being interviewed doesn't have anything to say. They don't have an answer. And this latest example I absolutely love this is Lee Zeldin. Of course, he now is the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The idea of Trump protecting the environment is quite a jarring concept because it seems like Trump would have the environmental destruction Agency, not environmental protection. And in fact, this interview took place in what you would expect to be the friendliest possible venue, Fox Business. Not a hostile interview. The interviewer, by the way, Liz Clayman, like Maria Bartiromo, was formerly a very good reporter and interviewer on cnbc, grew up doing serious interviews about business, deep understanding of the issues. This was not a difficult question. This was an easy one. Liz Clayman brings up to Zeldin the fact that the EPA is allowing extended gas flaring for natural gas operations. That's something environmental groups have said. This increases emissions. This shouldn't be allowed. And there's more of it happening under Donald Trump and under Lee Zeldin. And so the question is, how can you say that you've improved environmental protection? Where have you tightened regulations on air because what you're actually allowing makes pollution even worse. Give me an example of where you've done something to actually clean up the air. And Lee Zeldin glitches and he has no answer. Take a look at this.

Liz Clayman (34:10)

Let's, let's talk at the broader picture here because this is actually our first opportunity to have you on the show since you. Let's, let's talk at the broader picture here because this is actually our first opportunity to have you on the show since you became the EPA administrator. You've said that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. However, you've got a recent action as well where you are basically allowing the EPA is allowing the extension of gas flaring for natural gas operations while pipelines are being built. Could you? And that, of course, some would argue is not great as far as emissions are concerned.

David Pakman (34:46)

It's terrible for the environment.

Liz Clayman (34:48)

Can you point to something where you have actually tightened regulation to make sure we have clean air?

Lee Zeldin (34:57)

Sure. You know, so we've in a number of fronts. One is on the water space. We increased water quality standards over the course of, it's a little over 30 miles of the Delaware River Basin across southeast Pennsylvania into Maryland and Delaware with regards to Knee shafts and air quality. We have made some decisions that, that increased regulation and the niche shop and hap space. So in, obviously in our agency, it's, it's air, it's water, it's land, and we want to strike that balance every day. We believe strongly that we don't have to choose between the two. So in some cases, we've pursued some of the largest acts of deregulation in the history of the country. With other decisions that we've made, we've increased regulations.

Liz Clayman (35:45)

Well, the deregulation part, again, when you're just talking about people who care about the quality of their drinking water, I think it's important to note that the Trump administration has allowed basically loosened regulation on the way.

David Pakman (35:59)

Oh, this wasn't supposed to go this way.

Liz Clayman (36:02)

Wastewater is allowed to be disposed of near critical waterways. And I'm just interested to know how much does it matter when it comes to loosening regulations on the amount of chemicals that can go into the water, that can then be accessed in the aquifers and then eventually drinking water?

David Pakman (36:24)

Oh, boy.

Lee Zeldin (36:25)

Oh, there are a lot of laws and regulations are on the books. We talk about the Clean Water act, the Safe Drinking Water Act. We just released our contaminant.

David Pakman (36:35)

All stuff that the Trump administration is against or at least thinks is hamstringing businesses too much. So the, the policy of this administration, this doesn't get a lot of attention. We hear a lot about foreign policy, tariffs, taxes, health care, other things. It has been a disastrous record on environmental protection. You probably would have inferred that or guessed that they have extended gas flaring, which increases emissions. As I mentioned earlier, they've rolled back environmental protections, which they tout as a big success. They go, we're loosening things. Yeah, but that just means you're allowing, you're allowing companies to pollute. You're making it clear you're not even going to worry about that. You're not even going to police that. And then on wastewater disposal, the rules just keep getting weaker and weaker and they touted as deregulation. Good for business. It's great for the economy. Is it? So when Liz Klayman says, what did you tighten? They haven't tightened anything because they don't want to. They see tightening as a problem. The most telling part of this clip, it's not really the answer. It's the pause and the pivot to other stuff that's not responsive. His. His brain. You see the rust starting to grind off the gears. He searches for something, anything that sounds like an answer. But the whole story is they're not tightening anything. They're loosening and they're making it easier to pollute. If you have as a primary goal of administering the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment, as is in the name, you would just say say what you've done rather than non answers about other stuff and citing regulatory infrastructure that you actually oppose and want to weaken. We've got the Clean Air act. We've Trump has criticized the Clean Air Act. He doesn't like it. And every once in a while, even on Fox News, Fox Business in this case, a real question sneaks through that they just can't or won't answer. And when it does, you get the truth. And it's less about what Lee Zeldin says than about what he doesn't say and how long it took him to recover from that deer in the headlights stunned look of oh crap, we're not tightening anything. The whole thing was to loosen and to allow people to pollute. They don't have environmental interests in mind. They have corporate interests in mind. And they were upfront about that during the, during the campaign. And now they've got to pretend like they're actually trying to protect the environment when they're very obviously not.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (38:59)

Most scammers rely on information that's already public. Your name, address, phone number, family connections. A lot of that is online and

David Pakman (39:07)

available to be scraped and abused.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (39:09)

Our sponsor, Incogni, reduces the risk by removing you from the Internet wherever that personal data appears. It works across many types of websites,

David Pakman (39:18)

not just one category.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (39:20)

So scammers have fewer ways to piece

David Pakman (39:22)

things together about you.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (39:24)

Incogni automatically submits removal requests to hundreds of sites on your behalf. But the standout feature is custom removals,

David Pakman (39:31)

where you find your information on any

Sponsor/Ad Voice (39:34)

website, even one not in their database. You paste the link and Incogni's team

David Pakman (39:40)

will get to work to remove it.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (39:41)

I can tell you I've personally been getting way fewer scam and spam calls and messages and ever since I started using Incogni. You can accomplish a lot quickly with Incogni. Protect yourself before your data is used against you.

David Pakman (39:56)

Get 60% off when you go to

Sponsor/Ad Voice (39:58)

incogni.com/pacman and use the code pacman. The link is in the description. Most VPN companies sell privacy the way that diet pills sell confidence.

David Pakman (40:11)

A lot of marketing, not much proof,

Sponsor/Ad Voice (40:14)

but the thing is that your data is constantly being tracked. That is why I like our sponsor, Private Internet Access. It is a VPN that is different because they've proven multiple times in court

David Pakman (40:25)

they are not logging your activity.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (40:26)

When authorities have said turn over the logs, they don't have them because they don't keep them and you can verify that for yourself because of their open source software, they will hide your IP address, encrypt your connection, protect your data, let you access content not always available in your region.

David Pakman (40:45)

It's easy to use.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (40:46)

You turn it on with one click and that's it.

David Pakman (40:48)

You forget about it.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (40:49)

Use it on unlimited devices with a single account, phone, tablet, TV, gaming console, choose from servers in more than 91 countries and it is optimized for lightning fast streaming and downloads. Right now you can get 83% off. That's just 203amonth plus four extra months for free at PIA vpn.com/pacman the link

David Pakman (41:13)

is in the Description Donald Trump stunning an Oval Office full of children when he jerked in public. If you can imagine anything more disgusting, Trump falling completely asleep again in public. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is speaking. This is an event to announce that they're bringing back the Presidential Fitness Test, a test Donald Trump would no doubt fail. Trump falls asleep and is jerked awake when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Talks about hiking. And Trump goes, I could hike. The idea, the contrast of Trump sleeping and then jerking awake to say I could hike a lot, A lot, a lot.

Trump Voter (41:58)

He went into that cabinet meeting, a private cabinet meeting, that's morning, and he said to the cabinet, one of you has to do a 50 mile hike this weekend to show the American people that we're in shape. And he didn't. This cabinet could have done it. We have a bunch of thoroughbreds on this cabinet. Pete and Scott and Sean, Duffy and Linda and Tulsi and Doug Burnham and Jamison and all the rest. There's a lot of people who could probably do a 50 mile hike.

Donald Trump (42:27)

What about me? You didn't mention mine.

Trump Voter (42:30)

Walks nine miles a day on a

Donald Trump (42:32)

golf course every week when I'm not using a car.

David Pakman (42:36)

And of course, Trump admits the truth, which is he doesn't walk a damn mile at all. He plays golf with a golf cart and he has even been seen using the golf cart to move around on the green, if you can imagine that you're not even supposed to put the golf cart on the green. But Trump doesn't give a damn. At another point, Donald Trump bizarrely appearing to stroke out like, oh, I just. What on earth is happening to this guy? Maybe the most disgusting and jarring moments were not actually when Donald Trump jerked in public, jerked awake or appeared to stroke out. But the things that Donald Trump is saying in front of these kids, at one point, pulling the whole Barack who Hussein Obama thing in front of the

Donald Trump (43:28)

children, each other in the presidential fitness test. But others. And then we had the Obama administration. Wonderful, wonderful person. Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him? We had the Obama administration, which phased out this wonderful tradition of physical fitness.

David Pakman (43:45)

Thank you, Visiga Fitness. Hold on, I got it. Ah. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Trump, surrounded by children, asking about Barack Hussein Obama. He really shouldn't be allowed around groups of kids and then talking to them about what he refers to as the mutilization of transgender kids. Now, you might say, david, sir, with respect, I've never seen the word mutilization in an English dictionary. And you would be right. It is not a word.

Donald Trump (44:25)

And they have to cheat. You know, in all fairness to the Democrats, when you have men and women sports, when you have open borders, when you have transgender mutilization, don't listen to this. Kids of your children, of your children. Transgender mutualization. Mutualization of your children for everyone. When you have policies like that, you have to cheat. It's the only way they can win. And we shouldn't allow them to cheat. And we should terminate the filibuster, because if they get the chance, they'll do it in the first hour.

David Pakman (44:59)

Back end the filibuster to stop transgender mutualization. Trump is so good with kids. As I'm. As I'm about to show you, a kid says, I'd like to be a weightlifter. And Trump goes, well, you're not going to weightlift against women, are you? By the way, do you think you can take me in a fight?

Donald Trump (45:20)

Fun about you. Look at this guy. He's a big guy.

David Pakman (45:22)

Me, I'm doing football right now, and next year I'm going to be trying to do powerlifting.

Donald Trump (45:27)

Oh, wow, that's awesome. And you'll never compete against women in power. Did you see that? They had a man power lifter, and he decided to go the opposite direction. Took a record, stood for 18 years. He beat it by 119 pounds. Okay? They put a little quarter of an ounce. Quarter of an ounce. For 18 years it stood. This guy came, he was a failed power lifter, but he went on the other side, and he just had decided that he wanted to go into women's sports, and he broke the record by 118 pounds. I think that's fair. I don't think we have to worry about you. Yes, sir. You're going to do good. Are you a strong person?

Trump Voter (46:11)

Yes, sir.

Donald Trump (46:11)

Good. You think you can take me in a fight?

David Pakman (46:20)

The entire room going, dear God, this guy was not supposed to be around church children. And he's around children again. And then finally, Donald Trump exhibiting. Exhibiting peak physical fitness as he took the kids outside to do a little putting display, except he misses every single putt before giving up. Not a display of physical fitness, not a display of any kind of ability, quite frankly. And horrifying. Horrifying people the world over with his attempts to speak to children and behave like a normal person. You know, I was thinking, of course, this is, by the way, more evidence that Trump cheats at golf. The fact that he can't make three three foot putts in a row. We. I was remembering that thing Trump has said that he believes where he says exercise is bad because the body has a fixed amount of energy, and the more you exercise, the more you deplete the energy of the body and you could end up with no energy left if you exercise too much. The last guy is Trump, who should be talking about reinstating the President's physical fitness test and demonstrating that very, very clearly. Even Republicans realize what is going on. And while legacy in corporate media is still very hesitant to talk about what we are seeing with our own eyes in clear and direct terms, somebody's got to do it. And that is why it is so important that independent media continue to point out that the President appears to be non compost mentis and is completely unfit and unable to complete the job of president in stark relief in this deranged Oval Office event. We are hearing from more and more Trump voters that are sick of Trump. They realize he screwed them. He lied to them about what he was going to do. He is ruining their economic circumstances. He is humiliating the United States on the world stage, and this is going to come back to crush them. I believe, in the November midterm elections. Here is a Trump voter who, who was out to vote yesterday in the primaries for these midterms and said, you know what? I'm a Trump voter. But Trump's getting carried away. The war in Iran is what he cares about and we're all paying more for everything. Trump doesn't care about me. To which I say, of course that's right, sir. And we knew that a decade ago.

Trump Voter (49:02)

I voted for Trump, too.

Donald Trump (49:04)

I'm not saying I disagree with them, but I think it's getting a little bit carried away.

David Pakman (49:10)

He's more concerned about the war over there and killing everybody over here with increased prices.

Donald Trump (49:16)

And he just doesn't seem to care.

David Pakman (49:19)

And, well, he doesn't care. And sometimes it can take a decade to figure something out. The one prism through which Trump sees everything is, what do I get out of it? And you'll remember that his political movement is built around a group of people he spent most of his life trying to be kept away from. Trump is a rich guy from Queens and Manhattan, spent the vast majority of his life isolated from the very people that ultimately became his political base. But all of a sudden, when they had something to offer him, his behavior changes. Now he wants to convince them to donate to him. This is early in his political career. Then he needs them to vote for him. And there was this moment right after the 2020 election where the voting part didn't matter anymore because the election was over. But he needed their money, supposedly to fight Joe Biden stealing the election. And then you looked in the fine print and you saw a bunch of the money that was being donated was going to go to pay off Trump's campaign debts rather than to fight and overturn the results. And Trump doesn't give a damn about his supporters because he was beating, bilking people who really couldn't afford it out of their money, some of it hard earned, presumably with no real intention of delivering overturning the election to them. And then now, all of a sudden, he needed them again to vote in 2024. Trump doesn't care about them. I will keep us out of endless wars that are bad for the economy. But then all of a sudden, he wants this, even though it makes no sense whatsoever. And some voters listen. It took 11 years for some of these people, but they are realizing he doesn't care about us. He never did. He never did. Here's another voter saying we don't have a world anymore where we care about our neighbors. Again, someone who sees Trump and says, this billionaire just wants to line his pockets.

Liz Clayman (51:18)

This world is not what I grew up in, and I would like to see it go back to what I grew up in, where we care about our neighbors, care about one another, and we're not out for the billionaire who wants to stick everything in his pocket and he doesn't care at all about us.

David Pakman (51:33)

That's exactly right. And one of the things that I was thinking about as I watch these videos of these two voters, and we're going to look at one more in a moment. These two voters saying he just flat out doesn't care about us. Someone needs to run campaigns showing that they do care and it needs to be genuine and authentic. It can't be a veneer of I care about you. It can't be lip service being paid to the idiot. Voters need to feel that you do care about them. One of the things about Talarico's campaign in Texas, we don't know where it will end up in November. I'm only analyzing this is there was the sense of that Tallarico is more like the people who are voting for him and that he just genuinely cares about them. It doesn't mean you'll necessarily agree with Talarico about everything. Maybe some voters did, maybe some voters didn't, but that he does care about the average person. I've never believed Trump cares about the average person. And you could say, well, that's most elected officials. I don't know about that. I know a lot of elected officials. They might have a lot of competing priorities, but they do care about the average person. They was never even the most minute sense that Trump cared about the average person. One more of these. This. This one's a few weeks old. This is Louisiana farmer Kayden Cable, who goes after not Trump, but Mike Johnson. But the theme here is the average person. The average people have been abandoned. They made all these promises, and they're breaking the promises and abandoning the average person.

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (53:11)

It's Mike Johnson who literally promised that he would not make cuts to aca, to snap, to Wick here in Louisiana. He broke all of those promises, which I should be surprised about, but considering the fact that he willingly works for the Trump administration, it doesn't.

David Pakman (53:32)

They will say anything. And this is why I know I keep mentioning this. I have. I'm even going to pull the book down off the shelf here in my book, the Echo Machine. I spent a lot of time on this because, like a lot of these people, I do care about you. And I don't want you to waste your time on nonsense. I have a chapter in here called Where Is It? How to Fight Against a Movement that has no Policy. And one of the things I talk about in this chapter is that it is important not to get sucked into philosophical debates with people whose philosophy is only their philosophy until it Becomes inconvenient. We care about you. We wouldn't cut the Affordable Care Act. We wouldn't cut snap, we wouldn't cut wic. We wouldn't do things that would be bad for you. Until all of a sudden, Trump wants that to happen, and then I guess we will. So what point is there in arguing about philosophy with people whose philosophy is as flexible and ever changing as the way the political winds are blowing. It's not for me, folks. It's a waste of time. So some voters are figuring it out and hopefully they have the wherewithal and the awareness that you can do something about it and you can punish Mike Johnson and you can punish Trump also by making him the lamest of lame ducks in November. I plan to do that. I hope that most of the people in the audience plan to do the same. The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member. @join pacman.com you'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com if you've ever wondered whether there is anything, anything that Donald Trump could do that would make some of these people stop supporting him, the answer is increasingly, obviously no. There is nothing he could do for them to reconsider their support. Here is Megyn Kelly. She has spent time criticizing Donald Trump recently. She questioned Trump on Epstein. She questioned Trump on different scandals and controversies. She said that the Iran war was a mistake. And yet when she's asked by Stephen A. Smith whether she regrets supporting him, she says absolutely not. In fact, she says she would endorse him again. Why? Because there are two issues on which she gives him an A plus. Those are the trans insanity. What the hell is that? And also the border.

Stephen A. Smith (56:15)

Let me go to the midterms because you put, you've issued a warning to Republicans and I wanted to touch with you, touch on you with this. You've won. Republicans could get wiped out in the midterms and say voters are turning on Trump. Now obviously you endorsed him. So what did you get wrong, if anything, that you believe will ultimately cause the GOP in the midterms when it comes to Trump? Can you explain that?

Megyn Kelly (56:38)

I don't think I got anything wrong because.

David Pakman (56:41)

Okay, how introspective of you, Megan.

Megyn Kelly (56:43)

I would endorse him again. You know, I don't regret endorsing him and I thank God still that he won. And listen, the two main things that I was hoping Trump would do, he has done. I wanted him to push back against the trans insanity and I wanted him to close the border and I give him an A plus on both of those. So, you know, I like my friend Tucker. His number one issue is don't start any new wars. And that's a big issue. And Trump said one thing and did another. So I understand why he's completely broken with him and he regrets the endorsement, but we have different priorities, and so we're in different places on that. I wish he hadn't done this. You know, I'm not pro war, and that was also an important one to me. But in the hierarchy of what was most important to me, Trump has delivered and continues to deliver on a lot of them.

David Pakman (57:28)

And think about that. She thinks Trump has done such a great job on the trans insanity. What on earth is she talking about? Because we're talking about an issue that affects almost no one. I. I know whenever I say that, some people bristle. Oh, David, do you not care about trans people? No, of course I care about everybody. What I'm saying is that statistically, whatever trans insanity she's talking about affects almost no one. I mean, I'm going to assume for a second that she's not talking about bathroom stuff. Like, I think we've moved beyond the bathroom stuff. I assume she's talking about things like, quote, men and women's sports. We've already determined that there are states in which this applies to 0, 1 or 2 athletes. Any level of controversy around gender and sports and leagues. What? It's one of her top issues. What about energy was going to be cut 50% and it's up 60%, but trans insanity, that affects.008% of the population in the way that she's talking about. Give me a break. Now, the good news is most voters don't actually care about the, quote, trans insanity. And even if they have strong beliefs about that, it's not a voting issue for them. And even Sean Spicer, when we spoke to him yesterday, acknowledged that. Now, we thought for a moment maybe Megyn Kelly was coming around. I mean, remember when she said, why can't Trump just behave like a normal human? Remember this.

Megyn Kelly (58:45)

Now, as you can imagine, that post did not go over well with the Iranians or with many Americans. I mean, I don't know about you, but I am sick of this shit. I'm just. I'm. I'm sick of it. Can he just behave like a normal human? I mean, honestly, like the President? I3D Yes. Shut up. Fucking shut up about that shit. You don't threaten to wipe out an entire civilization. We're talking about civilians just casually in a social media post.

David Pakman (59:20)

So we were kind of like, oh, maybe she's coming around, or whatever. But then also remember that the next day she said the following.

Megyn Kelly (59:28)

Trump could drop a nuke. And I still vote Republican over those people because they want to avenue voter. In some ways, I really am. But honestly, they, what they want to do is nuke our own country. You know, it's.

David Pakman (59:39)

Yeah, so what's going on here is the following. And it's, it's, it's a sad thing. As long as Trump continues to validate cultural grievances and promise punishment against people that Megyn Kelly dislikes, she's going to keep supporting Trump. And I believe that there is a naivete about what's happening here that we need to disabuse people of. There is this fantasy that if you just present enough facts and enough evidence and point out the scandals, that these commentators like Meghan Kelly will come around and eventually they'll go, this has gone too far, and now I don't support this person. And the answer with Megyn Kelly is that'll never happen for a lot of these people. This was never about fiscal conservatism. Like, I feel silly even saying it. You know, they used to talk about limited government, constitutional principles. It wasn't about any of that stuff. It's cultural resentment. Megyn Kelly, Megyn Kelly's engine is fueled by a desire for revenge around cultural resentment. And she kind of says the quiet part out loud when she says, Trump could fail on health care, Trump could fail on inflation. He could embarrass the country internationally, he could explode the deficit, he could enrich himself openly, all things he's doing, by the way. He can attack the press and all of this stuff. But at the end of the day, she will always be a supporter of Donald Trump's. And so when we think about strategy, the whole, like, let's win over certain elite MAGA media figures is a complete waste of time. Oh, Megyn Kelly is hesitating. Tucker is now hesitating. Ben Shapiro isn't sure, but. And so I'm not talking about ordinary voters here. I'm saying the media, people making millions from it, the influencers, the commentators, the professional sycophants, they support him anyway because he gives them the emotional and ideological outcomes that they want, even if gas is up 60%. And every once in a while, they'll criticize Trump on some detail or scold him over strategy or, I wish he hadn't done that thing. But at the end of the day, I still support him. And in a lot of spaces, those mild critiques are tolerated or even admired because they are seen as like, wow, even the people who have problems with Trump still realize that he was and continues to be the better option. So I believe that it is a waste of time. Not to mention, as I said last week or earlier this week, the whole approach of, oh, we might be able to find common ground with Tucker now that he's broken with Trump or Marjorie Taylor Greene. No, it's not going to happen because ideologically they are completely different. Even if they stumble across some nominal disagreement with Donald Trump, do not fall for it. There's apparently some kind of contagious political glitch virus going around because now J.D. vance is doing it, too. I love this. J.D. vance was speaking at an event. You know, J.D. is lacking gravitas and charisma, as we've talked about. He wants to sound polished. He wants to sound authoritative in front of the audience. And his brain seems to disconnect from the operating system for a few seconds. His sentence structure just collapses. And you can actually feel that his brain is buffering in real time. Look at this. I see that when I see Iowa

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (62:49)

farmers who need to get that E15 to market.

David Pakman (62:53)

What is this? What is it?

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (62:57)

Zach, you're have to help me out with her name here.

David Pakman (62:59)

I lost my page here. Okay.

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (63:03)

All right. Okay. There we go.

David Pakman (63:05)

Sarah Tron Garriott. There he is.

Fox News Commentator (e.g., Jesse Watters) (63:07)

I'm on the wrong page here.

David Pakman (63:13)

So while Zach is fighting to make sure for the benefit of Iowa, but frankly, for the benefit of the whole country. Oh, boy. So he was able to recover. And it reminded me of a recent moment with Piers Morgan and Russell Brand. I haven't talked about this on the show because there was really no place for it, but there is one. I've said a lot of negative things about Piers Morgan before. I believe this is the best use of silence in any interview that I've maybe ever seen. Take a look at this. And this. This was almost. JD Can I go back to asking a question about your Bible?

Russell Brand (63:45)

Yes, if you want to.

David Pakman (63:46)

Thank you. That. Was that the one you took into call? You're the very one.

Donald Trump (63:49)

Okay.

David Pakman (63:50)

What was your thinking of taking it into court and what you were seeing? Looking at some passages, what were the relevant passages for?

Stephen A. Smith (63:56)

You?

Russell Brand (63:56)

All right. Thank you for asking me.

David Pakman (63:58)

Thank you. I didn't hurt, did I?

Russell Brand (64:01)

But a little bit.

Trump Voter (64:04)

Okay.

David Pakman (64:04)

Russell is paging through it.

Russell Brand (64:06)

Was this from Isaiah? You're right. Beer did say, you know, be chilled. Sometimes I lose the chill, man.

David Pakman (64:17)

Notice Piers is silent. Silent

Russell Brand (64:22)

is this. They don't like that, do they, in the old gallery. But remember, you just said it's a hired spot. This is from Isaiah.

David Pakman (64:37)

Yeah, you mentioned that. By the way. Is that an acceptable pronunciation in British English? Isaiah. I always thought it was Isaiah.

Russell Brand (64:51)

Excuse me.

David Pakman (64:56)

Quite a controversy. Appears as silent.

Russell Brand (65:11)

It says here,

David Pakman (65:20)

Oh, God, I love this. I just love it.

Russell Brand (65:26)

The verse that I was looking at that day was not this. I can't actually. I can't actually find the verse that I. That I had that day. Yeah, but this is good enough.

David Pakman (65:39)

Here's a random line, Pierce, if you will allow me to just regale you with this. This same energy from the JD Vance clip. So what's. What's the big story here? One of the strangest things about modern political media is how confidence masks incoherence. And we've had a lot of examples of this. If someone speaks with enough certainty and confidence and kind of like a swagger, they are rehearsed in their indignation. A lot of times, audiences will stop evaluating whether the sentences make sense. And J.D. vance is, as I've said, completely lacking in charisma. But he has become sort of good at performing certainty. He. Everything JD Vance says is sort of like implying I'm the smartest person in the room. And every once in a while, the machinery breaks down. And Russell Brand has a sort of similar thing. I've explained before that with Russell Brand, there's an interesting thing where within the uk, Russell Brand's accent is not considered highbrow or posh might be the term that is used, but that for many in the United States, you know, we hear a British accent, most British accents, although not all most British accents, and we go, wow. Sounds sophisticated and smart. And a lot of Russell Brand's building of a Persona online has come from the fact that he has a British accent, and that presents a certain way to American audiences. There's a similar thing with JD Vance, although JD doesn't speak with a British accent, where it's just the way that he talks, he must be smart because he's so confident. And then when the machinery breaks down and the gears grind to a halt, it looks as though all of a sudden there's nothing left there. It's totally vapid, which is the reality. And the brain is trying to improvise some way to sound coherent. And so we are in a media environment right now where public figures are more familiar with the esthetics of intelligence before developing the substance of it. And sometimes the worst thing you can do to someone is just don't say anything, don't interrupt them. And with JD Vance, we're starting to see more and more of these little moments where the image management of I'm the smartest guy in the room kind of cracks. And when it happens, you go, man, this guy's totally vapid. There's just nothing there. And that I think is what we are increasingly seeing with both JD Vance and also Russell Brand. Now on the bonus show today, did Trump get his revenge in yesterday's primaries? We will talk about it. There is a decades long plan to get rid of the Electoral College which may finally pay off. And Florida has created anti woke AP history alternative class for students. What on earth is going to be taught there? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at joinpacman. Com.