Loading summary
Transcript91 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [00:18]
Caroline Levitt
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra fee, full terms@mintmobile.com Donald
- [00:31]
David Pakman
Trump is to confront the media at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. It is exactly what you think we are going to see. Trump show up, attack the press and leave before anybody can respond. We're going to talk about it now. At the same time, we are seeing reporting that the FBI is looking into journalists, doing journalism, calling sources, sending emails and they are investigating for doing that. We're going to talk about why this matters, the chilling effect on the First Amendment. And then we will hear from Donald Trump's own White House press secretary on Fox News falling apart under the most basic of questioning. And when you talk about postmodernism, have you ever heard of doing your own math, having your own way of calculating percentages? Well, that is what a top cabinet official says that they are doing. Polls show cracks for Republicans, brutal moments for RFK during Senate testimony, all of it and more. Today. The United States is facing brutal full frontal attacks on freedom of the press. That is the theme of the first part of today's show, Big news. Donald Trump is going to the White House Correspondent's Dinner. I'm not going, by the way. I'm going to D.C. i'm going to a bunch of events, but not the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Something about sipping champagne while reporters are attacked by by the government. Isn't that appealing to me? But here's the report about what is coming. Donald Trump is planning a so called mic drop moment with the media at the White House Correspondents Dinner. If we take away the branding of mic drop, which maybe sounds cool, this is a very simple authoritarian plan. Trump plans to show up, go directly after the outlets that he believes have wronged him, which is basically every serious media outlet. And then he's going to leave early before the program even happens. He won't sit there because he's too thin skinned to take even the most basic of jokes. He's expected to skip the press awards entirely. He's going to skip everything other than showing up to bash the media. So it's very obvious what he wants to do. Show up and go after the press, avoid anything that might be even a little bit uncomfortable for him, and then get the hell out of there and claim I won. Now, if you're saying, David, that sounds kind of cringe. Yes, it's very cringe and it's very thin skinned and it's very triggery. This is not like a trivial Internet meme war. There is one profession that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and that is specifically protected and it is the media, the press, journalism. And that is the one area that Donald Trump is hell bent on attacking and making their jobs a living hell. There is, I guess you could call it a little bit of an understatement. But it's sort of like an uncomfortable reality about what we're watching, which is that we have a President of the United States that instead of upholding the First Amendment values that are in the Bill of Rights, is planning a sort of choreographed grievance based attack on that profession. And he wants you to believe that it is strength, that he is doing something noble and ethical and important. We should see it very clearly. This is anti American. This is hardcore, directly opposite to what the founders intended. And this hostility towards the media is a defining feature of authoritarian politics. Even presidents I thought were terrible, like George W. Bush, had some basic respect, not always, but most of the time for the role of and importance of the media. That's not me praising George W. Bush. I think he was a terrible president. But even many Republicans understood the role and respected the media. Trump is not really a Republican in the traditional sense. He is a hardcore authoritarian. The press is the enemy. Any report that is critical of the administration is a personal attack and you must exact revenge and legitimacy and is only conferred to those media outlets that are willing to lay down like a doormat and let the administration and Trump walk all over them. That is what is going on now. Once you have a public. Let's move beyond Trump and the administration. Once you have a public conditioned to distrust journalism and to distrust the media, it becomes easier to dismiss facts and to ignore investigations, to isolate critics and to tell the people something that Donald Trump loves telling them, which is you have to ignore what you see, you have to ignore what you hear. You have to ignore what comes out of the press. Simply listen to me. I am the ultimate source of truth is what Trump wants you to believe. And that is the tragic and authoritarian Context for this year's White House Correspondents Dinner. Traditionally, it's one of these moments where the tension between government and the press is out in the open and presidents take criticism. Sometimes it's harsh. They stay, they sit there and they take it. In 2011, Barack Obama openly mocked Donald Trump from the stage of the White House Correspondent's Dinner. And Trump really didn't like it. He sat there and took it in the crowd, but he didn't like it. And now the structure is being totally reshaped around control by Trump. No roast, tightly managed appearance followed by an early exit. And this is a pattern that is unfortunately becoming the default of this administration. Control the setting, control the message. Limit any exposure to criticism for Donald Trump. I think that if it's not obvious, this is a reminder of how important independent media is right now. Because when access gets restricted and traditional outlets are treated as adversaries or enemies, independent media becomes one of the few remaining ways to keep the scrutiny alive. It doesn't rely on invitations, it doesn't rely on proximity. It doesn't rely on approval. We rely on evidence and the ability to reach people directly, which I'm doing every single day. That independence is why we are increasingly seeing independent media targeted. Because if you can't control it and you are an authoritarian, that's a threat. That's why last week Donald Trump Jr. Was tweeting attacks about me. That's why 10 days ago, Caroline Levitt was retweeting attacks on me. So understand that at this dinner, this confrontation of Trump showing up to slam his enemies and then leave, it is one speech. But this is much bigger than one speech. There is a broader effort to redefine criticism as disloyalty and even as lack of patriotism and even as anti Americanism. But the truth is that the real anti American behavior is constantly attacking the press, constantly attacking the media and trying to curtail their independence. So we're going to keep doing it. I am shocked. I Yesterday, I explained to the audience we could get shut down on just about any platform and I would have no way to reach you except substack. Because we own our data. We own that list and thousands of you, thousands of you overnight subscribe to my free substack. We have to protect ourselves. This is not theoretical. We have lawsuit threat letters that are flying at independent media. We have overt investigations when investigative journalism is done. So this is not a theoretical. In the future, I would love to be able to keep in touch with you. No matter what happens, get on my Substack. It's free at David pakman.com/substack. And I'll have more about our sort of plan to protect ourselves maybe early next week. They are not even trying to hide it anymore. And if you think that this is about any one reporter, I have news for you. You're missing what's happening. An FBI investigation has been opened into a reporter. It hasn't been done because the reporter committed a crime. It hasn't been done because the reporter lied. It hasn't been done because the reporter, whatever the reporter was doing journalism, calling sources and sending emails. And Cash Patel's FBI has opened an investigation. This should set off alarms. This is the five alarm fire. When you can reframe basic reporting as harassment or stalking, which is what they're doing, every journalist, every pundit, every analyst, every commentator, every content creator is vulnerable. And remember that they don't have to charge you with anything or even win a lawsuit. The fact that they are even ensnaring you in an investigation can decimate the ability of media people to do their jobs. That is the shift that is happening right now. What is taking place is that the New York Times, the FBI has been investigating a New York Times reporter because she was looking into Cash Patel. She was calling sources and asking questions about what's happening at the FBI under the deranged leadership of Cash Patel. And that is a completely disturbing reason for one of the biggest and most powerful law enforcement agencies in the country, and quite frankly, the world, to be investigating you. Once they can do this and get away with it, they can essentially silence whoever they want merely by opening up investigations. What is taking place here is about Elizabeth Williamson. Elizabeth Williamson wrote a story two months ago about how federal agents have been assigned to protect Cash Patel's girlfriend and give rides to Cash Patel's girlfriend. The reason that the FBI is so furious about that story is that it goes right to an issue that crosses party lines. As deranged as many Trump supporters may be, and a lot of them are very deranged, many of them intuitively understand that this is a corrupt administration, that this is a nepotistic, cronyistic administration, and that their taxpayer dollars, your taxpayer dollars, my taxpayer dollars, are going to such activities as protecting Cash Patel's girlfriend. Now, you might think, well, the New York Times can handle it, and in some way they can. And to a degree, I think that's why they're starting with the New York Times. If they can go after a powerful institution that has lawyers and resources, just imagine what happens to independent media, to YouTube channels, podcasts, individual reporters? I don't have a massive legal team. I don't have institutional protection. And I hate to admit it, but it is not inconceivable that if I were the, the target of such an investigation, it could end the show, maybe temporarily, maybe permanently. They don't need to win cases to achieve their goal. They need to make the process so painful and damaging that it will cripple your ability to do media and that it will scare others from thinking about doing the same. And so that's why could be an investigation, could be a subpoena, could be a legal threat, even the suggestion of you might be exposed criminally. All of it is meant to get media outlets to hesitate and to be afraid of doing their normal work. This is how you create a chilling effect without having to ban anything. When people start self censoring and going, I, is this worth, worth the risk to pursue a story? Cash Patel was on the Sean Hannity program just hours ago. He was asked about this and he does one of these denials without really denying anything. Take a listen to this with the New York Times.
- [13:59]
Sean Hannity
I remember there wasn't one, but there were two articles written about me, of my mother or my grandmother. I don't remember exactly. Listen to Sean Hannity's advice on Covid. They'd be dead. And I went to my lawyer, wanted to sue them. I was really pissed off. And at the end of the day, we decided not to go forward with it. But it was such a blatant line. I'm reading that they're going after you, that you use the FBI because you didn't like a story about your girlfriend. And is there any truth to that? Because I've known you a long time. It just doesn't sound like you.
- [14:35]
David Pakman
It actually sounds exactly like something he would do.
- [14:38]
Cash Patel
Absolutely not. The reality isn't. Thanks, Sean. Is that the same reporter delivered a baseless story which caused a direct threat of life to my girlfriend. And that's not me saying, this individual has been charged.
- [14:49]
David Pakman
Now understand that when he says absolutely not, he is not denying that they investigated. He is simply denying that it was an unfounded investigation.
- [15:00]
Cash Patel
Arrested and is in court. And he said as a direct result of the New York Times reporting, he wanted to take a rifle and canoe. My girlfriend's face. Face. We are going to protect not only me and my loved ones, but every American that is threatened. And the baseless New York Times came in over the top today and tried to delete that past reporting refused to accept our comments and refused to turn the attention to the actual court pleadings and the myriad of threats that have resulted to me and mine based on this baseless reporting. But here's the thing. Me and mine are like you and President Trump, where as tough as they come. We're not going to stand down. We're not going to take it a knee on this one or any.
- [15:34]
David Pakman
Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, Cash. All right. Easy. Easy, buddy, easy. So not a denial that the investigation took place, simply a denial that there was only the motive of intimidation. He's like, no, it was a. It was a legitimate and proper investigation. So look at the pattern. And it becomes very difficult to ignore what's happening. Searches of reporters homes, lawsuits against journalists, restricting press access, threatening outlets over their coverage, exploring whether standard reporting techniques could maybe be prosecuted as harassment. This is not media bias. It's not disagreement with coverage. They want to redefine the boundaries of what journalism is allowed to be. Now, I believe that the ultimate target is going to be independent media, because like I said earlier, we're harder to control. We don't rely on access, we don't rely on credentials. We don't rely on approval from powerful institutions. But that also means vulnerability. A single investigation or legal threat can end a small operation. And if enough people start pulling back for fear of consequences, once enough stories go unreported, the effect is like direct censorship, even if it is self censorship. So I think this is a critical moment they are testing. Can we criminalize journalism if they cross the line? And the answer is yes, it doesn't get easily restored. And once simply doing your job, a constitutionally protected job, is a legal risk, we are in real trouble. We are moving in the direction of those despotic, authoritarian states. And so I don't believe it starts with, you are shut down. It starts like this investigation for doing journalism. And by the time most people realize what's going on, you've condensed or I should say shrunk the space for accountability to the point where they get away with so much because people are afraid to go out and report what's going on. Now, maybe I'm going to end up getting shut down. Maybe it's going to be one of our cohort. Who knows? But until that happens, we are not going to back off. That I promise you.
- [17:57]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
Debt has a way of getting out of control, even when people are trying to manage it responsibly. High interest rates, constant fees, compounding balances.
- [18:06]
David Pakman
This can all turn credit cards, personal
- [18:09]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
loans, and medical bills into something much more difficult to escape and the longer it drags on, the more expensive it becomes. That's why I want to tell you
- [18:17]
David Pakman
about our sponsor, PDS Debt. PDS Debt helps people with unsecured debt
- [18:24]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
by creating a personalized plan based on their real financial situation.
- [18:28]
David Pakman
There's not a minimum credit score required.
- [18:30]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
They just focus on reducing what you owe, paying it off faster and stopping the waste of money on interest and fees.
- [18:38]
David Pakman
They are A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau. They have thousands of five star reviews
- [18:43]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
and have already helped hundreds of thousands
- [18:45]
David Pakman
of people get out of debt.
- [18:47]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
Every month you wait costs money. The best time to start was yesterday. The second best time is right now. So don't wait another month. Take back control in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment at PDS debt.com/pacman the link is in the description Most guys I know wear underwear that is acceptable.
- [19:10]
David Pakman
It's not particularly comfortable, it's not really breathable.
- [19:13]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
It's just like, okay, I guess it does the job. But many guys don't realize that there is a meaningful upgrade available. Our sponsor Sheath Underwear is that upgrade. Sheath uses a dual pouch design up front which can separate and support. It reduces friction, it improves airflow all
- [19:33]
David Pakman
day and instead of everything being pressed
- [19:35]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
together like with traditional designs, you get the structure and the space that you deserve.
- [19:41]
David Pakman
At the end of the day. The material is lightweight, it's soft, it's
- [19:44]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
breathable, still supportive, high quality holds. Its shape doesn't bunch up. Once you try it, you'll notice the
- [19:52]
David Pakman
difference, especially on hot days. I've been wearing Sheath for years.
- [19:56]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
Sheath is one of those things you'll be glad you did every time you get dressed. Not just for men. Sheath also has a full women's line
- [20:04]
David Pakman
with the same focus on comfort and
- [20:05]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
quality, plenty of styles and colors. Go to sheath underwear.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the description the
- [20:18]
David Pakman
David Pakman show is crucially, importantly, and primarily funded by our audience. We don't pretend on this show that everything is fine while the right gets even more extreme and pushes things in an even more dangerous direction. If you want there to be a resistance movement against this extremism from the right, it's really important to support whatever independent shows you value. Maybe it's this one. I would be delighted. I would be flattered if it's this one. But whatever you value, I do encourage you to support and you can sign up with this show at join pacman.com or on our substack at David pakman.com/substack. Donald Trump's White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, delivered a clinic yesterday. And I say that not in the positive sense, but in the negative sense. From the standpoint of negative, she tested positive for propaganda, if you understand what I'm saying. She fell for it, Trump fell for it, and she suffered a complete and total collapse on Fox News. Now, let me give you a little background of what's going on. There was a story, I guess you could call it, that went viral about eight supposedly Iranian women who are supposedly real women who were supposedly going to be executed. And Donald Trump supposedly prevented them from getting executed. I will tell you why there are so many supposedly on this one in a moment, but here is Caroline Levitt talking about Donald Trump's motivation in getting involved in this.
- [22:03]
Caroline Levitt
And now that will happen thanks to President Trump because he's a humanitarian at heart. I understand this news story about the scheduled execution of these women came across the president's desk, and again, he made that direct plea. And the Iranians have answered and have agreed not to execute them.
- [22:20]
David Pakman
Just about everything Caroline said there is a lie and maybe everything. Now, let me tell you what we do know. Number one, it doesn't appear to be true that the women were at risk of execution, does that? That certainly doesn't seem to be true. There were claims that the women aren't even women. Now, you might go, whoa, whoa, David, what are you talking about? You're going anti trans. No, no, no, no, no. There were claims that these were a images of women. Now, I don't know that to be true, and I want to be really clear. Like the. If, if they are real women, they were not going to be executed. So Trump's entire plea and claim of victory are bogus. There were some claims that it was an AI generated image of eight women. I'm not sure about that, but that's a claim that's been made. But the point is, Trump a humanitarian. That's not true. Trump a Christian. That's not true. Trump, the healthiest president ever. That's not true. That kind of thing. And now Trump, the savior of eight women who were imminently going to be executed. Not true. Also not lost on me. It's hard to argue that you are a humanitarian when you were just threatening to wipe out an entire civilization. A little difficult to make that claim. However, Caroline Levitt making the case that Trump and Trump alone would be able to save these eight lives.
- [23:46]
Caroline Levitt
Well, first of all, Martha, only President Trump could save the lives of these eight beautiful Iranian women who he has received direct word from the Iranian regime, or what's left of it, that their lives are going to be spared. And that comes as a result of President Trump asking them directly not to kill these young, beautiful women who certainly deserve a chance to continue living their lives freely and peacefully. And now that will happen thanks to President Trump because he's a humanitarian at heart.
- [24:15]
David Pakman
Yeah, just completely bogus. Completely bogus. And there is Caroline Lovett. She doesn't care. She'll lie. She wears that cross. The more she lies, the bigger the cross gets. It's really something else, actually, in this, in this particular interview, she's not wearing a cross. But normally. Normally she does. The topic of bombing ships came up. Iran bombed three ships. Reasonable question. Does that mean Iran violated the cease fire? Caroline Levitt says no, because they weren't American ships and they were not Israeli ships. What? That's the standard.
- [24:51]
Reporter/Interviewer
Now, I want to ask you about these ships that Iran seized. We're continuing to get reporting on this. Does the seizure of two ships, as we said, they were Greek and Mediterranean owned ships for. With cargo on them, and the reports are that Iran basically seized them and then moved them into Iranian waters. We don't know what's going to happen to these crews. We're not sure where all of this is going. Does the President view that as a violation of the cease fire?
- [25:20]
Caroline Levitt
No, because these were not US Ships. These were not Israeli ships. These were two international vessels. And for the American media, who is sort of blowing this out of the proportion to discredit the President's facts, that he has completely obliterated Iran's conventional navy. These two ships were taken by speedy gunboats. Iran has gone from having the most lethal navy in the Middle east to now acting like a bunch of pirates. They don't have control over the strait. This is piracy that we are seeing on display. And the naval blockade that the United States has imposed continues to be incredible, incredibly effective. And to be clear, the blockade is on ships going to and from Iranian ports. And the point of this is the economic leverage that we maintain over blah, blah, blah.
- [26:07]
David Pakman
Caroline Levitt wants you to believe that because the ships were not American ships or Israeli ships, the parties to the cease fire, that the cease fire is not violated. Well, that's certainly one interpretation, but there is another one. The other interpretation, which seems much more compelling to me is that part of the framework of the cease fire is that the United States is in control of the Strait of Hormuz. If the United States were in control of the Strait of Hormuz, if Iran's navy had been obliterated, then Iran wouldn't be able to be doing this to three other vessels. That's a much more reasonable interpretation as far as I'm concerned. Now from this entire Gong show interview on Fox News with Caroline Levitt. To me, the most terrifying moment was when Caroline Levitt participated in repeating a completely failed and false notion as to what Naito is for and what Naito's shared defense article 5 responsibilities are. TRUMP tried floating this lie and we debunked it. And here is Caroline Levitt trying to do the same thing. Take a look. See if you can figure out what's so whacked out about this.
- [27:15]
Reporter/Interviewer
Is there any plan that the Europeans who are meeting now are going to join this blockade?
- [27:23]
Caroline Levitt
Well, we'll see. We hear a lot of talk from the Europeans. Unfortunately, we don't see enough action as far as President Trump is concerned. In his view, he tested NATO and they failed. They failed to come to the defense and to join forces with the United States as the president engaged in this very bold and correct courageous operation to take out the number one state sponsor of terrorism in this world, the Iranian regime, and again through Operation Epic Fury, the United States on its own, of course, with the help of our partner and friend Israel, but on its own, irrespective of the European.
- [27:58]
David Pakman
I can't even. I can't even play the entire clip. I can't. These people are infuriating. Trump spent years saying other countries aren't paying their fair share when it comes to Naito. We might not go to the defense of a Naito ally if they are attacked because they haven't been paying their fair share. Now, Naito includes something called Article 5. Article 5 says that an armed attack against the Naito member is considered an attack against all Naito members. And in that situation, there is the expectation that Naito members will come to the defense of. Of the ally that was attacked. Now, we're going to get in a moment to what actually took place. But even in that situation, countries decide for themselves, do we use military force or do we provide intelligence support? Do we get involved in logistics? Do we get involved in sanctions there. It is not part of Article 5 that if a Naito ally is attacked, you deploy your military. You might deploy sanctions or logistical support or cyber defense. The goal is work together to restore security. Not every attack qualifies. But what Donald Trump wants you to believe is that because he chose to start a war in Iran. And because it backfired with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And this created economic chaos for the United States, that the Naito allies had a responsibility to go into the Strait of Hormuz and fight Iran. That is not what Article 5 says. And for a guy who doesn't even give a damn about institutions and treaties and allies and shared defense, for him to come out and go, naito allies should have been defending us in the Strait of Hormuz. It was an optional war and it was not an attack on the United States. But yet all of a sudden, when it's Trump who needs help, how dare anyone not come to my support. Caroline Levitt on Fox News. Very bad. Caroline Levitt confronted by reporters. Arguably even worse, Caroline Levitt suffered what some are describing as an acute psychotic episode. Others are describing simply as the arrogance of expecting never to be fact checked. Caroline Levitt spoke to reporters on the White House lawn, the White House driveway, if we want to be more precise. And she was confronted with a very good question, which is that Donald Trump said the war in Iran would last three to four weeks. And we are well into week eight, about to complete eight weeks and enter week nine. And the question was, that's not what Trump promised. How long is this going to go on? And Caroline Levitt says Trump will decide. It's up to Trump.
- [30:53]
Reporter/Interviewer
The president is not setting a deadline with this cease fire right now. But this war has already gone on longer than he said it would initially. How long should Americans be prepared for
- [31:01]
Cash Patel
this war to go on?
- [31:03]
Reporter/Interviewer
Well, look, I think President Trump ultimately will dictate the timeline, and he will do so when he feels is in the best interest of the United States and the American people.
- [31:12]
David Pakman
Trump is going to decide everything. You know what it's sounding like? Another forever war. The forever wars that Tulsi told us would never happen under Donald Trump. The forever wars that Donald Trump said he would never be stupid enough. Another clip. What was that? Your damn emails. Oh, it's Bernie somehow. Wow. Something happened with my soundboard where Bernie popped up. Your damn emails. We were told that it would happen under Killery. We were told it would happen under Biden. We were told it would happen under Kamala. But it is Trump who is getting us involved. It will be three to four weeks. It will be four to six weeks. We are eight and a half weeks in. I guess I should say seven. And we're in week eight. Almost eight full weeks. Seven and a half weeks in. But when anybody Calls her out and says, well, hold on, Caroline, what's going on is very different from what we were promised. She goes, trump will decide because he's the decider and he decides everything. And nobody is better at deciding stuff than Trump. One of the things that reporters and Americans and the world have come to realize is that Donald Trump's belligerent and deranged truth social posts have really hurt negotiations. Every time negotiations get going in earnest, Trump starts posting to truth social media and it derails the negotiations. And Caroline Levitt, in her weird sort of way, kind of seems to acknowledge
- [32:44]
Reporter/Interviewer
a lot of the negotiations or it seems public statements that we've seen from the president social and the Iranians on X, a lot of back and forth there. Did the President's true social post throughout the day ahead of these negotiations have a negative impact on negotiations? I think, think look at where we are right now. The President chose to extend the cease fire because it's Iran who needs to get their act together. The United States and President Trump have been very clear in our demands and our red lines and what we need to see in the best interest of the American people and our country and our allies from the very beginning.
- [33:16]
David Pakman
So, you know, Carolina, I'm going to take that as a yes. Did Trump's truth social posts affect these negotiations negatively? I think you have to look at where we are right now. Well, we're on week eight of a three week war. I would say yes, the truth social posts have negatively affected negotiations. Why didn't you, why didn't you just answer yes, Caroline? Because that's the obvious answer. Finally, Caroline Levitt is confronted with the unfortunate for her reality that Iranian state media is openly moving, mocking Donald Trump. They're making fun of Trump. And what she says is, forget about what your ears and eyes tell you behind the scenes. They're acting very different.
- [34:02]
Reporter/Interviewer
So in the same day, the President said that he doesn't want to extend cease fire and the bombs would start falling after the end of the ceasefire. And unilaterally he declared that the ceasefire would be extended indefinitely. Iranian state military media are openly mocking the President of the United States and say we didn't even request the extension of the ceasefire. What's the response from the President of the United States?
- [34:26]
The response is, you guys all see a lot of different messaging coming out of Iran, a lot of different rhetoric and language from them. I would caution you to take anything that they say at face value. What we've seen is that what they say publicly is much different. Than what the. They concede to the United States and our negotiating team privately.
- [34:45]
David Pakman
Yeah. Okay. So I think what she means is, I would caution you about taking everything, anything they say at face value. I think what she means is you should not take what they say at face value. That's what she means to say, but she can't even articulate that. This is a theme of authoritarianism. They claim to be the ultimate source of truth. One of the things that I. It's not even a question of pride. It's just listen, I mean, I assume my audience has basic media literacy and they would understand that if I start saying that I'm the ultimate source of truth, that's a big red flag. The right loves that stuff. The Trump's entire political career is based on believe what I say, not what you see. I'm more qualified, intelligent and knowledgeable than anybody to fix any problem. One of the things I've always said is I'm doing commentary and analysis, the best commentary and analysis I can do based on the facts that I have. But I am not the ultimate source of truth. And in fact, we could look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions either because of our upbringing, our backgrounds, our preferences, our opinions, fact check me, hold me to account, let me know if I get something wrong. I'm going to do everything I can to be better and to correct it. That is very different. That is very different than what you hear from this administration who says, ultimately believe what Donald Trump says. That's all that matters at the end of the day. And that is what Caroline Levitt is telling us there. I think the last 10 years have proven accepting what Donald Trump says leads you into brick walls, mostly metaphorical brick walls and some literal brick walls. But she says, forget about everything. Your eyes are deceiving you, your ears are deceiving you. Left wing media is deceiving you. Even people like Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson are now deceiving you, even though they're on the right as well. There is one source of truth, and it is Donald Trump speaking through his mouthpiece. Caroline Levitt. Very authoritarian. Not for me.
- [36:38]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
One of the weird things about getting older is realizing how many photos never go anywhere they sit in your phone, even when they are great pictures that matter. And this is why an Aura digital picture frame makes a great Mother's Day gift. Our sponsor, Aura, makes digital frames that turn photos into memories that can be enjoyed every day. I gave one to my mom years ago for Mother's Day. It's so easy. You can preload photos before the frame even arrives. You can keep adding pictures and so can other people. I can add pictures of the baby any time I want, even though we don't live that close to each other. These frames look like real prints. They blend right into the room's decor, and it's a great way to stay connected with your mom or other family members or friends and keep those pictures from disappearing. Aura is giving my audience $25 off their bestselling carver mat frame. Go to Aura Frames.com use the code PACMAN terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description Most scammers rely on information that's already public. Your name, address, phone number, family connections. A lot of that is online and available to be scraped and abused. Our sponsor, Incogni, reduces the risk by removing you from the Internet wherever that personal data appears. It works across many types of websites, not just one category. So scammers have fewer ways to piece things together. About you Incogni automatically submits removal requests to hundreds of sites on your behalf, but the standout feature is custom removals, where you find your information on any website, even one not in their database. You can you paste the link and Incogni's team will get to work to remove it. I can tell you I've personally been getting way fewer scam and spam calls and messages ever since I started using Incogni. You can accomplish a lot quickly with Incogni. Protect yourself before your data is used against you. Get 60% off when you go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description.
- [38:51]
David Pakman
I'm going to show you what happens when people start to tell you that math is an opinion. This is absolutely fascinating to see. You know, one of the things that the right has pounded the left for for years. They go, oh, you silly people on the left believe every opinion is valid and any story or perspective is equally deserving of attention. You postmodernist freaks. Because you just say anything can mean anything. It's my truth. At the end of the day, that's the right has ridiculed the left for that. Well, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. With a straight face, said to Senator Elizabeth Warren during a congressional hearing, during a Senate hearing, I should say that Donald Trump has his own way of calculating percentages. Really interesting. You know, I have my own way of doing multiplication. I have my own way of synthesizing oxygen in my lungs. It's just a matter of opinion. At the end of the Day. These people told us we were nuts for this sort of thing, even though it's barely happening on the left. And RFK has the audacity to come out and go. The President has his own way of calculating percentages. I hope you're not eating right now because this is nauseating.
- [40:16]
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
That Trump and the Republicans slashed health care for millions of families. The President pitched his Trump Rx website as the answer for Americans who are worried about health care costs. He claims that Trump Rx has reduced prices by as much as 600%. 600%, which I think means companies should be paying you to take their drugs. But let's do some real math here. Take one drug, Protonix. A 30 day supply of this heartburn medication cost $200 on Trump Rx. But there is an identical generic version of this pill called Pantoprazole. Secretary Kennedy, do you know how much it costs for a 30 day supply of that drug at Costco?
- [41:09]
Senator Bill Cassidy
But I would say this, Senator, do you know what? President Trump has a different way of calculating. If there's two ways of calculating percentage. If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to 10, that's a 600% reduction.
- [41:24]
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
You know, I only have five minutes. Do you know what the drug costs at Costco?
- [41:32]
Senator Bill Cassidy
I do not.
- [41:36]
David Pakman
Oh, these people completely. And imagine being so under the thumb of Trump that you're willing to go out there and go. He has his own way of calculating percentages. If you take something that is $600 and you reduce it to $10, you've reduced the price 98%. That's it. It doesn't matter what kind of fuzzy math Donald Trump wants to come up with. It is a 98% reduction. Trump gets his own special math now, like a participation trophy.
- [42:16]
Cash Patel
Ah,
- [42:20]
Donald Trump
ladies and gentlemen.
- [42:22]
David Pakman
Exactly, exactly. Listen, as pathetic, as much as I would like to just keep talking about percentages with you and how pathetic it is to just have your own way of calculating them, I think that, that this is about more than math. This is really about truth, fundamental truth, which they say there is a truth, not your truth and my truth. There is the truth. Right now, this is framed, including by many on the left as a math mistake. But I think if you go further, it's not just that they're wrong about how you calculate percentages. They don't really care about reality. Numbers are a mere prop for these people. They spent years saying the leftists think that truth is subjective. And meanwhile, the winner of an election is an opinion. According to these people, crime statistics are matters of opinion. And the reason that this kind of crap works is that the bigger the number you can give people, the bigger the emotional impact. Most people don't stop to calculate percentages. A lot of people might not realize that it can't possibly be over 100. Repetition is ultimately what matters. And there are so many of these examples. You know, Trump's crowd sizes. There were a bajillion people there. 11 billion people went. Claims about inflation, claims that Donald Trump provided the biggest tax cut ever during the COVID pandemic. Claims about the number of cases, the number of tests, the number of deaths. Remember that whacked out Axios interview with Jonathan Swan where Trump was visibly disoriented by various statistical things that Jonathan Swan was showing him? The numbers are about about opinion because they are a tool of propaganda. And so the percentage thing is pathetic. It's humiliating, it's embarrassing. It's just nonsense that they have a different. They have their own way of calculating percentages. But the bigger problem is the indifference to the truth that people like Aldous Huxley wrote about through fiction in Brave New World. That's really what this is about. We can't let him get away with it. It was a great thing that Elizabeth Warren did what she could to point that out. And JFK's answer, the president has his own way of calculating percentages, really says so much about the fact that they are the ones who say issues of fact are matters of opinion, not us on the left. Republicans really do not want this clip circulating before the midterm election. There's a montage from the Patriot Takes account on Twitter, which is a great account of Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign, over and over and over again, promising, I'm going to bring down energy prices, I'm going to bring down your electricity bill. And even saying It'll be down 50% within a year. Now, you all know that didn't happen. Here's a reminder. It would be a real shame if this clip started to be seen by voters.
- [45:34]
Donald Trump
Under the Trump economic plan, we will cut your energy prices in half within Mark it down with. And you can get very angry at me if we don't do it. Within 12 months, your energy prices will be cut in half. My plan will cut in half energy prices in half or more than that within 12 months of taking office. Number one, your energy bill within 12 months will be cut in half. And that's my pledge all over the country. Beyond farmers, that's my pledge all over the country. If you vote for me, I will cut your energy and electricity prices in half within 12 months, we're going to cut them down. And under my plan, we will cut energy and electricity prices in half within 12 months. And that means for your homes too, I will cut your energy and electricity prices in half 50%. 5. Within 12 months of taking the oath, my plan will cut energy prices in half. Within 12 months, we're going to have energy prices for businesses. But in my opinion, maybe even more importantly for the etc.
- [46:39]
David Pakman
I don't have to play another 15 examples of this. Let me just ask you, did your electricity bill go down 50% if you heat your home with oil, is oil down 50% if you power your vehicle with gasoline, is your gasoline down 50%? The answer is obviously no. And what makes this different than vague political promises is that Trump was not saying, we're going to improve on this. We're going to work on affordability, we're going to work towards some improvement. By the end of my term, it was, we're going to drop this stuff 50% and we're going to drop it quickly. You can verify it yourself. You don't need me to tell you. You can go and fact check it. If you look at gas prices, you can see right on your screen, they are very much not down 50% since Donald Trump took office. They are up. And a lot of that is because of the Iran war. You can look at electricity and you can see that while it is not up a ton of there was this spike that took place in early 2023, but since Donald Trump took over, it has continued to just very slowly but steadily go up electricity. Now, why does this matter? It matters because it is a propagandistic formula. You make a very big, simple promise that sounds great, something people understand. I understand paying half for electricity. I know what that means. We're going to cut your bill in half. Cool. No explanation, no tradeoff, no details. We're just going to do it and then it doesn't happen. And what do the propagandists do? What do the authoritarians do? They move on to the next thing. You're not supposed to go back and check. You're not supposed to pull up the gas price chart and say, hey, you know what? I have the information. I can find it and determine whether that's true. You're not supposed to go back and look at the clip. Did Trump really, maybe Trump only promised that by the end of his. No, no, no. He promised that immediately, within the first year, electricity would be down 50%. If people did that, if you did that, this propaganda model starts to fall apart. So let's share that video. Make sure people see it. Look at your electricity bill. And the incredible thing is, and this is so important, and I apologize for going back to it, Donald Trump and Caroline Levitt will tell you, look only at what we say. Don't look at any external facts. If we tell you affordability has improved, it has improved. What I tell you on this show is not. Listen to me. Go find the information for yourselves. Go and see whether your electricity bill is down year over year. 26 compared to 25 compared to 24. Look at it yourself. You don't need me to tell you what to believe. I'm telling you how to get the information from the source. Go and look at gas prices and see. Obviously if you're driving more or fewer miles than you used to, that's going to skew things. But look at what you're spending for gas in the course of a month adjusted for miles driven. You don't need me to tell you it's up or it's down because you can get the information for yourself. Be very skeptical of people who say don't look around and get the information from primary sources. Simply let me tell you what reality is, not something I do on this show. I hope, I hope that it's something the audience appreciates.
- [50:03]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
If you don't have the mattress that is best suited for you specifically, it can wreak havoc on your sleep. Our sponsor, Helix Sleep makes it easy to stop the guessing. Find the mattress that is right for you on the Helix website. You answer a few questions about your sleep style, body type, possible back issues. They will pair you with the mattress best suited for you. Before I got my Helix mattress, I took their sleep quiz, answered simple questions and Helix matched me with the mattress that was perfect for me. Even after having the mattress all these years, it just feels great.
- [50:42]
David Pakman
I love it.
- [50:43]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
I sleep well. Helix mattresses ship free in the United States. Every mattress comes with a lifetime limited warranty and you get 120 nights to try it. So you can really make sure it is the right fit for you. Go to helix sleep.com/pacman and you'll get 20% off site wide. The link is in the description.
- [51:06]
David Pakman
Ladies and gentlemen, 31% of Republicans say that Donald Trump is failing. Nearly a third third of Republicans are done with Trump and 76% of independents disapprove of Donald Trump's job performance. I believe there is a blue wave incoming In November if we all get out and vote, that may be unlike anything we have seen for decades. Take a look at this brief note about this new polling. 31% of Republicans now disapprove of President Trump's behavior.
- [51:46]
Cash Patel
That's a shocking number for someone who
- [51:47]
David Pakman
has commanded auto fealty from the GOP. Only 23% of of independents do approve.
- [51:55]
Reporter/Interviewer
And this all combined leaves you with
- [51:57]
David Pakman
a net approval rating overall of 33%. Just a dreadful number. So there are two possible interpretations of this and they're actually both correct. It is simultaneously true that in a cult of cults movement like maga, Trumpism, for nearly a third of Republicans to say I disapprove, that's an incredible milestone. That is a stunning change from where Trump was at the start of this term and certainly during his first term. On the other hand, it is still mind boggling that more than 2/3 of Republicans approve of the job that Donald Trump is doing. How can 68% of any group of people approve of the job that Donald Trump is doing now? Side note, the study mentions that there are 3% of Democrats who approve of the job Trump is doing. I'd love to meet those people. But that's a story for a different day. Trump's approval among Republicans has usually been really strong, high 80s, 90s, so it being down at 68 matters. But it also means that a large number of these Republicans still look at what he's doing and say despite everything that's happened, I still think he's doing a good job. A clear majority of Republicans are still with him. Now this reminds us of a couple of things that we've long suspected. Number one, it's not really about performance number for a lot of voters, this is about identity and alignment. Trump is seen at least potentially as fighting the right people, representing something bigger than policy or outcomes. And that's why that number can move, but it doesn't collapse. Now let's look at independents. Independents often decide midterm elections. 76% disapproval rate is a big, big problem, especially in lower turnout midterms. The way that independents vote with two things, whether they vote and then who they vote for, determines the outcome of midterms. And you don't win elections by losing independents. That is where sometimes general elections are decided, but very often midterm elections. Now there should be a blue wave coming and should has a specific meaning here. Disapproval of doesn't always translate into voting against someone. Sometimes it just means you stay home. Sometimes it means you plan to vote in November. Of 2028, but not in November of 2026. Now, we've, we've seen that pattern before. So it is critically important that as we look at these numbers and you look at polling and you look at betting markets and you look at all of it, we don't see it as a guarantee of an outcome. We see it as setting circumstances in a way that we can benefit from if we get out there and vote. And you only need a very simple thought experiment to confirm this if you are going to. If everyone assumes the polling proves they will lose. So I can stay home. If everybody assumed that and stayed home, we would lose. And so what the polling tells me is this is a great election to have an impact. This is a great election to activate and get out there and take advantage of the fact that 31% of Republicans are already saying we don't approve of the guy that is currently in power. Now, to briefly go back to that small number of Democrats who approve, it's only 3% of Democrats who say Trump's doing a good job. I would love to talk to some of them, like I said, but to a degree, it's also statistical noise. I have to assume some people misunderstand the question. Some people answered randomly. And then there are always outliers. So 3% of Democrats approve. It's probably really 1 1/2 percent. And then 1 1/2% either misunderstood the question or just answered randomly for kicks and giggles. The bottom line is there is an overwhelmingly united Democratic Party that trumps a disaster. The independents are increasingly united that Trump is a disaster. And even a third of Republicans are coming around and realizing this is very bad and we're no longer for it. Now we've got to win in November. That's the key. I don't think I've ever seen someone owned on live TV as brutally as Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Was owned during a Senate hearing. A doctor shut him down. Let me tell you what happened, and then we're going to play it. RFK loves citing studies. And one of the things that's important to do when someone cites a study is to go and check what the study says. Robert F. Kennedy cited multiple studies claiming that vaccines haven't really helped reduce mortality ever for any condition. And he cites the studies. Well, Senator Bill Cassidy, who is a doctor, checks those studies. And this is what happened.
- [57:14]
Senator Bill Cassidy
CDC has actually done a real study that answers that question. It's called guy or G U I E R20 or 2000. And it says that the 80% mortality and chronic disease that took place in mortalities from chronic disease that took place in the 20th century, that almost none of it was attributable vaccination was.
- [57:39]
David Pakman
Okay, so that's claim number one. The massive reduction in mortality in the 20th century didn't have to do with vaccination. Keep that in mind because Bill Cassidy is going to check the facts attributable
- [57:50]
Senator Bill Cassidy
to hygiene, to sewer plants, better water supplies, to engineering that. Got oranges?
- [57:59]
David Pakman
I have to interrupt.
- [58:00]
Medical Expert/Doctor
What was the CDC paper you said attributed improvements in longevity to pub to sewer treatment, for example, not vaccines. I'm looking for that on Chat GPT and it says it doesn't exist. So what is that called?
- [58:14]
Senator Bill Cassidy
Gaier, the lead authors Guy or G U I E R? There's another one that came out in 1977 that was required reading in virtually
- [58:25]
David Pakman
every second study being cited here Medical
- [58:27]
Senator Bill Cassidy
school that says the same thing.
- [58:28]
Medical Expert/Doctor
And who's the author of that one
- [58:31]
Senator Bill Cassidy
was called McKinley and McKinley.
- [58:33]
Medical Expert/Doctor
McKinley and McKinley. That one is not CDC according to
- [58:39]
Senator Bill Cassidy
the guy is CDC and Johns Hopkins Senator.
- [58:43]
David Pakman
Okay, so now a little bit of time has gone by and Senator Cassidy has looked up the studies and this is very, very bad for RFK Jr.
- [58:53]
Medical Expert/Doctor
Yes. And just speaking as a doctor, just to close the conversation, thank you for giving Guyer's name. I've looked up the article. The quote is thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of of last century. The reductions in vaccine preventable diseases, however, are impressive. I'll condense. In the early 1920s there are about 500. There are about a half a million annual cases before the introduction of vaccine of the measles vaccine in the 60s, because of vaccines, these deaths have been virtually eliminated.
- [59:27]
David Pakman
So that is the opposite of what RFK said. RFK said that study says vaccines had nothing to do with the reduction of mortality in the 20th century. The study says vaccines have had to do with the reduction of mortality in the 20th century. The study says the opposite of what RFK Jr said. This is, this is a Republican, this is a doctor.
- [59:48]
Medical Expert/Doctor
So that's the complete context.
- [59:50]
Senator Bill Cassidy
I was talking about mortality, Senator.
- [59:52]
Medical Expert/Doctor
That's what they say. And the deaths have been virtually eliminated. Okay.
- [59:57]
David Pakman
All right. Now Cassidy is going to call out RFK on the other study that he
- [60:02]
Medical Expert/Doctor
said, speaking as a physician, I will say we looked up, I looked up the Macaulay McKinley articles. There was 3.5 million cases of measles per year before the vaccine came along. And about 550 deaths and then the vaccine took those to less than 100 and like 0 deaths. So the efficacy of the McCauley paper was written before for events before 1950, which is before the vaccine came out. But then the vaccine came out and that's when deaths went. Cases went from 3.5 million down to near zero and deaths went to zero from 550 a year. So tremendous impact of the vaccination, that is.
- [60:43]
David Pakman
So let's, let's back up a little bit. What tends to go viral in this environment are loud confrontations, 30 second clips where someone is owned and crushed and all that stuff. This is a complete repudiation of the entire framework and basis for RFK jr's claims. We have a Secretary of Health and Human Services who is asserting that the medical literature says A and in fact the medical literature says definitely not A. Now the style of RFK works because it sounds authoritative. Listen, McKinley and McKinley said this and this other study said that. He references studies, he uses sometimes semi technical language. He moves point to point to point. And for a lot of people it's sort of like the Ben Shapiro effect. Speak quickly and speak confidently. It creates the impression that the research must support what RFK says. He cited the studies. After all, most people won't look up the studies. They're relying on the confidence of the speaker. And the moment someone does check, you see that you've got the claims of RFK and you've got the evidence. And the studies don't say what he claims that they say one study predated the vaccine. It's irrelevant to vaccination. It said, hey listen, we've seen some improvement with some of these diseases by improving hygiene. But it doesn't say anything one way or the other about vaccines. It's a study from the before the vaccine was out, then the vaccine came out, measles dropped 99%, deaths dropped almost 100%. And this is the pattern of disinformation that we see from this administration. And it's not unique to rfk. Citing studies is a very common tactic to try to give a weak argument strength. But there is a study and the assumption is the audience won't verify. Listen, if he's got a study that he's mentioning, it must be true. And most of the time that's true. Nobody is going to go and check that. What's unusual is that someone on a stage of sorts did the verification right away in front of everybody. Cassidy is a doctor, but you actually don't need to be a doctor to do this, you don't need deep expertise to say here's a claim, here's a source. Let's just check the source. And this goes back to in my book, the Echo Machine, and in other formats, I've said critically analyze primary sources. RFK says these aren't just my opinions. These are studies. Well, what are the studies? He told us, let's go and find them. And they say the opposite of what he claims or don't address at all what he claims. Got to hand it to Cassidy. Good job for doing that on the bonus show today. Are we going to get more money for the Iran war? Well, even Republicans are skeptical. We will talk about the potential discussion over the pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell. And we will talk to you about what's happening as Trump's media company collapses and Devin Nunes is out. All of that and more on the bonus show. I would love it for you to become a member and get access to the bonus show. You can do it by signing up@join pacman.com.