Loading summary
Transcript84 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
Democrats just flipped a Republican held office in a suburb of Texas where Trump got close to 60% of the vote. And this is a pattern that we are seeing. Then we have a story that really has been under the radar, but is very serious, which is the coordinated surreptitious effort underway right now, which would significantly restrict abortion access nationally. We're told all about states rights, and yet they are figuring out a way to try to effectively end abortion nationally. We're going to break down what's really going on. And also today, the White House wants you to believe that Donald Trump had a routine dental visit in Florida on a Saturday. Even though there's a full dental facility at the White House, millions of people aren't buying it. And speaking of Trump, an alarming moment during a speech where he fell asleep standing up like a horse. It's Mr. Ed, a talking horse. Plus, Marjorie Taylor Greene claims that Donald Trump said something truly shocking involving her son. We will talk about whether Democrats are in position to really take control of Congress in 2026. All of that, and. It's happening right now in Texas. Democrats flipped another Republican office. If you are a Republican strategist and you're looking at this and you're trying to figure out what's going to happen in November, you should be panicking. Perlin, Texas, is a Republican leaning suburb of Houston, and Democrats just flipped the mayor's office. Now, the race is technically nonpartisan, meaning that the candidates don't run as Democrats or Republicans. They don't declare parties. But we still know who backed whom. Democrats backed Quentin Wilts, and he won and defeated Tony Carbone, who was backed by Republicans. Wilts happens to also be the first black person ever elected to be the mayor of Poland. It was a very tight race, basically 51 to 49. The margin really isn't the story here. The location is the story. The fact that Trump won with about 60% in this exact area is the story. Perland is in a county that has voted reliably for Republicans for year after year after year and again in recent elections. Trump was getting 60% of the vote. This is the sort of place that Republicans don't even worry about. They just assume that they're going to win. That said, we don't have to do anything. We barely have to campaign, and they lost. And what this actually means, you know what? One local race does not flip Congress. In fact, this isn't even a congressional race. It's a mayoral race. It doesn't change the Senate, but it does something different, which is it signals movement and it portrays possibility if people engage, if people are active, if people get out and vote.
- [03:15]
Sean Spicer
And.
- [03:15]
David Pakman
And we are now seeing a very important pattern, which is when you look at local elections, Democrats have been overperforming since November of 2024. When you look at local races that are not special elections, you see Democrats flipping Republican seats, but you don't see Republicans flipping Democratic seats. And then you look at Republican areas, and you see Republican turnout really struggling. And midterm elections are often won and lost at the end of the day by turnout. In general, voters have less strong feelings for congressional and Senate races than they do about the presidential. People really liked Trump or really despised Trump or liked Harris, despised Harris. And that motivates a lot of people to vote in midterm elections. It's less about who do I get out and vote for, because I don't feel as strongly about the people. It's, do I even get out and vote at all? And you might have sort of satisfactory feelings about your senator, but it might not be strong enough one way or the other. The feeling, the attachment, the level of support you have to even get out and vote at all. And so this is why depressed Republican turnout in red areas is also potentially a major problem for Republicans. So then we get to, well, what is happening in Texas and in Texas at the state level right now, James Tallarico, the Democratic nominee, is polling significantly ahead, certainly for Texas, significantly ahead of both possible Republican candidates. I'll remind you that the Republican primary is going to a runoff because neither Ken Paxton nor John Cornyn, who's the incumbent senator right now, got 50% of the vote in the initial primary. So they are going to be having a runoff. In hypothetical polling, Talarico is polling about six and a half points ahead of Paxton, and Talarico is polling five points ahead of Cornyn. Now, we've seen this before, we've seen situations before where before the summer, there's a Democratic challenger in Texas polling well against an incumbent Republican. And then it doesn't quite work out and the Republican ends up winning. And that could happen this time, but it might not. And we have a situation where Texas may finally be ready to make that shift we've been talking about for so long. You know, for years and years, I've been covering this stuff a long time. You hear these, you know, the demographic changes in Texas. Texas is no longer going to be a reliable red state. A Democrat might even win in the presidential election in Texas, a Democrat might win the Senate. And then we get to the election and it doesn't happen. And it actually might happen this year because you look at the polling, you look at the dissatisfaction with Trump even among some Republicans and we could have the mayoral race in Poland of this weekend signaling a potential Republican disaster in November. However, it requires people to get out and vote. We are going to be doing a kind of path to the Senate soon on the show which will outline the key races and what is the Democratic path to the Senate. A lot of you have written in and said how exactly could Democrats take the Senate? But there are real opportunities here. And the most important 30,000 foot view element of this is that the numbers for, for Democrats after November of 2024 are extraordinary. I had a conversation that was recorded Yesterday for Tara McGowan's podcast about is the DNC doing a good job or a bad job? And I explained to her, listen, when I think of Ken Martin, the new ish DNC chair, he inspires nothing. I feel no passion. I feel it's just, you know, the, this milquetoast stuff that we've all gotten sick of from the Democratic Party. And also for better or worse, you can say it's Ken Martin or not. Democrats have an incredible record in special elections and off year elections since November of 2024. We now have to make sure it doesn't get screwed up between now and November. So incredible results in Perland, Texas. First black mayor there, Democratically supported mayor. Fascinating. Can we turn that into a bigger turning of the tide in Texas in November? I believe the answer is yes, we can. What I don't have the answer to is will we? But we're going to work to that end. There have been several moves in the past month that signal a really scary reality about the future of women's health care in the United States. And efforts are underway to try to restrict abortion access nationwide. They want to end abortion nationally. And this is not getting anywhere near the attention it deserves. And it is a miscarriage of the media, for lack of a better term, that this is not getting more attention. These efforts have flown way under the radar of major news headlines. And I want to talk about it with you today to make sure more people know what is going on because it is a dangerous disaster. Now think back to when Roe v. Wade was overturned. We were told something very specific. We are not trying to ban abortion nationwide. We want to send the issue back to the states. And if states decide they don't want abortion, fine. And if other states decide they do want legal abortion, that's also fine. That's what they said. That was the argument. That was the reassurance. Don't worry. But if you actually look at what's happening right now, that explanation simply doesn't hold up because the most common form of abortion in the United States is not a procedure. It is medication. It is mifepristone. Mifepristone, a pill, accounts for 63% of all abortions. It, it's also used in miscarriage care. And the drug has been approved since the year 2000. For more than two decades, it wasn't seriously in question whether it would remain legal. And then in the last couple of years, you start seeing legal challenges trying to undo the approval. And one of those cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The court didn't uphold the challenge, but not because they rejected the argument. The court said the plaintiffs didn't have standing. That is very important because it means that the door remains open and it means the issue wasn't really settled. It just means they have to try again with a different approach. That's happening right now. Now you might be saying, oh, David, I haven't heard about this. That's the problem. You're seeing new cases right now targeting mifepristone again, including attempts to restrict telehealth prescriptions and attempts to restrict mailing of the drug, which of course is a completely reasonable way for people to obtain the drug. They want to make it more complicated. You have to go in, in person, no telehealth and you've got to go also into the pharmacy. It goes from having to leave the house zero times to having to leave the house twice. Now on paper that might sound like a pretty narrow change, but in reality this is a way to limit access across state lines without saying we are banning it. Now. At the same time, you have federal legislation from people like Republican Senator Josh Hawley which goes way further and would remove FDA approval entirely for the drug, which would effectively ban it nationwide. Senator Josh Hawley tweeted about this and in fact his wife works for the Alliance Defending Freedom. That's the group bringing the lawsuit. He posted quote, this is Aaron's case. Incredibly proud of her. Mifepristone sends 1 in 10 women who use it to the emergency room with life threatening conditions. Now it's time for Congress to ban it completely for use in abortion. Now, by the way, that claim isn't even true. The claim of one. You've got to look, really there's Three elements to it. One in ten women go to the ER with a life threatening condition because of mifepristone. Right. So there's really three important elements to comes from a non peer reviewed study from a right wing or organization which claimed that within 45 days of taking mifepristone, 10% of women had a serious adverse event. Now the problems are how they define serious adverse events is completely whacked out. Going to the ER doesn't mean it's life threatening. Going to the ER doesn't mean it'S because of mifepristone. And going to the ER within 45 days isn't necessarily related to the drug. But that's not really the issue here. Just like of course they're lying, but it's not really the issue. There is more than just a single effort here being made to try to effectively ban medication abortions. They've got multiple irons in the fire, they've got the court challenges, they've got the regulatory pressure and federal legislation all at the same time. And a lot of these efforts are connected to the same legal networks, including that one I mentioned, that Josh Hawley's wife works for the Alliance Defending Freedom which has been involved in a lot of abortion related cases. And so what we have to acknowledge here is that they are coordinating. This is not random, this is, it's strategic. They are saying let's do all of these things at once. And it is also not a theoretical thing. In states with strict abortion bans, there have already been cases where women were experiencing miscarriages and were told you can't receive any care until there is no fetal heartbeat. So women get sent home, waiting sometimes for days, facing medical risk to themselves, serious trauma to themselves. And in many cases these are wanted pregnancies that, that did not work out. These are people in some of these cases trying to have children being told they have to wait for things to get worse before doctors can do anything. So you put all of it together, the idea that this is just a states rights issue becomes much harder to believe because on three fronts they are fighting to effectively restrict or ban what are nearly 2/3 of the abortions referred to as medication abortions and the use of mifepristone in miscarriage. What we are seeing here, and I've got to hand it to them in the sense that it is evil genius, this is a multi decade effort. They are like the dog that bites down and simply will not let go. Decades. Let's get Roe v. Wade overturned. We've got to adjust who's on the Supreme Court and they spent decades doing it and now they are going to the next level, which is can we get rid of mifepristone? Can we get rid of it through convenience elements like you can't do telehealth and you can't mail the drug. Can we get rid of it by getting the FDA to reverse approval? And the effort to further restrict abortion, which I told you wouldn't end when they got Roe v. Wade overturned, has not. It bolstered them, it invigorated them to say, can we do even more. It is in its next phase right now and it's important that we all be aware of what's going on. If you love having quality fresh breads and pastries at home with no hassle, our sponsor Wild Grain makes it easy. Wild Grain is a baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, fresh pastas. Everything arrives frozen and bakes in 25 minutes or less. No thawing required. Simple ingredients slow fermentation process. It really improves the flavor and texture. I always keep Wild grain, sourdough bread and croissants on hand. Convenient. Tastes like something you'd get from the bakery straight from freezer to oven. No planning required. The pasta is great too. I love having wild grain on the busy nights when I need something good but without spending a bunch of time on it. And Wild grain boxes are customizable. You can get the variety box, they've got gluten free vegan, they've got a protein box. Wild grain is offering $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life. When you go to wildgrain.com/pacman or use the promo code Pacman at checkout. The link is in the description. You use your email for everything. Banking, work, purchases, medical information that makes your email provider one of the most important places to think about privacy. Most big tech email services scan your messages, build profiles about you, use the data to show you ads. Our sponsor, Start Mail takes a different approach. Start Mail looks and works just like the big name email services you're used to. But Start Mail never scans your mail, never tracks anything about you, never sells your data. Start Mail also includes powerful privacy features you don't get from big tech email providers. For instance, you can create unlimited email aliases so you don't have to give out your real address to anybody, which will reduce spam and phishing risks. You can also send PGP encrypted emails even if the recipient isn't using encryption and if you switch to Start Mail it is really easy to migrate your existing emails and contacts in just a few clicks. Go to start mail.com/pacman to get 50% off your first year. The link is in the description. They're claiming that Donald Trump went to the dentist on Saturday in Florida and millions of people do not believe it. Do you believe it? Do you believe that Donald Trump had to go to the dentist in Florida on Saturday when the White House has a full blown dental facility on site? The White House says it was scheduled and it was routine with Trump's local dentist in Florida. AFP's Sebastian Smith reported at the time on Twitter that, quote, the President has left his Jupiter Golf Club in Florida for a dental appointment. White House says it's a scheduled appointment at his local dentist. The problem is it wasn't on his schedule. So by definition it was not scheduled by the standards applied to presidents. Dr. And CNN commentator Jonathan Reiner is extremely skeptical. He tweeted, quote, the White House has had a dental operatory since the Hoover administration. Routine dental exams can be done in the White House. Case in point, when we talk about scheduling, Trump's physicals at Walter Reed are put on the presidential schedule. This was not so what do they mean that it was scheduled and routine? It is true that the White House has a full dental facility. Joe Biden famously had a root canal there. So Trump had a routine dental visit in Florida on a Saturday. This is the second time this year that this has happened. This Trump also supposedly went to his Florida dentist in January and then he comes back to the White House and suddenly people are noticing something else, which is the ankles are just swollen like tree trunks. Not new, by the way. Trump reportedly dealing with chronic venous insufficiency, which can cause exactly that symptom. But to go back to the dentist situation, you've got an off the books dentist visit in Florida on a Saturday not on the schedule, when there is a full dental facility at the White House and then he shows up back from it with his ankle swollen like we've maybe never seen before. So the obvious speculation is Trump's not really going to the dentist is. And we're now entering full speculation mode. There's been so little transparency about Donald Trump's health that something routine starts to raise these flags. Is this where Trump is actually getting whatever IV treatment is responsible for the bruises on his hands that he's covering up with bandages and makeup? It's speculative. There's no question that it's speculative because there is no transparency here. Now, in the interests of being. I don't know why, but being charitable to people who are never charitable to us and who are completely dishonest and just in the interest of being charitable, is it possible that there is something dental that really is going on that Donald Trump doesn't want handled at the White House, or is it cosmetic dentistry? I believe it's a known thing that Donald Trump has veneers, and it seems like a lot of his kids do also. They seem to all have, like, the very large features, fake teeth. Is it possible that the White House dentist isn't equipped to do stuff related to veneers, or Trump's embarrassed about it, or they want to keep it out of medical records so they. They do this at Trump's Florida dentist? I don't know, but I'm saying that I guess that would be a more charitable interpretation of what's going on. Now, let me address another element with regard to the Trump's health stuff. There's a division in my audience as to the salience and relevance of what's going on with Donald Trump's health. And I'm going to try to characterize both sides, and then we'll maybe have a conversation about this. On the one hand, there are people who write to me weekly, if not more, telling me that I am not giving enough coverage and placing Trump's health and physical and cognitive decline in a central enough way to explain what we are seeing today. There are people who write to me and they say, david, all of your discussion about Iran, foreign policy and the ups and downs of the Strait of Vermouth and all of this different stuff, this is about Trump's cognitive decline. The whole war is because of Trump's cognitive decline. You've got to interview Bandy Lee and you've got to get John Gartner back on, and you need a geriatric specialist. And you're missing that everything that we are seeing is because of Donald Trump's deteriorating physical and mental health. That's one side of the audience. Maybe you're in that side, maybe you're not. Then there's the other side. And there are people who write to me and say, david, we know Trump's not in good health. He's almost 80 and obese and doesn't exercise and eats fast food. We know that, but there's too much focus on it, and we need to talk about the sociopolitical implications and the economic implications of Trump's policy actions and forget about his health. His health is crap. And at some point, he's no longer going to be with us. But it's not relevant to what the hell is going on with tariffs, is there? The, the, the people on the other side would say, no, no, it's completely relevant. Trump doesn't even have the cognitive capacity to understand tariffs. Trump doesn't realize that it is not China that pays the debt. So there's this push and pull, there's this tension right now, even within my own audience, as to the importance and placement of Donald Trump's health. Where are you on this issue? You can email me info@david pakman.com you can leave a comment here, there, everywhere, and of course, make sure you are subscribed to my YouTube channel where we are trying to get to 4 million subscribers. It costs now nothing, but it feels great. Donald Trump fell asleep standing up like a horse at an event a few hours ago with his face looking asymmetrically droopy while he slept standing up. This is seemingly pretty serious. Trump also bragged about cognitive tests. Trump's face in this video drooping, and he seems to fall asleep while Kelly Lefler is speaking at an event about small businesses.
- [24:26]
Marjorie Taylor Greene
They're a critical part of securing our supply chains.
- [24:29]
David Pakman
And while they contribute to national strength across all kinds of energy industries, from
- [24:36]
Sean Spicer
energy to agriculture to defense and aerospace, America's big manufacturers rely on these producers.
- [24:43]
David Pakman
Producers and their skilled workers.
- [24:45]
Sean Spicer
And that's why President Trump's economic agenda means Made in America is coming back, and it's coming back fast. There.
- [24:56]
David Pakman
And the clapping snapping Trump back awake here, dear God, he is standing up and falling asleep. At another point, an incredibly disoriented Donald Trump, roused from a dream state, says that he could end employment with the swipe of a pen, which shocked people in the room. They are silent because I guess what Trump means is he could end unemployment. But Trump goes, I could end employment with the swipe of a pen. This man is not well, jobs.
- [25:33]
Donald Trump
And, you know, I could make. I could. With one swipe of the pen, I could say, let's have no employment and I'll hire a million people. Or 2 million people. Must say, we just hired a million people and we have absolutely no employment. And that's what they would do. They'd have bad numbers coming up, so they'd hire a couple of hundred thousand people and the numbers would look okay with me. It's the exact opposite. We terminate a lot of federal jobs that are unnecessary, and they don't like me for doing It. But a year later, they like me because they end up having a much better job, oftentimes in a place where they'd much rather live. Know they go to the place that they want to go. They're not stuck in Washington or someplace.
- [26:14]
David Pakman
I mean, it's. This isn't coherent. This is not even remotely coherent. And of course, I think what Trump means is he could end unemployment by just hiring 15 million people to work for the federal government. But he says I could end employment. What Trump then joking about getting out of office eight or nine years from now? I think we should not take the bait on this. That's my instinct.
- [26:40]
Donald Trump
And this way, when I get out of office in, let's say, eight or nine years from now, I'll be able to use it. I'll be able to use it myself.
- [26:53]
David Pakman
I'm just not even going to take the bait. Guys, he is trying to bait us. Let's not even do it now. Where I will take the bait, which I don't think is really taking the bait, is that Donald Trump continues to brag how often he's taking cognitive tests. And he says no other president is taking. Has taken cognitive tests. This isn't the flex he thinks it is because for some reason he keeps being administered cognitive tests. How many tests does he need to take?
- [27:24]
Donald Trump
In my opinion, anybody running for president or vice president should take a cognitive test, and no president has ever taken one except me. I've taken three of them. Why aced each one? One in the first administration, two over here. And whenever they get a little sassy, like, does he still have it? Does he still have what it takes? I say, all right, I'll take another one. And they are hard. There are many people in this room I know that are smart. They're not going to ace them. There are many people standing back there, the fake news media. I'd like to have them. You know, the first question is very easy. And they always show. The first question is, you have a lion, a bear, an alligator, and a. What's another good. A squirrel. Okay. Which is the squirrel. So they show that question, and then the first four or five questions are. They get a little more difficult by the time you get to the middle. They're tough by the time you get to the end. I don't want to be insulting, but there won't be. I'm not going to do what Gavin Newsom said. He saw him. He said, everybody in here stupid. And he's stupid. When he. I think it was the worst political interview I've ever seen.
- [28:35]
David Pakman
He said, yeah, you know, it's a brain injury screening test, a dementia screening test. The fact that Trump is constantly being cognitively tested and finds the test really difficult is a major red flag. What Trump is effectively saying is I'm the only president who doctors have felt needed cognitive tests so often that that's another interpretation of what Donald Trump is saying. And by the way, the tests are really tough. I guess they're right to be cognitively testing. Trump, this is not something I would be bragging about now. Final clip. I'm not going to subject you to the full eight minutes because that's torture. I, I believe that it would violate the Geneva Convention and would constitute a war crime. Trump's brain just rambling for eight minutes about the reflecting pool project. Aimless wandering of his brain. I won't play all of it. Okay? Just, I'm giving you a little flavor,
- [29:34]
Donald Trump
give you just one little anecdote. We have a beautiful, potentially Beautiful Built in 1922, it's a long time ago Reflecting pond in between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. It's the long, it's 2,500ft long. That's taller than I think any building in the world. That would be if you lay it
- [29:56]
David Pakman
sideways, I don't know why you would do that, but if you did two
- [30:00]
Donald Trump
Empire State Buildings more than that and very wide, 167ft. And for years they've wanted to fix it, rebuild it. It's granite. The stone is good. Granite's great. But it was leaking because it's little piece.
- [30:15]
David Pakman
All right, so anyway, he does eight minutes of that and then finally, finally Trump trying to wrap up and completely unable to coherently stay on topic, are
- [30:27]
Donald Trump
really, this is the golden age of America. I really believe it. Last year we were scoffed at. I told, I tell the story often that the king of Saudi Arabia year, a year and a half ago, when I was over there, he said, you know, America was a dead country. We didn't think we'd be investing. We didn't think it would be appropriate to invest there. We were a dead country. And now, president, you have the hottest country anywhere in the world. That was seven or eight months ago. We're a lot hotter than we were then. We had to do this little excursion. But the excursion is the stock market's higher now than it was when I, I, I assume the market would be down 25% and that was worth it to get rid of lunatics that would have nuclear weapons that can wipe out countries with the push of a button, you can't.
- [31:14]
David Pakman
All right, so he's just completely off script. For those not concerned about Trump's cognitive health, how do you explain that? Terrifying and globally humiliating and I would argue a national security risk. Because when foreign leaders and foreign intelligence agencies see that the President is this Mayo brained mayonnaise up there, maybe a little Dijon. They know that he can be taken advantage of. And he can be. We've seen it time and time again. A lot of people put on music while they work, assuming it helps them concentrate. But in practice, familiar songs, lyrics or constantly changing tracks often will take attention away from what you're working on rather than supporting attention. And that's where Brain FM comes in. Our sponsor Brain FM is a music app designed to support focus, relaxation or sleep with music created by human musicians working alongside neuroscientists. Instead of generic playlists, Brain FM offers task specific modes like deep work, creative and motivation, depending on what you're trying to do. What makes Brain FM different is the science behind it, because it's the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. Based on their unique audio technology designed to influence brain activity associated with focus, Brain FM also has published peer reviewed research showing their technology supports attentional performance. They even have an optional ADHD mode for people who benefit from additional stimulation. But the app really is built for anybody looking to reduce distractions and stay engaged with their work. You can try Brain FM totally free for 30 days by going to Brain FM Pacman. 30 days is a long free trial. Go check it out. The link is in the description. A lot of people fall into the same pattern every year for Mother's Day. Flowers, maybe brunch, maybe a gift card. It's nice, doesn't last very long. This is why I love Aura frames as a different kind of gift. Our sponsor Aura makes digital picture frames that display your photos and videos in a way that looks like a real print. It's so easy. You can preload photos before the frame arrives. You can add a personal message. It shows up ready to go. I have two of these. I've given them to my mom, I've given them to my dad. And then when we travel like we are right now, I add pictures of the girls from my phone and they show up on all of the frames, or only some of the frames if that's what you want. Instead of giving a gift that disappears after a few days, give something that will keep the memories alive. Aura is giving my audience $25 off their bestselling Carver Matte frame. Go to Aura Frames.com use the code PACMAN. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description. I am joined today by Sean Spicer, former Trump White House Press Secretary, host of the Sean Spicer show, and also author of the new book Trump 2.0, the Revolution that Will Permanently Transform America. Sean, I really do appreciate your time. I know you're a very busy guy.
- [34:37]
Sean Spicer
Well, there's no one I'd rather spend my, my morning with than you, David. So I'm excited for this conversation, and I know you're probably to agree with me on most things.
- [34:45]
David Pakman
Well, listen, I don't want to make this about tit for tat. Like, listen, I think that Trump straight up just lost in 2020. I know you may not necessarily agree with that, and we could make it about that, but I may be more interested in getting your perspective on, you know, I've spoken to other people who have worked for Donald Trump in a similar communications capacity to you. I've spoken to Anthony Scaramucci. I've spoken to Sarah Matthews, who was deputy press secretary at one point. I'm curious whether your experience mirrors theirs now that you're out of that role, where there was this sense of pressure to give Trump only good news, to go out and say things you didn't necessarily believe were true, whether it's about crowd sizes or whatever, or did you feel like you were coming up with that stuff on your own? Like, what was the dynamic in that office?
- [35:37]
Sean Spicer
Well, it's interesting. I mean, so a couple things, if I take it step by step, yeah, I brought him bad news all the time. I mean, you did. Usually wasn't pleasant. Sometimes he get mad. My job was to deliver to him the, you know, the information, and then he would say, I don't like that, or here's how I want you to communicate it. And one of the mistakes that people make is they'll say, you should have said this or that. The job of a spokesperson is to speak in lieu of the principal, no matter whether you're the organization of the, you know, the Parent Teacher association or the president's, you know, the White House press secretary for the president. And so I would give him my advice. I have my counsel, my thoughts. And sometimes he'd take it, sometimes he wouldn't. But my goal wasn't to share with people my thoughts, which I do now on my show. I mean, I enjoy, after decades of doing it for other people, being able to share with people like what I think. But, I mean, I've dealt with people like this for 30 years, who would say, no, I don't agree with you, I want to say it this way, or I think that that analysis is incorrect and here's why. And then my job was to say, okay, if that's what you think, based on how I've presented this to you and maybe the strategy that I'm presenting it, ultimately, I have to represent your thoughts. So I don't. I know personally, I gave him news all the time that some of it he enjoyed, some of it he didn't. And then I went out there and communicated to the best of my ability, not always perfectly, what he believed the message should be or his thoughts, how he wanted his thoughts or views communicated.
- [37:16]
David Pakman
I guess, to some degree, though, even though I understand being a spokesperson for the principal. There are other press secretaries who have worked for Trump who felt that they needed to put some limits down. Like, I'll give you an example. There's been this reporting about Kayleigh McEnany, who, during the period where Trump really wanted her going out there saying, hey, Trump won the 2020 election, she was avoiding him because she thought that talking about that in that way would violate the Hatch Act. So that was something she decided. And she said, I'm not going to just go out and represent what Trump says.
- [37:45]
Sean Spicer
Well, and you see Caroline talking about, when she gets asked about certain endorsements, again, there's a, there's, there's aspects of the law that we have to follow, right?
- [37:52]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [37:53]
Sean Spicer
And you say, I am prohibited by law from speaking about that. We dealt with a lot of the Russia hoax during my tenure, and there were times when I answered the question, I'd say, you know, I've been advised by counsel that I have to defer all the questions. So the president may have wanted me to say things. I say, Mr. President, let me get the counsel's office in here. Because they're saying that, one, I can't legally do that or do. We'll have some kind of legal exposure if I say something. And so here's the strategy. And there's. That's. But that's, that's sort of a. Again, that's more of a strategic thing, and that's the law. There were some things, you know, and there are some issues that, that you have to deal with, whether it's the Hatch act or commercial interest, that you can say, you know, I'm. We dealt with this at the beginning with it say, you know, you're not allowed to speak to certain things that aren't within the Purview of the United States government.
- [38:44]
David Pakman
With the Day One crowd size thing, Was that a moment where you counseled him? Hey, the facts don't really point to this being the biggest crowd ever. And he goes, no, but I say it. And you went out and said it. Or what was the counsel you gave there?
- [38:57]
Sean Spicer
So it actually is, I take it, a step back. I mean, my initial thing was, let's not start on this foot. Right? I mean, look, to be blunt, I don't mean to make sound like a sixth grader here, but there were two things that happened in the preceding 24 hours, never mind the preceding 24 months. I mean, there was a ton of us who had been, you know, I'd been on the campaign, I had worked with them, and we had felt like we were constantly being demeaned and diminished in terms of our capabilities, our win, etc. So that was sort of A, the mindset. But B, if you think about the preceding 24 hours, number one, Zeke Miller of the. Then Time magazine lied about whether or not there was a bust of Martin Luther King that had been removed from the Oval Office, which. Which was demonstrably false and only said to inflame racial tensions. Right. And once the genie was out of the box. So we had started off with that. No one checked with us, no one asked. It was clearly there. It wasn't removed, which I frankly found to be completely silly to begin with. When presidents change administrations, the Oval Office is cleared. So I actually initially thought probably wasn't there. Like, because that's how it works. They take the rug out. They take. I mean, generally they keep the desk. Because most presidents in modern history have used the Resolute desk, but they changed the curtains. The. So who knows? I mean, I was like, this is silly. But then I went and looked and I was like, wow, it's actually there. And it was that no one had even checked. So. So, number one, that's going on. Number two, the President was, and I think rightly so. You wake up and you see a couple roundtables after a historic first day in office, being told that, like, no one was there and it was. Which was silly. I mean, like, there were. I dealt with personal issues with my own family having trouble getting past some of the security checkpoints in the mags. And I was like, this is dumb. My personal take on it was, we should have just said this is silly. Like, let's focus on what the President's doing to fulfill his promises. I think, look, he was pissed and I get it. Like, if you have this big win and remember the night of election, we were told was like 97% New York Times and others saying, we're not gonna win that. And then kept. And that was just that. I mean, kept overcoming hurdle after hurdle after hurdle.
- [41:11]
David Pakman
But, Sean, with all due respect, it sounds like you're saying. Because other things that were said were untrue. You were like, okay, going out and saying this was the biggest crime.
- [41:20]
Sean Spicer
I'm sorry. Fair enough. But that's not what I'm saying, though. What I'm saying is I want you to understand the context. And I'm not excusing anything. I'm just giving you a sense that, like, so he sees this, and I'll get to this, because here's the dirty little secret. David that's not talked about a lot. He didn't. The media love to. The spicer was directed to go to this. That's not true. The timeline is the following. He called me and said, this is B.S. what's happening? Da, da, da. Go out and correct it. I got with my staff. I met with a ton of people that were like, give me some statistics. It was a Monday. The federal government was closed. We were trying to piece together different ways in which we could articulate that there was significant interest in it. I called him at one point. He said, hey, when are you doing this? And I said, I'm going out to correct my biggest mistake that day. David was actually not running it all by him. When I called, he called me and said, are we getting this done? Are you going to go out there and correct it? I said, yep, I got it. And because what had happened is, on January 6th of that year, Buzzfeed had gone out and done this whole dossier thing. And I had sort of retaliated about how they had presented it, and the president had liked that. He said, you did a really good job that day. So I thought, okay, I get this guy. He wants me to go out and come at these guys, you know? And so the biggest mistake that I made that day was, and I learned it real quick, was not going to him and saying, okay, you want me to correct it? Here's how I'm going to go do this. He was pissed. When I got off, I expected that phone to ring in the press secretary's office, and it did. And I thought he'd be like, hey, great job. You kicked him in the teeth. And da, da, da. He was furious. He's like, what the hell was that?
- [42:59]
David Pakman
But he was mad because he knew the claim wasn't true.
- [43:03]
Sean Spicer
He was mad at how I presented it. He was like, that's not. And to be honest with you, at that point, we've never, to this day, ever gone back. And I was like, okay, how do I move? I literally thought I was getting fired that day.
- [43:16]
David Pakman
Was that. Is that your biggest regret from your time? Or, like, for example, Hitler didn't use chemical weapons might be high on my list as well. Like, what's your biggest regret from that tenure?
- [43:27]
Sean Spicer
Well, again, I'd say those are probably up there, but let's back up and dissect two, because we have a second one is I've made it very clear that I would love a mulligan on that first one. I don't think we, like, beyond the. And again, I don't want to get. If you want, I can get in the nuances, because here's what I did. I called around and I talked to everybody from, like, C Span to online sources and tried. And if you actually parse what I said, which was that it was the largest audience to witness, the idea was to make a claim that was like, when Barack Obama was inaugurated, there was physically a lot of people there, no question about it, but the online capabilities didn't exist the way they did today. The technology hadn't evolved. Right. So I actually thought I was in fairly strong ground.
- [44:16]
David Pakman
Interesting.
- [44:16]
Sean Spicer
Because it's like George Washington. You know, no one watched his on television. Right. And so you'd be like, you thought. I thought. How can I phrase this in a way that encapsulates all the people that watch it on platforms like Twitter that didn't exist in terms of the video capabilities back when some of these other people were inaugurated. So I was trying to make a claim that was, like, beyond refute, not focus on the number of people on the mall.
- [44:42]
David Pakman
I got you.
- [44:43]
Sean Spicer
Clearly, that didn't come across well. Since you brought up the other one, here's what I'll tell you. Like, and I wrote about this extensively on my first book, which, you know, you can go out and buy as well. Obviously, I'd rather you read Trump 2.0.
- [44:54]
David Pakman
Yep.
- [44:55]
Sean Spicer
But. But that, like, go back and look at what I said, Right. I was going out and saying, bashad Alice, like, that this guy was a, you know, Assad was a horrible, horrible guy. And let me tell you how bad this guy is and the despicable nature of what he has done to his own people. And if you go back and look at what Hitler had done, who's a horrible, horrible person, I was trying to say this guy so much like he's up there in that category of despicable, right? So if you actually go look at what I said, it was trying to describe how horrible one person is.
- [45:32]
David Pakman
And it was like, Assad is so bad that even Hitler hadn't used some of the weapons Assad used. Was the point you were trying to
- [45:39]
Sean Spicer
make who is an equally despicable, if not more despicable person. And again, it was inarticulate because if you technically go back and I've re litigated this in my entire first book about, you know, if you parse the words about what Hitler did, it was stupid. In media training I used to say to folks, never use an analogy that deals with rape or Hitler. It never ends well. And here I was doing something that I had counseled people to never do.
- [46:07]
David Pakman
And I guess the problem was that while the chemical weapons weren't used in warfare, the entire gas chamber concept is the use of a chemical weapon, Correct? Yeah.
- [46:16]
Sean Spicer
And so the nuance mattered. But to get to your point, I should have never even gone there. I should have let it stand on its own. And if you go back and look at what happened that day, I think I had been asked the same question literally 12 times. I documented it in my first book, the Briefing. And finally on the 12th iteration, right, I'd been asked over and over again about Assad and how what a horrible person he was and why the President was doing what he did. And I finally went, guys, you're not getting this. Here's how bad this guy really is. If I just stuck to the same previous 11 responses, none of this would. And but to your question, right, When I look at things that I did that I'd want to do over it, the reason that that one. So the crowd sized one was horrible because here I was, first day representing the President United States and I was like, I let the guy down, right? When I look at the Hitler comment, it really was difficult for me because that was a holy day for Jews. And I looked at it like, oh my God, there are people out there that are dealing with a very difficult day to begin with. And I may have just made this a more difficult day. And that was clearly not my intent. And anybody who watched it and watched the briefing and knows what I was getting at, which again the transcript is very public, knows what I was trying to do, which is to describe how horrific somebody was and the despicable nature on which they were committing heinous acts upon their own people and trying to basically say, this is the league they're in. Right, right. And yet the way it was portrayed, I think, made a bunch of people who were celebrating a holy day question my motives, my intent. And that hurt from the standpoint of knowing that, like, when you are trying to describe something and knowing that somebody's hearing the second third hand might actually believe that the goal was to minimize the impact of such a horrendous and impactful event on people who are still feeling those effects today. It just. It killed me inside to be like, wow, there are people who think that I would actually say something like that. Watching the comments online, knowing that, that. That anybody would think that that was intentional was, you know, just made me think, oh, my God. I mean. And again, it just didn't represent the President well, which is what your goal is supposed to be.
- [48:44]
David Pakman
Sean, in Trump 2.0, you attempt to build the case for Trump's success so far in the second term. Now, one of the things I've been critical of the Bide for was that there was a lot of insistence that everything was great, which didn't translate. In other words, people sitting at home would say, here's what my credit card statement and bank account look like, and here's the Biden administration saying everything's great. That didn't work. It doesn't work unless people feel it. And I think there's some similarity to that with what's going on right now, where the President is getting out there almost daily and saying, this is the best economy we've ever had. It's the best stock market we've ever had. Americans are doing better than ever. And number one, when you poll people, they say no, 80% think we're going in the wrong direction. 80% think it'll be even worse a year from now. So we've got the opinion side. And then on the factual, gas prices will be down 50%. Well, they're up 55%. That's an objective measure. The price level was going to come down. That only happens if inflation's negative, Inflation has been positive. The price level is up. Now, we could go back to the promise, but let's talk about what is. Why do you think if things are as good as the President says, and as you say, that it's not reflected in data nor in public opinion.
- [50:05]
Sean Spicer
Yeah. So. So let me go back to the premise that I'm making. There's two things in the book that are important to understand, okay? One is the number one objective that I set to make out in Trump 2.0 is answer this question about why. Why is Trump 2.0 historically different and more consequential? And the simple answer is the spade work that was done in the four intervening years. I have said this to the president. I'll say it to you and your audience now. President Trump would not be doing the things that he's doing had he been sequential, like every other president except one. The four intervening years have given him the ability and his team the ability to plot and plan a lot of how to do things. They wouldn't be doing so many of the various things they're doing have they not had time to reflect.
- [50:50]
David Pakman
I agree.
- [50:50]
Sean Spicer
Go so fast, right? And so if you think about the book and the chapters that are in there, whether it's NATO, trade dei, you know, education, the border, cultural issues, they. They wouldn't be. Trump didn't go to the Kennedy center in once, in his first four years. Now he's renamed the building and he's literally moderating the Kennedy center honors. Okay. Like, total change. That would not have happened, in my opinion. But to get to your point, I will say this. The one area of common ground that women have is, I believe a much more effective answer for people like, in this case, President Trump is to say, I'm working hard, we're making progress, and it's not there yet. Right. Especially on the economy. There are several things. Now, if we look post, you know, Iran conflict versus pre. There's. There's a little bit of a nuance there, but I even think that the question on Iran, like, I would like to see him communicate more effectively on the fact that, like, I am one of these people, that I do believe, and I've. I've seen it firsthand over the last three decades, Iran has poses a threat to us. There's no question about it. Politicians of both sides have agreed on this. So I actually think what he's doing there, but when he sells it short, I don't think that that's helpful to the American people. Meaning that if he says we're winning and da, da, da. Well, in any scenario, when you're winning something, then you don't, you know, you think, great, it's over, or I don't need to work as hard. We need to communicate effectively to the American people what Iran's threat is and why we're prosecuting it. And on the affordability issue, whether it's gas or anything else, again, I think depending on what the product is that you're talking about, like, I'm a Pretty cheap guy. I grew up frugal. So, like, I look at the gas every single day that I drive past this gas station. We've got two at the top of our street. I will go out of my way to go to the one that's 2 or 3 cents cheaper just by nature. And so when it's going up to your point, that's demonstrable. I mean, you can look at it and go, okay, was it more or less than the day before?
- [52:49]
David Pakman
Right.
- [52:50]
Sean Spicer
I think when it comes to gas prices specifically, again, the president needs to communicate why it's happening. Right. We are trying to heal. He could actually put a domestic export ban on, based on the amount of oil reserves that we have in the United States and the Brent oil that we make here, and prices would drop. But.
- [53:07]
David Pakman
But to your point, Sean, I think when he tells people why it's happening, most voters don't buy it. Like, I'll give you an example of what I mean. He says we've done this excursion in Iran, which, by the way, I think he wants to say incursion, but doesn't know the word. So he's come up with excursion, which is a completely different thing. He says, we've done this excursion in Iran because they had or were about to have a nuclear weapon. And so that's why this. And I think most people are looking at it and going, yeah, I don't buy that. Slash, it's not worth it. It's 450A gallon now. So I don't. It doesn't seem to be convincing anyone. Right.
- [53:38]
Sean Spicer
Well, and I don't disagree with you on that to some extent, but I would say that we do. Look, here's part of the way I look at this. There's no upside politically of going into Iran. None. Like, no one. When people say to me, do you think that this will pay? No, I actually do believe that it was just the right thing to do. And so sometimes you actually, you'll see a politician do something for the right reasons instead of. For. Because of the political reasons. That being said, I don't think that we've made the case the way that we should have about the threat that they pose. There are service members that are dead. There are service members without limbs because of what Iran does. And the terrorists that they fund, they pose a threat to the United States. They chant death to America. Right. I don't think that it's. And you look at what Hillary Clinton has said, what Kamala Harris has said, what Barack Obama and Joe Biden, they've all agreed that Iran poses a threat. I just believe that Donald Trump's the first one that actually acted on it. I support this, but I do think that we need to message it more effectively, that if we left them unchecked, what would you say? Excuse me, to the politician who does nothing. And then when we get attacked, knowing that they could have prevented it, we did this in 9, 11. We had an entire commission that looked and said, what did we know? What should we have known? What should we have acted upon? I think that not taking Iran seriously would have paid serious consequences, would have resulted in serious consequences, maybe in a year, maybe in two years, maybe in five years, but it was going to happen.
- [55:13]
David Pakman
So you acknowledge they may have been five years from a nuclear weapon.
- [55:17]
Sean Spicer
I'm not in a position. I mean, maybe I'm not clearly in a position to assess that. That's not in any way, shape or form what I have the capability of doing.
- [55:25]
David Pakman
But you're. You're comfortable assessing it enough to say that they were a threat, that Trump should have gone in?
- [55:31]
Sean Spicer
Sure. But I also think that when every politician. Hillary Clinton's on, you know, she's on record saying it, so is Kamala. I mean, that not going in part. They're all in agreement, then Iran poses a threat to us that they are in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And if you actually look at the current negotiations, the one thing that they won't negotiate on currently is their. Their desire to enrich uranium in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which I think, frankly, tells you everything that you need to know. They. The one thing, they're not even faking it. I mean, I get that.
- [56:04]
David Pakman
I agree with. No, listen, I'm a strong. My audience knows I'm a strong opponent of this regime. I'm against theocratic, extremist, extremist regimes. I just don't think it was in the interests of the United States to do this at this point in time. We clearly disagree on that.
- [56:16]
Sean Spicer
Right, right. Fine, fine. And I get that. But my question would be, when would it have been acceptable?
- [56:23]
David Pakman
Well, I am not convinced that there was this nuclear threat. I'm not convinced that the ballistic missile threat was actually legitimate because those wouldn't have the capability to reach the United States. Like, I agree that these regimes in general are threats, and I oppose them, but that doesn't mean the United States should be the one engaging in this in the way that Donald Trump has done. That's what I don't think makes sense.
- [56:46]
Sean Spicer
Well, I mean, their ballistic capabilities can reach Diego Garcia, which was a threat to most of Europe and clearly our bases, they've taken out the USS Cole. I mean, like they have funded a ton of terrorism that has clearly impacted us. Maybe not on our homeland, but definitely in our assets and our people.
- [57:03]
David Pakman
Well, that is, there is some dispute about that. I do think Diego Garcia is a fair point. I think the timing of it ended up making no sense in terms of what's best for the country. But let me ask about the next six months if I can, because I know you've got to run. Where we are right now, I think is a disaster for Republicans. I think that it is almost a guarantee that it is a disaster in the house. Like not five seats. I'm thinking 20, 40 or 50 seats. Senate is roughly 5050 right now in the polling and the betting markets. My understanding is that the issues that were highly emotionally salient during the campaign, for example, crowds got very up in arms about men and women's sports when the president would talk about that. I think these are dead issues as far as voting issues, I think come November, voters are going to look around and they're going to say, I was promised energy would be down 50%. It's not. I was promised gas would be down. It's not. I was promised groceries would be down, et cetera. And that it is going to be very bad. In terms of how people choose to vote for House and Senate elections, do you agree with that assessment and do you think I'm wrong about the voting impact of things like transports or gun safety, etc. Which I think all is just squashed by the economy?
- [58:19]
Sean Spicer
Yeah, so. So people vote for two main reasons. One, their personal security and their economic security. And what I mean by that is that both, in both cases, they are gut, visceral things. So someone can tell me all the time that inflation is up or GDP is this or that, but if I feel good, if I'm going to the store feeling like, hey, I can spend more money, I can go on a vacation or I can put some money away from my kids, then, then that's what matters.
- [58:43]
David Pakman
So agree.
- [58:44]
Sean Spicer
Statistics don't translate as much as what you feel. And maybe it's because your job is on shaky ground or whatever. Same thing with security. If you walk down the street and you don't feel safe, doesn't matter how many statistics your community puts out. Right. Conversely, if they put out a bunch of statistics and you go, I walk down the neighborhood, I feel great. And so the gut feeling matters. And I think you're right. Right now when I drive down the street, I look at a gas price, I go to the grocery store, you know, I buy lemons from time to time and I always look at what a lemon cost. Right. You know, the other day it was like 79 cents a lemon, which is insane. And so I think that you're right. The environment is very difficult. There's no sugar coating that for Republicans. The upside if you're a Republican is you go, okay, we are in the beginning of May. So, so, you know, there is some time. But generally speaking, people make up their mind about when and how they're voting in sort of late August. So this is not good for Republicans. But there's some time left. So that's, that's the plus side on that. The, the trans and subcultural issues. I agree. When you're voting for a, in a midterm election, it's a what I call a base plus issue. So you're voting on your member of Congress. Donald Trump can nationalize an issue or they can't. No one's thinking that your congressman is getting involved in this stuff. They need to make a specific case to what they're doing in their district to make their life better or not, full stop. Which leads you to my last point, like these races still have to get run, one candidate versus another. You look at the Senate, we have a three seat majority there. There's probably seven or eight Senate seats in play when you go through them. And this is where I think the national media makes a mistake, is they like to paint a broad brush and say, historically speaking, that's like saying generally on Tuesdays it rains, it's like, who cares? So look at the Senate races, Michigan, where I don't think we should be winning right now. Mike Rogers, I think is poised to win that seat because of the Democratic chaos. Conversely, I think we should have picked up Georgia, but Ossoff's put a ton of money away. We've got a late primary that's going to drain resources. I think Mike Collins will come out ahead in that primary, but he's going to come out without a ton of money. Does that mean we won't win it? No, but I think it's going to handicap them. So I think the Senate we're okay in. You got a three seat majority, seven seats in play. We could lose a seat or two. As long as we keep the majority, we're fine. And I think we're on. We'll end up winning Alaska, Ohio and Iowa. So that's good.
- [61:06]
David Pakman
What do you make of Maine and Texas?
- [61:08]
Sean Spicer
So in Texas, I think we're fine. Look, at the end of the day, Texas is always this sort of Lucy with the football. It's like how Republicans view New Jersey.
- [61:18]
David Pakman
We might get it this year and then it doesn't.
- [61:20]
Sean Spicer
Yeah, I mean, we've heard this. I was at the RNC for six years. We always hear this. I think, I believe that whoever right now, I still had. Paxton's probably going to win this primary. He'll be fine. It'll win by four or five points. It'll be closer, a ton of money. But Democrats have to. By the way, David, at some point they have to say, that's a lot of money, a lot of media markets to put in because you either go all in on Texas or you don't. You don't get kind of pregnant. And I think Democrats have to decide whether they want to spend $100 million to potentially pick up Texas when there's cheaper dates out there. Alaska is a cheaper date. Ohio's a cheaper date. Iowa's a cheaper date. Maine's a cheaper date. I have a feeling. And Talarico just. He doesn't fit Texas, he said a lot of crazy things. When they jam 15, 20 million dollars of oppo on him, I think you make him radioactive, people will come home. On the Republican side, If it's ultimately Paxton, I think we pull that Maine. Look, here's the thing on paper, Platner, if it wasn't Platner. I think if it was Janet Mills, it would make it a lot more competitive for Susan Collins. She always ends up eking these things out. I've done events in Maine before. Susan Collins is a well established, well known commodity in Maine.
- [62:36]
David Pakman
Right, but the polling said that Mills was easier for her to defeat.
- [62:39]
Sean Spicer
Yeah, but. But here's the deal. Go back and look at every one of Susan Collins's races. Everyone says she's down five to seven points. She ends up winning by five to seven. She's a known quantity. Here's the deal with Platner, and I talked about this on my show today, is I have a hard time. It's one thing to jam out Janet Mills because you can get the progressive base a little fired up. Are you going to tell me that with 10, 15 million of oppo about a guy who has a Nazi tattoo on his chest and said that sexual assault was, was, you know, women should be responsible for their own sexual assault is going to go over well with a good chunk of the independence that exist in Maine. I just like once, what's funny about
- [63:22]
David Pakman
that is if he were a Republican, oh my God. I think it wouldn't matter the same way it didn't. The grab him by the pussy didn't matter for Trump. But I think the problem is who is more likely to be in the electorate for Platner. I think it's a possible issue.
- [63:33]
Sean Spicer
Right, right. I mean, look, I think Maine is always going to, if it wasn't for Susan Collins, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I mean, she's the only Republican that can hold this. But I think there's a big difference with getting over the fact like when real oppo gets jammed at you. And remember, electorate there is very cheap. It's a lot of money that's in digital, a lot of money in mail, a lot of door to door money. Like so you're still playing a little in the Boston media market. As I said, when I say relatively speaking, it's a cheap date. And Platner, I think there's a point at which it's unsustainable. I think you have a small electorate there. Susan Collins, known quantity. And there's enough oppo to write itself. I think she squeezed, pulls this one out.
- [64:16]
David Pakman
All right. We've been speaking with Sean Spicer, former Trump White House Press Secretary, one of the many who have been in that role. The book is 5 Trump 2.0, the Revolution that Will Permanently Transform America. Thanks for your time, Sean.
- [64:30]
Sean Spicer
You bet, David.
- [64:32]
David Pakman
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 of by signing up@join pacman.com Former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene now says that Donald Trump implicitly threatened her son, saying, if you are no longer loyal to me, if your son gets hurt, you will only have yourself to blame. This is low even for Donald Trump. We're going to take a look at a couple of the videos. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who of course broke with Donald Trump, chose not to run for reelection, left Congress and has now become one of the strongest critics of Donald Trump. But remember, not a friend of the left, not a progressive, not an ally, just someone who had a falling out with Donald Trump. She explains, Trump texted me that if my son gets killed, I deserve it because I was a traitor to him. This is the form I believe then former, maybe already President of the United States Once again, President of the United States.
- [65:50]
Marjorie Taylor Greene
I sent them to all these people. I got no response from Susie Wiles. None. And she's a mother and a grandmother and a woman. I got no response from James Blair because he only cares about making money on campaigns. I did hear from Cash Patel, he said on it, but I haven't heard from him since. I don't know what he's on. JD Vance was very nice to me, compassionate and kind, and reassured me that he would do everything we could to find out what's going on. And then I heard back from Donald Trump. Uh, oh, and I've saved these text messages. I'd probably get put in jail if I released them publicly, but I saved them where Donald Trump proceeded to tell me that it was my fault and that I deserve it if my son gets killed. I deserve it because I was a traitor to him. That is our President of the United States. That's the man that says MAGA is whatever he wants it to be.
- [67:06]
David Pakman
This is disgustingly low, even for Donald Trump. And I think that, by and large, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a terrible person. Terrible person. But bringing her son into this in this way and saying, listen, when you're no longer loyal to Trump, crazy things can happen, and you would be deserving of those crazy things happening because you became a traitor. Now, I would love for her to release the text messages she says she has. She says she would go to jail if she did. I don't know that that's necessarily true. I mean, listen, it's, it's possible that they'll try to, for punitive reasons, just for revenge, try to make her life a living hell. That's what this administration does. But Pete Hegseth has done much worse as Secretary of Defense than releasing some texts that Marjorie Taylor Greene has. This is incredible and disgusting stuff. And if you present the, the hardcore Magaz with this, they just go, oh, she's lying. She had a falling out with Trump. That's why she's doing this. This is. None of this stuff is true. It's just a lie. You can't believe any of it. There's another clip where Marjorie Taylor Greene straight up says, Trump told me we shouldn't release the Epstein files because it will hurt people at Mar? A Lago, which, if we believe this. And listen, I, I, my views of Marjorie Taylor Greene are not particularly positive. I don't think she's making this up. If that's true, it blows a hole wide open in the explanation for why Donald Trump is covering up the Epstein File.
- [68:42]
Marjorie Taylor Greene
Forget it. I was in my office in the Rayburn Building, and I got a phone call from the president, and he was at the White House, and he wanted to talk to me about the discharge petition that I'd signed my name on. And he said, marjorie, you're going to have to take your name off that discharge petition. The. These. We can't let. This is a hoax. We can't carry this. This is a hoax. It's a Democrat hoax, and we've got to just put this away and stop doing this. And he said, my friends are going to get hurt. He said his friends would get hurt if we released the Epstein files. He said, marjorie, these are good people. These are people, you know at Mar Lago, people in Palm Beach. They're going to get hurt by this. And I said, Mr. President, people have been hurt. These women have been hurt. I said, have you talked to them? I said, you should talk to them. You should have them in the Oval Office. Mr. President, you have everybody in the Oval Office. You have sports teams, you have world leaders. You have Al Qaeda terrorists that are now leading Syria. You have Mom, Donnie. I mean, you have everybody in the Oval Office. Surely you can have these women who were raped as teenagers talk to them. I talked to them all the time. As a matter of fact, many of them voted for you. That's what I told them. They voted for you. Epstein victims voted for Donald Trump and he wouldn't have anything to do with them. And he told me his friends would get hurt. And I said, not taking my name off the discharge petition.
- [70:23]
Donald Trump
Thank you.
- [70:24]
David Pakman
You know, Trump doesn't care about the victims. Just a few weeks ago, I covered for you. Donald Trump asked about the victims, talking about them as the victims or whatever. The victims or whatever, huh? That's not the language of someone who cares about the victims. Trump sees himself at the victim. This is what Marjorie doesn't understand. She's like, sir, there are victims and they voted for you. And how can Trump sees himself as the victim? He says nobody's been treated more unfairly. He's been. Even Abraham Lincoln, who was shot dead, wasn't treated as unfairly as Donald Trump. So Marjorie Taylor Greene is not our friend. She's not an ally of the progressive left. Quite frankly, she's out of her mind. But she stepped over a line that many Republicans aren't willing to step over, which is to call Trump out for what Trump is. And I do think she know. Here's the thing. I think 90% of these Republicans see Trump the way Marjorie Taylor Greene sees Trump as a self centered buffoon who doesn't really know what's going on and doesn't really care if it doesn't affect him or his priority is protecting himself and the people he believes he is strategically inclined to protect. I think most Republicans see Trump this way. She's willing to say it. A lot of the other ones aren't. But these are still people whose beliefs in general are absolutely disgusting. And we now need to make them pay for it in November. And that's what I want to talk about next. Did you know that this year, just months from now, Trump and Republicans could lose everything? We can take it all from them. We can take the House of Representatives, we can take the Senate, we can take investigative and oversight power. We can take the last two years of Donald Trump's presidency, making him the lamest of lame ducks, during which he will do nothing other than throw ketchup at the wall, proverbially and literally. Let me give you the latest numbers and remind everybody this depends on us. We have a huge role to play here. Now, we start with the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, polling favors Democrats taking the House, and the betting markets favor Democrats taking the House. On Kalshee right now, 79% chance that the Democratic Party takes the house, 21% chance that the Republican Party keeps the House. Now, importantly for those who believe it's over and it's all in the bag, it's important to note that just a couple of weeks ago, there was an 85% betting market chance that Democrats take the House. That is now down to 79% and trending down. So while the most likely scenario is Democrats take the House of Representatives from Republicans, the odds of that happening have come down over the last couple of weeks. We then get to the Senate. Well, what's going on in the Senate? It's close to 5050 now, most notably in the Senate, where a handful of races are going to decide the entire thing at the end of the day. We had a situation in late 24, early 25, where there was a greater than 80% shot for Republicans to take the Senate. That jumped down to about 70% during much of 2025. And that came all the way down to one point about three weeks ago during which Democrats were all of a sudden the favorites with a 54% chance of taking the Senate. That is now reversed again, but it is very close to 5050. A handful of races will decide the entire thing. Now, if you zoom out for a second what you start to see is something Republicans are hoping you don't notice, which is that 2026 is shaping up to be a complete wipeout scenario for them if we get out and vote. And this matters so much, because if Democrats take the House and Senate in 2026, Trump is done legislatively that day. One of a Democratic House and or Senate sworn in. No major bills, no sweeping agenda, no second term legacy, nothing. It's going to stop on a dime. Secondly, the House controls what gets voted on and the Senate controls what passes. In a sense, that means no new tax cuts, no major policy changes, no immigration insanity or economic tax law chaos or none of it. Trump becomes the lamest of lame ducks. He will have two full years of being as lame as you can be. And when that happens, something else kicks in right away. Of course, the House has oversight power and they are going to bury the Trump administration and investigations and oversight for two full years until Trump's last day in office. But then there's something else also, which is that within the Republican Party, power starts to shift away from Donald Trump. If he can't get anything passed and he's as unpopular as any president in the modern era has been, why do we stick with Trump? Which leads us into the conversation of what happens in 2028. If Trump can't pass laws and he's so unpopular that he can't even pick the heir to the Maga throne for 2028, he is no longer the center of gravity. He is blocked and locked.
- [76:03]
Sean Spicer
And.
- [76:03]
David Pakman
And the part that people maybe are underestimating or you're sort of like, maybe I'll vote in November, maybe I won't. I don't know. Presidents who lose that kind of power often lose control of their own party completely. And at that point, Trump isn't picking a successor. This whole thing of, oh, Marco Rubio were JD Vans, he's trying to already turn it into some kind of reality show competition. That is done because it won't be up to Trump anymore. If we can damage him in the party so significantly this November, he will be competing with a bunch of Republicans who suddenly realize he has nothing to offer me anymore, I don't need him anymore. And so you go from a president completely in control of everything, controlling his party, controlling the legislative agenda, everything, to a guy who is irrelevant politically, loses power, loses the influence of the bully pulpit in a single midterm election. The media narrative will flip overnight. Right now, it's Trump's agenda, Trump's war in Iran, Trump's negotiations on tariff Trump, Trump's health care plan. That's two weeks away, which none of us believe, but some of them keep repeating. Overnight, it will be Trump rejected by voters. MAGA is done. Weakest president ever. Trump blocked. Trump cucked. You will even see some headlines. I would never do that headline. But some will do that headline. But it's up to us to make it happen. And if we say we don't really care that much about that, we're going to stay home, then it won't happen. And there's a lot of work being done here to try to preserve election integrity, which the Supreme Court, by gutting the Voting Rights act, is trying to destroy. There's a lot of work being done in terms of the redistricting efforts to ensure that Republicans cannot steal congressional seats simply on the basis of drawing wacky congressional districts. We're doing all of this stuff. Let's not make it be for nothing. That's my thought. Let's actually make it be for something. We will talk on today's bonus show about seven elections tonight that will test the power of maga. We will also talk about the Trump administration blaming Biden for the collapse of Spirit Airlines. Unfortunately, reality points a different direction. And are you sleeping enough? Most Americans are not. And we are going to go through why this is and the different schools of thought as to what helps. All of that and more on today's bonus show. Don't miss it. Sign up now. Don't wait. Now you can sign up at joinpacman. Com.