D (10:38)

As for the Vanity Fair article, Michael, I'll take your question directly. This is unfortunately another example of disingenuous reporting where you have a reporter who took the chief of staff's words wildly out of context, did not include the context those conversations were had within. And then further, I think the most egregious part of this article was the bias of omission that was clearly present. And we see a lot of this when dealing with the media every day. You will leave out important context, leave out comments and facts. You know, many people in this building spoke with that reporter, and those comments were never included in the story, probably because it didn't push this false narrative of chaos and confusion that the reporter was clearly trying to push. So what I'll say about our chief of staff, as you've seen from not just myself, but also the entire Cabinet in a groundswell of support from people on Capitol Hill who don't even work in this building about how incredible Susie Wiles has been to President Trump and he's been able to accomplish so much because of his leadership and all right.

A (11:43)

Okay, blah, blah, blah, Susie Wiles is great. So a couple of different things. First of all, Caroline Levitt mentions a lot of people were interviewed and not everyone's comments were included as some evidence of wrongdoing. Now, I have dealt with that personally. I have been interviewed for stories, and the things I say when they aren't directly relevant to the story as it is being conceived by the writer sometimes get left out. And you know what? I find it really frustrating. I find it frustrating because I take time out of my day to speak with a reporter, and then they don't even include my comments. Now, is it always because of narrative creation in a malicious way? No. Sometimes it's just my view actually just doesn't really fit or help to flesh out what is being said. I've stopped participating in those asks and I will ask a specific set of questions. When a reporter contacts me, I will say, first of all, is this article being written on spec or is this going to be published? Because one thing that's happened is the article just doesn't get written I don't want to waste my time with that. I'm very busy. To be, to be perfectly frank, between kids and the show and, you know, being interviewed for articles that will be, will be canceled is a waste of time. I will also ask, will my comments definitely be included or might they be excluded? And if they go, yeah, you know, I'm talking to like 20 people right now, just generally, if it's not interesting, I'll go, yeah, you know what? I just don't have the time. It doesn't mean the reporter is malicious. This is just kind of how things work. How things work. Secondly, only two of 11, only the part two of this report is out. There are 11 interviews that, that were done. We don't know what will or won't be included in future parts. So. So secondly, there's that. But I want to kind of get to the, to the bigger picture here. This was not an unfair question from the reporter. The defense is collapsing. They keep talking about missing context. They don't say the reporting is wrong. They don't say the facts are incorrect. They say there was disingenuous behavior by the reporter. Words are out of context. The article mischaracterized what was said. What does that really mean? I mean, what sort of context could you add to. Elon Musk is an avowed ketamine user, for example. What could you add to that that really changes in any serious way what this is about? They aren't saying anybody misspoke. They aren't saying somebody went rogue.

B (13:56)

They.

A (13:56)

They are just arguing that context is missing. And this is a really common trend in authoritarian regimes, which is that when someone inside the operation says something that is damaging, you don't argue the claim, you delegitimize the messenger. And that's what they're doing here. The bad actor is not the person who spoke, in this case Susie Wiles, it's the journalist who repeated it. It's the people that quoted Susie Wiles own words. And the framing tells you where the loyalty lies. As of this moment, Susie Wiles is protected. She's still useful. She's still in Trump's good graces. So Levitt can say the reporter was wrong. You weren't supposed to hear it like that. It was removed from context, wildly out of context. That collapses when you say what context would change the meaning. And my guess is that eventually they will come up with something like, well, she is generally supportive of the president, ok? That really doesn't change the context that she is acknowledging and communicating things that she was up to and including aghast about. She uses the word aghast. Nuance doesn't really change the substance. So Caroline Levitt is doing what she always does. She treats journalism as this very offensive, horrible thing. And it starts to look here like this is less about communicating the perspective of the president, which is what a press secretary is supposed to do, and more about just attacking reporters, which is what this administration has regularly done. This is what people do when they run out of Runway. And it's happening for a simple reason. The administration keeps producing stories that you can't clean up with a few talking points. You can't contextualize away total chaos and you can't spin away internal admission. So the mask is slipping. All they have is context, context without explaining anything about it. And then when Caroline Levitt went on Fox News to talk about this, it only got worse. After speaking to reporters about the Vanity Fair bombshell where Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff, is quoted. Caroline Levitt then went on Fox News. And as often is the case, the questions are pretty soft on Fox News. But. But what does happen is that Caroline Levitt still makes a complete and utter fool of herself, starting with the Fox hosts. On the topic of the Vanity Fair piece here, she does talk about out of context like she did earlier when speaking with reporters, but she even throws in the phrase fake news. I mean, why not, right? It's good work.

B (16:28)

If you can get. She goes on after that, you can.

A (16:30)

Read the full thing on X. But what happened? What went wrong?

D (16:34)

Well, look, I would just echo my boss, Susie Wiles, who is the best chief of staff in our nation's history, working for the greatest president in our nation's history. And that this was unfortunately another attempt at fake news by a reporter who was acting disingenuously and really did take the chief's words out of context. But I think most importantly, the bias of omission was ever present throughout this story. The report reporter omitted all of the positive things that Susie and our team said about the president and the inner workings of the White House. And as Susie said today, it's deeply unfortunate that happened, but it won't distract us from making America great again. And President Trump has been such a productive president.

A (17:16)

All right, yeah, now she goes into Trump propaganda. Listen, everything she's saying here is just crap. First of all, it was an attempt at fake news by a reporter acting disingenuous. The reporter is quoting Susie Wiles. Ok. Second, the words were taken out of context. You can repeat that. As many times as you want. But unless you can give us a hint as to what kind of context would change the ultimate meaning of this stuff, you just sound like you're blowing smoke. She mentions the bias of omission that the positive things said about Trump weren't included in the article. I hate to tell you, Caroline, it's not exactly newsworthy if you get people who work for Trump to say he's awesome and it is a cult, after all. And it makes sense that a lot of that stuff isn't part of the story because it doesn't really move the ball forward in our understanding of what people really think behind the scenes. And the fact that they are still unable to come up with anything better than this tells us that the theme of they never take responsibility for their own actions or Trump's continues. And sometimes it doesn't matter how much positive there is, it's still bad. What context would change whether or not Elon Musk is using ketamine? What context would change whether Trump is making major consequential decisions on a whim? You know, if I go, hey, Joe Schmo killed a woman and someone goes, yeah, but David, did you report that Joe Schmo also watered her plants before killing her? You're missing the context of the whole thing. Give me a break, ok? Give me a break. Now in continuing the very aggressive delusions, Caroline Levitt is now giving Trump credit for making up phrases.

D (18:52)

Do expect that number to continue to decline as President Trump's energy policies continue to kick in. And he made up the slogan drill baby drill. And that's what our Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright has now.

A (19:05)

At minimum, Sarah Palin was using the phrase drill baby drill before Donald Trump way back when she was running as John McCain's vice president in 2008. Next, what Trump invented fire and discovered the wheel? Wait a second. Or is it discovered fire and invented the wheel? What is the what is the difference between inventing and philosophical question for a different day? Donald Trump scheduled to address the nation tonight. Caroline Levitt weighed in a little bit on what that's going to be about.

E (19:35)

First of all, you let us know that there's going to be a big.

A (19:37)

Address to the nation tomorrow night at 9.

E (19:40)

So do tell, what's it all about?

D (19:42)

We greatly look forward to President Trump addressing the Nation tomorrow night, 9 o' clock Eastern. I hope your audience will tune in and Americans across the country will tune in to hear from their president as well about the historic accomplishments that he has garnered for our country over the past year. If you look at the security of our border, if you look at stopping Joe Biden's inflation right in its tracks, bringing down gas prices to the lowest level in five years, years, President Trump will be talking about what's to come. The best is truly yet to come, as he often says.

A (20:15)

So it sounds like it will be an extraordinary feat of propaganda riddled with Trump jumping off message, just like he did at last week's speech in Pennsylvania where he was there to deliver a speech about how he's going to fix affordability and he said it's already fixed, prices are down. So I expect the fact that Caroline Lovett can't even explain what this speech is going to be about should concern all of us. And then finally, really, really, really untrue statement from Caroline Levitt about job creation.

D (20:41)

Under President Biden and we know under the previous administration and Joe Biden that 100% of the jobs gained were for foreign born workers.

A (20:52)

They think about how idiotic that sounds. Every new job. While Biden was president, millions of jobs were for foreigners, not a single American born person. As soon as you get such an obvious fact wrong, it would be sort of like if someone said I estimate this baby's weight at 300 pounds. You go, wait a second. If you're, if you don't even have a sanity check as to why that sounds ridiculous. I don't know that I can believe anything else that you're saying. It's getting really bad for Caroline Levitt. Can she continue doing this? If you are scrambling for a meaningful last minute holiday gift and running out of real ideas, Aura Frames can save you. Our sponsor, Aura, makes high quality digital photo frames that showcase your favorite pictures and videos in a way that looks like a real print. I've given these to so many different people. I gave one to my dad preloaded with family photos. He still walks by it and comments on pictures he hasn't seen in years. It's a GIF that lands and Aura makes it really easy. You can preload the pictures before it even ships, you can add a personal message, and then you can keep adding photos and videos all year long. It's free, it's unlimited, the setup takes just a few minutes and every frame arrives in a premium gift box. There is still plenty of time to get an Aura frame shipped before Christmas and you'll get $35 off their bestselling Carver Mat Frames. When you go to aura frames.com and use the code Pacman at checkout, the link is in the description The David Pakman show remains an audience supported program. You can support the show through membership at join pacman.com you can also get a substack premium subscription at substack.david pakman.com and the store is back. Hoodies, T shirts, hats, mugs, water bottles, Obama T shirts already in the first 24 hours of the store. The best selling item. Remember who remembers Obama? Obama that guy. The Obama T shirts are flying off the shelves. These make great gifts. David pakman.com/gear a lot of the stuff might get there by Christmas. Okay. I don't starting to get a little difficult to guarantee with every passing hour. But check it out. David pakman.com/gear the Trump administration just admitted something extraordinary and they are acting like of course it's obvious. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked again about the second strike on the boats. This relates to the alleged narco trafficking boats off the coast of Central and South America where there was an alleged war crime, a double tap strike after destroying the boat, leaving it in pieces. Maybe some fishermen or drug traffickers, depending on your perspective, were holding on to pieces of the boat and there was a second attack. If true, that would be a war crime. We have been waiting after Trump said we are going to release the video. We're not going to release the video. Ultimately it is up to Pete Hegseth to decide. Hegseth says of course we're not going to release that video.

B (24:13)

Also going to tomorrow allow the Hask and Saskatchewan to see the unedited video.

A (24:18)

Of the September 2nd alongside with Admiral Bradley, who has done a fantastic job.

B (24:24)

Has made all the right calls and.

A (24:25)

We'Re glad he'll be there to do it.

B (24:26)

But in keeping with long standing Department.

A (24:29)

Of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we're not going to release.

B (24:33)

A top secret, full, unedited video of.

A (24:37)

That to the general public. Appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public. This is a very revealing answer, but it is not a reassuring answer because no one asked for a classified briefing package. Nobody asked for raw intelligence feeds. We're talking about this particular strike and whether the public can see what happened after the first explosion. And the key problem is that the Pentagon has already released a bunch of video. We've seen it. They have a bunch of videos of these strikes that they've done which have been declassified, where you see them blow up a boat, you see them blow up boats. So what they won't release is the part where we would be able to judge were there survivors, how able to engage with American forces? Were they, Were they a threat? Was it logical to do a second strike? Was it a war crime? Were they shipwrecked? They mostly have released it already, just not the part that might confirm whether they committed a war crime. And in fact, the Pentagon has released videos of a bunch of strikes, including three more in the last 24 hours. So the claim that this is about protecting classified material just does not add up. What they are refusing to release is not the strike. It's the aftermath. Because that's where the war. That's at minimum where the war crime would be. Specifically the part that would let us answer some uncomfortable questions. Were there survivors after the first strike? Could they have threatened American forces? Were they incapacitated? Was there any military necessity for that second strike? If the answer to those questions were shown to be no by the full video, the second strike becomes a war crime. Double tap. And deliberately striking survivors after an initial attack is a war crime. That is not a partizan talking point. That is established international law. And the pattern here is they release most of the video to try to claim transparency. They release enough to show we are strong, we are big, we are orange. I'm sorry, no, not orange. We are powerful. But then they withhold the portion that would determine whether a war crime was committed. So this is an administration that wants credit. They don't want accountability and they certainly don't want blame. This is not standard. This is very selective and unusual. And this is how you hide misconduct. If the second strike was clean, justified and lawful, prove it by releasing the footage. You could end the criticism. If you release the video of the second strike and it shows that it was a justified strike, candidly, I don't know how the hell it would show that. But if you believe what you have been saying, which is legal, necessary, self defense, all this stuff, end the controversy, release the video, and they're not going to do it. Instead they're saying, trust us. And this is the same administration that says we don't need Congress to investigate. This is the same administration that says we saved lives by bombing this boat. And it's the same people who are redefining civilian deaths as success metrics. So Hegseth is really giving up the game. They are doing the COVID up. It is not because of what they released. It is because of what they will not release. I want to point you to, to a specific behavioral shift in Donald Trump that almost no one is focusing on. That is indicative of his mental decline. This is not a slip of the Tongue. It's not that he got a name wrong. It's not that he forgot a date. It's not that he fell asleep again. It is how Trump responds to death and how it has changed over just a few years. When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg died in 2020, Trump's reaction was, for him, restrained, recognizably human in some way. I'm going to play the video for you. This is Trump learning that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away. I was not able to find a version without Candle in the Wind playing in the background, but we will be able to clearly hear Trump. This is Trump's response to death of a political adversary five years ago.

E (28:37)

Yeah, She just died.

A (28:45)

Wow.

E (28:48)

I didn't know that. I just. You're telling me now for the first time. She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman. Whether you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing woman life.

B (29:07)

Actually.

E (29:07)

Sad to hear that. I am sad to hear that. Thank you very much.

A (29:12)

This was in fact so appropriate that the Libs of TikTok account posted a tweet about it at the time where she said, dear Democrats, this is how you respond when one of your political opponents dies. This is grace, this is class. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an outspoken critic of Trump. He, he didn't celebrate her death. This really isn't hard. You know, you don't have to like Trump to see that his response to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at least showed that he could control his emotions. Then Trump, when Rob Reiner was tragically assassinated along with his wife, allegedly by their son. Trump posts that Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling but once talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away with his wife, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as Trump derangement syndrome. That is the response from Trump in 2025. And then asked about it. He doubles down.

D (30:18)

A number of Republicans have denounced your statement on True Social after the murder of Rob Reiner. Do you stand by that post?

E (30:25)

Well, I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned. He said he liked. He knew it was false. In fact, it's the exact opposite that I was a friend of Russia, controlled by Russia. You know, it was the Russia hoax. He was one of the people behind it. I think he hurt himself in career wise. So he became Like a deranged person. Trump derangement syndrome. So I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all in any way, shape or form. I thought he was very bad for our country.

A (30:56)

Five years later, no embarrassment, no restraint, no sense that maybe that was inappropriate or unhinged. He doubles down. I want to point out that cognitive decline often shows up first as a loss of social judgment and emotional regulation, not necessarily memory loss. And this is very well documented. And when you look at the early signs of cognitive decline, you will sometimes see reduced inhibition. You are saying things you would have previously in internal monologue goes, I shouldn't say that. I might feel it, I might think it, but I shouldn't say that a loss of situational awareness, not knowing what a moment calls for, emotional flattening, inappropriate anger, cruelty, impulsivity, volatility, an inability to course correct. You're. You do something, you are. You meet social feedback about what you just did. Oh, you just did something weird, and then you're in. You're unable to correct. And that's what we're seeing here. The Trump of 2020, as deranged as he was, could still recognize that even the death of a political adversary required some restraint. 2025, Trump can't do it. He can't stop himself. He can't read the room. He can't pull back. And it is about capacity. Even people who are cruel by nature usually understand social norms. They understand when to fake it. Autism can affect this. Trump is not autistic. Okay? This is something different. What's alarming is Trump seems unable to do it. And so Trump wasn't being strategic when he was asked, what about all these Republicans who say what you said is disgusting? It's not even useful politically to Trump to say this because many Republicans have completely denounced it. It is impulsive and inappropriate for the moment. And this is yet another sign of Trump's apparent mental decline. What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Let me know in an email info@david pakman.com In 2025, Christian nationalism is no longer fringe. It is in policy. It is on school boards, it's in the courts. And it is not just a threat to atheists or non believers. It is a threat to pluralism, equality, and even democracy itself. And this is why I support the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They're one of our sponsors. They have been fortifying the wall between church and State since 1978. Their work is critical whether it's legal action against unconstitutional government prayer or stopping religious indoctrination. In public schools or defending the rights of nonreligious Americans. If you want to do something meaningful before the year ends, something that is aligned with your values, join the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Your support helps keep religion out of government and reason in the public square. Or you can gift a membership in someone else's name as a holiday gift. Visit ffrf.us/winter25 or text my first name David to 511511 before December 31st. This isn't about being against religion, it's about defending the freedom not to be told how or whether to believe by the government. The link is in the description text. Fees may apply. I spoke to Sarah Matthews, the former deputy press secretary for Donald Trump. Boy oh boy, did she not hold back in this one. Talking about the alleged cover up of Trump's health situation, the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair scandal, and much more, make sure to get my substack lives when they happen by subscribing free@substack.david pakman.com here's my conversation with Sarah.

B (34:43)

Well, we're live and dealing with lighting issues, Internet issues, really, really everything. It's great to have Sarah Matthews back, former deputy press secretary for Donald Trump, and has provided us invaluable insight into what might be happening behind the scenes a few times now. Good to see you, Sarah.

C (35:04)

Yeah, thank you for having me back on the show.

B (35:06)

So I, I want to talk with you about the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair situation and I want to get to that in a moment, but I also want to get your thoughts as we continue to kind of lay out the situation. Something's going on with Donald Trump's health.

A (35:22)

We don't really know what it is.

B (35:23)

It might be serious, it might not be. We've been tracking the bruises on his hands, which then were covered with with clashing makeup, which then the makeup was covered with bandages. The White House seems to always be slow and incomplete in their explanations. So, for example, when we learned Trump had had an MRI after several weeks, we were told it was for a routine cardiovascular and abdominal screening. And we didn't know why it was ordered. We didn't know what the results were. We were just told it's awesome. And by then we already had more questions. And similarly with the hand stuff, we were told after several weeks it's from shaking hands. If shaking hands causes this much damage, maybe you would refrain from shaking hands a little bit. But none of it's really adding up. So I think the value you might be able to provide is what sorts of Conversations happen behind the scenes. When in the press shop, you start to see reporters are asking about this, we're getting questions, how do we manage it? What do you theorize led to slow and then later incomplete responses?

C (36:34)

What I will say is that when I worked for Trump in his first administration as deputy press secretary, I was working there during the time that he caught Covid himself. And I remember when this was happening that as deputy press secretary, one of my main duties was to inform the press about his condition. And we were told from the most senior officials at the White House, including the chief of staff, Mark Meadows at the time, that Trump was only going to Walter Reed as a precautionary measure that he was in good health. And I told reporters that. And I put my name and reputation on the line to tell reporters that because I believed it to be the truth at the time. What I ended up finding out was that that was a lie, that he was actually not doing well at all, and that he was very, very sick. And then we had to backtrack once that got leaked, and I had to go back to reporters who thought I was an honest broker and tell them, hey, I was lied to and I was telling you what I was told was the truth. And so I know firsthand that working in the Trump White House, that he does not ever want the public to see him as weak. And, and so you, you see now that it seems like there is some sort of COVID up going on. And I'm sure that he doesn't want the truth about whatever health condition it is, whether it's something minor or something much more serious. He doesn't want that to come out. And so that's where you're seeing these explanations from the White House that make absolutely zero sense of. I mean, the handshake thing is absolutely ridiculous. No normal handshake involves the back of your hand. And also that explanation would just highlight the fragility of him. If he is that fragile that he gets those types of bruises on the back of his hand from shaking hands, then that's not a good thing either. So he's very aware of it. And I think he's very concerned about the public perception of his health, given all of the posts that he's put up on Truth Social. He brags about acing these cognitive tests. And what that tells me is that there's something going on. There's definitely more to the story here. And I know firsthand that the White House is willing to lie about his health when it, when it comes to things Particularly his health. So I think that there's some sort of COVID up going on, for sure.

B (39:04)

Maybe the COVID situation isn't analogous because.

A (39:07)

You weren't in on it.

B (39:09)

You were being fed information that was untrue but that you believed to be true. So you may not have insight into this next scenario, but are there scenarios where there would be a huddle, you, the press secretary, the staff, and everybody understands, okay, here is a reality, here is Trump's preference that we not talk about this or give any information about it? What do we do? Were there scenarios like that where you.

A (39:35)

Had to figure out, how do we.

B (39:37)

Not talk about something that reporters clearly want information about, but the president does not want us talking about?

C (39:43)

Yeah, there are many things that. When I was doing my role as deputy press secretary, one of my main duties was to help prep the press secretary for briefings. And that meant anticipating questions that we would get from the press corps and then helping craft those responses. And I think that there were oftentimes, I think the scenario that we faced was that we would be presented with a situation that made the president look unfavorable, or he wanted us to say a certain thing because that's what he believed. But we didn't think that that would benefit him necessarily politically, and that we would advise him to message something a different way. And so I think there's. That's the tricky part of the job of being a spokesperson for him is that you have to cater to what he wants, because Trump thinks that he's his best spokesperson. And so even if something doesn't make him look the most flattering or won't be as compelling to say the voters that he needs. I know he's no longer able to run for office moving forward, but I just mean that when I was working for him, that was something that we constantly faced was how can we put out a message that, you know, makes him look good but also keeps the boss happy? And so I think that that is certainly something that this press secretary, Caroline Levitt and her team are running into of them trying to thread that needle of keeping him happy and while also trying to have some sort of, I guess, transparency. But it doesn't seem like they're being totally forthcoming and giving us the whole truth here, especially in regards to his health.

B (41:29)

Is there a particular episode or vignette that you feel what we might call guilty about having participated in? And like the COVID thing, it sounds like everybody was being lied to, you included, and so you said something that wasn't true. But you believed it to be true. You didn't really act in a way where you would say, oh, I mean, you, you were. You were being deceived. Also, do you now, as you look.

A (41:50)

Back on your tenure, think to a.

B (41:52)

Particular episode where you say, my role in that was. Was really regretful.

C (41:58)

I think that I could go through a litany of past things that Trump said or did that I'm regretful for having defended or participated in. I do think that when you're a spokesperson for a politician, you do kind of have to check your own beliefs at the door. Your job is to push their policies, their agenda, and defend what they say. And I certainly have some regrets about defending some of the things that Trump said. And, you know, there's a long list of tweets that I'm sure I could pull up of just nasty things that he said that I had to kind of contort my own beliefs to defend. And like I said, working for any politician, you have to check your own beliefs. But I think when it comes to Trump, it makes it that much more difficult because the types of things that you're defending, they're not normal for most politicians. And so, yeah, there's certainly some things, whether it's I just nasty, I think tweets that he put out that, like I said, I'm sure there's plenty of them. And I do have regrets about my role in enabling him in the first administration and being part of that. But that's why I think I've been so vocal since leaving. I've resigned on January 6, 2021, and have been trying to kind of right those wrongs from then until now and in the lead up to the 2024 election and warned about how bad a second Trump administration would be. And I think that those of us who worked on the inside saw that and knew what this second Trump administration would be, and so definitely have some. Have some regrets, for sure.

B (43:52)

Last question on the health stuff, and then I want to talk about Susie Wiles. I'm wondering your opinion of the longest period of time that something happening with Trump's health could be kept from the public. And the context of me asking this question is during the COVID debacle, for example, we later learned Trump had been on oxygen, but we knew we There was never a. Trump is currently on oxygen because he's having trouble breathing. There were these conversations with his doctors a couple days later where they were asked, was the president ever on oxygen? And there was this answer that I'm kind of paraphrasing which was, the president is doing a lot better. He has not been on oxygen today. And of course, the question that had been asked was, was he on oxygen at any point during the stay? We didn't learn that until much later. For example, that's sort of just like a micro example, the way that the news moves and the number of people that are sort of in and around Donald Trump, depending on the size of the inner circle at any particular time, how long could something more serious be kept from the public?

C (44:54)

Well, I think we saw with the last administration, with President Biden that he was also very insulated by an inner circle of advisors and that they were able to kind of contain some of these things about his health and shield him from the media coverage of that, but that it was obvious to anyone who was watching him. And I think we're seeing the exact same thing now play out with, with Trump. We're seeing that he is very insulated, surrounds himself with a close group of, group of advisors, and that they're doing their best to try to cover it up. But obviously, to anyone who has working eyes, we can see that he has these bruises on the back of his hand that he's so desperately trying to cover up with makeup and bandages. We see him falling asleep in meetings. We see that he's not out and on the campaign trail that much or holding as many rallies. And his schedule seems to be a lot lighter. And so it does seem like there's been a decline in his physicality and his cognitive abilities. And so I do think that they're doing their best to contain it. And I think that in Trump 2.0, there's a lot less leaks than you saw in the first administration. And so clearly, if there is some sort of health cover up going on, they're doing a good job of containing it. And I think that they could contain it for a long time moving forward, and I think eventually something will come to light. But obviously, we're not going to get honest answers in his physicals from his White House doctor. We know that obviously that when we see that they're lying about Trump's height and weight, then there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're telling the truth about anything else. So I, I do think, though, that they could go a while covering this up.

B (46:50)

All right, let's talk about the Susie Wiles situation. There's been a piece published in Vanity Fair. It's based on a number of interviews. But the, if I understand correctly what we've seen so far is related to two of the 11 conversations that took place. There's a number of different statements that Susie Wiles makes, including that Elon Musk is regularly using ketamine, that Donald Trump is like an alcoholic, but not in that he is literally drinking. But by the way, people asking about my, if my liver is okay, my, my, my ring light is yellow tinged. I know I look like I have.

A (47:25)

Jaundice, but I really don't.

B (47:26)

It's just a lighting issue. So everybody, everybody remain calm, please.

A (47:30)

The, the feed.

B (47:31)

The blowback to this Susie Wiles thing has been that everybody's talking about context. Caroline Levitt said these quotes from Susie Wiles have been taken out of context. Susie Wiles herself is talking about context, but Wiles is not denying any of the quotes. She is not saying any of these things I didn't actually say. She is saying that the environment in which the commentary. Commentary was made and the context around them are sort of missing from the reporting. When I hear that, and you're the person who's worked in speaking to the press, when I hear that, it sounds to me like she said every single thing that is in the Vanity Fair report.

C (48:09)

Yeah, I mean, it's all on tape. So I think there's no way that she can deny the authenticity of the quotes because this author obviously did his homework and made sure to come prepared and have all of this on tape so he can push back on it if she tried to claim that she didn't say these things. And I think, too, that doesn't matter what context these things were said in. They clearly knew that she agreed to do this interview. She sat down with this author for 11 interviews. The most senior officials in the White House did a glamorous photo shoot for Vanity Fair. They were willing participants of this, and they're saying that it's a hit piece, but he's just using her direct quotes throughout the entire piece. And so, yes, her saying that Elon Musk is an avid ketamine user, I don't know what the context is there that you would need beyond that. I think that was just her honest assessment. And I will say it was very refreshing to read the article because it did feel like she was giving brutally honest answers to his questions. And the author even says that she answered almost every single one of his questions. So it doesn't matter what the context was. I think that it's very clear that she, if I had to guess, I don't know if she just. In the article, she says that she thought she would only be in the role for six months. So maybe she initially agreed to participate in this Vanity Fair piece at the beginning of the Trump administration. They did the first interview before the inauguration, so maybe she thought, this will come out after I've already left the White House. And obviously now she's still in the role almost a year into Trump's first term or second term. And so I wonder if she's having some regrets about agreeing to participate. But she did agree to participate.

B (50:01)

Is this the sort of thing that turns the mood or the, the, the relationship with Susie Wilde negative, with everybody in the White House, where someone would see this and go, she never should have done this, or does do. Do the people around Trump and even the ones pictured in the spread, do they simply say, vanity Fair screwed us? Susie didn't do anything wrong here.

C (50:27)

I think that publicly they're saying, Vanity Fair screwed us, and, you know, it's fake news. And this is a hit piece. And they've all come out to defend her, whether that be the other folks who are photographed in the piece or Cabinet officials that have put out statements defending Susie Wiles. But I do think that behind the scenes that there are some people thinking, what was she thinking? Why did she say these things? Why was she so candid in this interview? And it does. As a reader of the article, I appreciated how candid she was, but it definitely didn't paint a lot of these other folks in the administration in a good light. And some of those folks still came out and defended her. I don't think that it's going to hurt her position with Trump. He adores her. He sees her as a loyal soldier. She was there for him when he was a pariah within the party and had everyone else had abandoned him, and she stuck by his side. So I think that it's not going to hurt her position, but I, I think that she might get a little slap on the wrist of, hey, no more interviews.

A (51:33)

So that's interesting that you don't think.

B (51:34)

It'Ll hurt her position. So you don't. You know, sometimes it's funny because with this whole I'm the best at hiring people thing that Donald Trump has been going on, really, for decades with, but in a. In a political sense, for the last decade. Sometimes the firing of someone proves he's not so good at hiring people, and I think it makes him inclined to keep people he would like to fire, not because he still has confidence in them, but because he doesn't want it implicitly acknowledged. That some of these were potentially bad ideas. Does that make sense?

C (52:07)

Yeah. No, it makes a hundred percent sense. I mean, we've all seen the stories that have leaked out about how the Kash Patel might be fired soon or Kristi Noem might be fired soon. And so obviously, there's something, something going on behind the scenes where Trump isn't happy with the job that those folks are doing, but he doesn't want to publicly acknowledge it, that they're doing a bad job, and that he handpicked those folks for these roles. And so in the first administration, I think you saw that if an article like this came out from another chief of staff, I think they would have been fired in Trump 1.0. But in Trump 2.0, I don't think that he wants to give the media any other fodder and give them that sort of acknowledgment that, oh, yeah, I made a mistake in hiring this person. And so I do think that they'll stick by her side and weather this storm, because I don't think that while folks like us who are dialed into what's going on in politics and obviously care deeply about following everything that's going on within the Trump administration, I think this is going to just be a blip on the radar for other Americans across the country. They're more focused on the costs at the grocery store and they're rising health care premiums and things like that. So they probably don't care about what, you know, Trump's chief of staff had to say. And some Vanity Fair article that they're never going to see if we zoom.

B (53:32)

Out a little bit. You know, since the last time you and I spoke, we have seen polling and also a lot of elected Republicans really kind of turn, at least on the MAGA aspects of what's going on in the Republican Party. We've had some interesting elections. The Virginia, New Jersey gubernatorial. We also saw some interesting races last week in Florida and Georgia and a number of different interesting changes that are all swinging to the left.

A (53:58)

I'm wondering if we look at that.

B (54:00)

And then we also combine it with a really negative reaction from Republicans to Donald Trump's outrageous truth post about Rob Reiner and his wife's death, which a lot of Republicans have just flat out condemned. Even the ultimate defender of Donald Trump, Scott Jennings, said on CNN this week he shouldn't have said it, which from Scott Jennings, that's like as big an indictment as you'll ever get. I mean, he wrote a book just with adulation about Donald Trump, do you think something different is happening right now as the reality of 2026, now just ten and a half months away, sets in, and Republicans are saying we might be worse off if we stay loyal in our reelections next November? We. Or do you think overall, this is still not really going to change loyalty to Trump from the Republican Party?

C (54:49)

Yeah, I think you bring up a good point about how the Rob Reiner true social post seemed to penetrate through that. That really upset people on both sides of the aisle and even people who don't necessarily follow politics day to day. They. That ended up on their radar and they were pretty disgusted by what he had to say. And I think that it goes to show that so many Republicans were willing to ignore Trump's obvious character flaws because they saw that his policies would be for the greater good. And so they thought, I don't like, you know, the tweets that he puts out or the true social posts. And yeah, I think he's a bad guy, but I like these policies from him. But now what you're seeing is that he has failed to deliver on those policies in Trump 2.0, in this second administration, many of his key campaign promises, he has not delivered on. He said he would lower costs. He said he would lower grocery prices, said he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. I mean, I could go through all of these different promises that he made that he has not kept. And so when you're failing to deliver on those things, it becomes a lot harder for Republicans to then ignore the obvious character flaws that he has. And so I think that that's why you saw that Rob Reiner post rubbed so many people the wrong way. And now why you're seeing some elected Republicans be more willing to be critical of him. And I think that those same elected Republicans or Republicans that are running in 2026, they are worried about their chances because they see the writing on the wall, they see that Trump's numbers have cratered when it comes to his approval rating and his handling of the economy, an issue that he used to be very trusted on. And people are upset with him because he has failed to deliver on those campaign promises. And so they're now, it seems like some Republicans, now that he's a lame duck, they're willing to create a little bit more distance between him and themselves. But it just, I think that we're starting to see the beginning of it. You know, it started with Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Indiana Senate Republicans who refused to go along with his rigged, gerrymandered map. And I'm thankful that more Republicans are seeming to grow a spine and willing to push back on him. But it's been a long time coming. But hopefully that means that the tide is shifting and that there will be more.

B (57:27)

All right, last thing I want to ask you about, and we kind of check in about this every time we talk with regard to your thoughts as, as to kind of like who you would like to see maybe rise within the Republican Party. There is a lot more talk about J.D. vance. Now, I for 2028, and I say this with the understanding that if we go back decades, whoever is leading some poll three years before the election never ends up being the nominee. Like, it always ends up being someone else. But regardless, I'm hearing from some Republicans that it's different because Peter Thiel is already behind him and he's the vp. And this time it's sort of a different thing. My understanding of your politics from the times that we've talked is that JD Vance is not exactly someone that would excite you, that your interest is in a different type of Republican. Give me your thoughts as to where your head is now on this. Your thoughts about the inevitability of Vance or your views of Vance. Anything that you kind of want to tell us about this?

C (58:26)

Yeah, I think obviously J.D. vance is gonna have the backing of the tech oligarchs and the social media guys and the Peter Thiels of the world, and so he'll have the fundraising ability behind him. But Ron DeSantis was able to fundraise a lot, too, and look how that panned out for him in the 2024 primary. And so just because you might have that backing and he might be the assumed heir apparent, but I don't think that that means that it's solidified by any means. I think even in that Vanity Fair article that Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, did, when she talked about Vance, she kind of seemed to downplay it a bit where she said that she went after him for basically. She went after JD Vance for basically being someone who is in. She didn't use the word chameleon, but I'm going to use the word chameleon, that he kind of shifted his views because he running for Senate. And so I don't think that MAGA buys that he actually believes these things. And I do think that it will be really difficult for anyone to take over the mantle of the MAGA movement because no one is Trump. No one can replicate it. We saw DeSantis try. He tried to be Trump light and Trump without the character flaws, and it just fell flat. And I think with JD he has an awkward personality as well. So I don't really see him being that charact, charismatic figure that Trump is and being able to just easily win the nomination heading into 2028. But in a perfect world, I would love to see someone like Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah. I recently went and saw him speak at the Washington National Cathedral, and he did a bipartisan conversation with the Governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro. It was fantastic. And they had a spirited dialogue, but a respectful and civil one. And I will say, I think that both of those men are the types of person that I would be willing to vote for in 2028. As someone who considers themselves a more center right kind of moderate nowadays, I think that they're trying to inject that sort of civility back into our politics. And even though someone like Spencer Cox might not be a nationally well known name, I'm hoping that between now and 2028 that folks like him will rise in the rankings. But that might be a pipe dream on my part and I might be too much of an optimist, if I'm being honest. I think it will be someone who falls somewhere more in the middle, like a Marco Rubio, who is seen as being loyal to Trump and was in the second Trump administration in these pivotal roles, but I think is still more well respected than, say, a J.D. vance. So maybe it will be someone more like him who ends up being the nominee, but only time will tell. There's a lot of time between now and then when the Republican Party will actually pick a nominee. But JD Vance will certainly be tough to beat, I think, just with the backing that he'll have financially. But I don't really actually see Trump coming out and endorsing him either. I don't think that he wants to pick someone because Trump really cares about making sure that if he endorses someone that they're gonna win. So I don't think that he'll endorse anyone until it becomes completely 100% obvious that they are gonna be the nominee.

A (62:17)

And quite frankly, I don't know that Trump likes J.D.

B (62:19)

Vance that much. That's another, I think, role factor, I think, to consider. Sarah Matthews, always great to talk to you. And we will have plenty of opportunities to do it again before we know who that nominee is going to be.

C (62:31)

Yeah, thank you so much for having me on.

B (62:33)

All right, we'll talk to you soon. Thank you. Bye bye.

A (62:37)

There is something about winter that makes warm bread and pastries at home feel nicer than ever. And that is what you get with Wild Grain. No effort or cooking. Our sponsor Wild Grain is the first baked from frozen subscription box for real artisanal breads, pastries and handmade pastas. All ready in 25 minutes or less. No prep, no cleanup. Everything's made with clean ingredients and a slow fermentation process that adds depth of flavor. I recently tried the cranberry pecan rolls. Some say pecan, I say pecan. They came out with a soft center, crisp edge and the house just smelled great. I also love their Parmesan herb biscuits. Definitely check those out. You can also customize your box. They've got gluten free, they've got plant based. You can send it as a gift or send a gift card for the holidays. If you're looking for the perfect way to elevate cozy nights at home during the holidays, give Wild Grain a try. Get $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life at wild grain.com/pacman the link is in the description we're continuing to follow the Republican fallout from Donald Trump's Rob Reiner comments. After the tragic killing of Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle, allegedly by their son, Donald Trump put out a disgusting message on Truth Social which we've now looked at twice. He doubled down on that by saying that Rob Reiner was deranged and he referred to himself in the third person in a clip that we've looked at twice and Republicans don't like it. We are starting to see the fallout continue. Republican Congressman Don Bacon went on tv. This is not a Democrat, this is not a never Trumper. This is a sitting Republican Congressman. Nebraska Republican Don Bacon, he was asked about the comments and here is what he had do to to say I.

F (64:30)

Think it's helpful if we come back and Mr. President, we disagree. He could have had a much better tariff policy if he would have come to the Congress. There's some tariffs I would have supported but you know tariffs against 80 countries for example, it's really hurting agriculture. And so I he he would be better off if more people spoke up, gave him honest feedback and it would stop him from doing some of the most the zany things out there that he does does and this comments on Mr. Reiner they were just ugly and we're better than that. And okay I expected from some people normally at a bar or something, you know, but not the president. United States. Right.

A (65:07)

You know Don Bacon says we're Better than that. I don't know if the Republican Party is better than that right now. I guess they're trying to argue that they are by saying, we don't agree with the comments. But this is the type of stuff that's been welcomed and that people have been disinhibited by Trump in order to feel comfortable saying this. And xenophobic stuff and racist stuff. But this really matters. It matters because Republican criticism does break the illusion that there was anything strategic behind Donald Trump's comments about Rob Reiner rather than impulsive and destructive. And that's really what they were. And when a Republican congressman says the president's comments are ugly, it signals internal concern. It's not about media outrage. It's, we are worried about this. Don Bacon didn't frame the messaging as a. He didn't say that it was a messaging error. He said it is behavior that is beneath the presidency. And of course, he's correct about that. Comparing Trump to people at a bar strips away the usual excuses of, oh, you know, Trump's his authentic self. Self Trump. Trump is a blunt leader that you just have to understand. And so the framing that Don Bacon offers is really important because it shifts the conversation from politics to just, can Trump control himself? Does Trump lack basic judgment? And of course he does. And Republicans have defended him for years by saying it's an intentional and effective lack of restraint. That's how Trump governs, keeps people on his toes, whatever. And this undermines that defense because there is no political upside to the Riner post. Trump has gained nothing from it. Not a rallying cry doesn't unite his base. It doesn't signal anything about policy. It was impulse. And Trump's inability or refusal to walk it back, even after being confronted, makes it a bigger problem. And then Don Bacon going on TV and talking about it makes it an even bigger problem. And this is not like a personality quirk. The point here is that it's a governing risk to have someone like this in charge. Republicans are saying it out loud. You can easily dismiss Democratic criticism as partizan. Of course. Democrats are criticizing Trump. Democrats criticize Trump for everything. Republican criticism invites permission to doubt. And that is a theme of today's show. In a way, if we go back to the top of the show, Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, making these comments to Vanity Fair about Trump's impulsivity and making big decisions on a whim and all of this stuff. And then you look at Don Bacon's comments and other Republicans saying this was a Bad idea. And then you go on the conservative subreddit and you see that on the posts about Trump's rob reiner commentary. 90% of the posts are against what Donald Trump said. There is a permission that seems to be mutually being granted to start questioning whether Trump is the direction that should persist here into 2026 and beyond. Once Republicans acknowledge Trump can't regulate his behavior, everything else becomes much more difficult to defend. And it'll reframe future incidents and there will be many, not as an isolated flare up, but as part of a deteriorating pattern. And that is a real problem for Donald Trump, because they will have to choose, do we defend the indefensible or do we finally acknowledge that something is wrong and the reflexive kind of loyalty that Trump has survived with is going to go away. This is really not about Rob Reiner. We've talked a lot about Rob Reiner. A lot of things are about him. This is about, does Trump still have any of the restraint that a president must have? Once Republicans question that, the damage starts to compound and it starts to become a real problem. I wish Marjorie Taylor Greene were not resigning because I would love to have seen, could she win her primary in Georgia, even with Trump lobbying for an opponent of hers and saying, do not vote for Marjorie Taylor Greene. That would have been an incredible signal as to what is happening with the power of Trump right now. Marjorie is resigning two days after the minimum amount of time to get her pension, her congressional pension. What a coincidence. So we're not going to see that, but maybe we'll hear from more. Don Bacon's Jessica Tarlov, as many of you know, is one of the few people on the Fox News Network who occasionally acknowledges reality. And she detonated the Trump economy myth right on the air. The hosts were not ready for it. They weren't even close. She calmly lays out the numbers similarly to how I've been laying them out for you. And you can almost see the blood drain from their faces. And the reality that Jessica Tarlov reminds the Fox hosts about is that the U.S. is adding about 17,000 jobs a month under Trump. Seventeen thousand. And that is a disastrous number.

D (69:48)

But people are sick of waiting in terms of the jobs since liberation. Immigration Day, which is when most people look at, is when things kind of start taking a turn for the worse. We've only added 17,000 jobs on a monthly basis. There are over 700,000Americans who are unemployed today versus this time last year. That's a huge number. Unemployment for young Americans is over 10%. If you took out Health care sector, hiring would be negative completely.

A (70:16)

So listen, in a healthy economy like that of the United States, based on our population and employment level, you need around 100,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth. If you are below that, the job market is effectively shrinking. And that is what is happening now. On top of that, there are 700000 more Americans out of work than at this time last year. So the idea that everybody who wants a job has one, that's not true. And the part that Fox really didn't want to hear is that youth unemployment is now over 10%. That is a flashing red warning light. Because when young people can't find work, it's one of the earliest signs that an economy is rolling over into something worse. Young workers are typically the most flexible. They can take the entry level jobs. They can fill service roles. They are the first hired during expansions, often because they're the cheapest. So an employer might say, okay, I've got a new position. I'm not going to go with somebody who's going to require a higher salary. Let's go with someone earlier in their career. We can test out a new position with a less expensive employee. And when that group of people can't get jobs, it means employers have stopped hiring, period. And that is not strength, it's fear. And this is why we are in a situation right now where we need to just really be clear about the economic stakes. And it is the economic situation that is really driving disapproval of Trump. We can talk about, you know, kitty litter boxes in bathrooms or men and women's sports, as Donald Trump callously calls it, or whatever else. But it is the economy that is really driving this stuff. Lowering taxes and putting lowering taxes on the rich, putting massive tariffs on everything. You know, all these ideas that Republicans try and fail with aren't helping to make the economy strong. And the labor data is what really matters. And the labor data shows a stalling economy. We've got hiring freezes, we've got hours getting cut wages no longer keeping up with prices. And this didn't come out of nowhere because Trump imposed the massive tariffs. It destabilizes trade relationships. It adds chaos to markets and instability. Businesses respond to uncertainty by pulling back. If we're not sure what things will be like, we won't take a chance on investment or hiring. You don't hire when you don't know what the rules will be in six months for stuff you have to import. You don't expand when a tweet or a Truth could change policy. Fox knows this, which is why they don't talk about any of it. They just want to rely on vibes. Oh, Trump's such a strong supporter of the American worker, blah, blah blah. Let's cherry pick some good stock market performance days, throw in some culture war distractions, and then grate a little bit of propaganda on the entire thing and then you're kind of done. You serve it up to your audience. Jessica Tarlov shows up. She doesn't yell, she doesn't rant. She just states the data and the data collapses the Fox narrative. And that's why the Fox host looked stunned. They are used to Democrats coming on to argue about, you know, tone or Trump's personality. Fox loves bringing on weak liberals. They are not used to someone showing up with receipts and saying the economy's slowing, the jobs aren't there, people are worse off today. And to the extent that Jessica Tarlov can get in front of people who are only hearing it from her because they don't watch any other channel, nice job. It's worth doing. We've got a phenomenal bonus show for you today. Sign up for it@join pacman.com We've got gear, everything from sweatshirts to coffee mugs and everything in between@david pakman.com Order soon to have a shot at delivery before Christmas. We'll see you on the bonus show back tomorrow. Everyone deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20 versus Verizon by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular store savings versus comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features and taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits. Credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required.

G (74:28)

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts. With Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.