Trump rally turns violent as Talarico conspiracy collapses

[0:00] One of the most frustrating things about debt is how it starts to feel normal. You plan around [0:06] payments, you delay decisions. Every paycheck is already spoken for before it lands. Our sponsor, [0:12] PDS debt, can help you break that pattern. What PDS debt will do is work with anybody who's [0:18] struggling with credit cards, personal loans, collections or medical bills. They'll look at [0:23] your situation. They'll personalize solutions for you based on what you owe, what you can afford, [0:29] and the path that'll help you move forward. They have customized debt relief options so that you [0:34] can reduce what you owe, combine payments into one and lower the monthly payment so that you can just [0:40] get a clearer path towards getting out of debt. No minimum credit score required. Savings can start [0:46] the day you complete the free 30 second assessment. PDS debt is the top rated company in the industry. [0:54] Thousands of five star reviews and an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. [0:59] Go get your free 30 second personalized assessment today at PDS debt dot com slash Pacman. The link [1:08] is in the description. Coming up today, a woman is beaten at a Trump rally and Trump's response [1:16] is to call her a fat man and call for more aggression. And that's not even the only disturbing thing that [1:23] happened at this godforsaken rally. Trump on a bizarre rant about examining another man's ass, [1:29] mangling his words, telling a cheering crowd he would love to do four more years. [1:34] Now, meanwhile, very serious. Elon Musk and MAGA influencers are spreading an outrageous conspiracy [1:41] theory about Democratic Senate candidate James Tallarico, who supposedly had a mental breakdown. And [1:46] was it a psych ward? It all collapsed. It was all fake. And we have new questions. Speaking of Elon Musk, [1:53] what is he doing with Americans private government data? And Trump was confronted over a Ukraine [1:59] ceasefire that both sides say we don't know what he's talking about. Plus, Steve Bannon is warning [2:06] Trump's administration could face a wave of impeachments. If Democrats win in November, [2:12] it wouldn't just be Trump getting impeached. It could be Hegseth. It could be RFK Jr. It could be a [2:18] bloodbath. All of that and more today. Well, there is a really disturbing theory circulating about [2:32] Trump and Elon Musk and these upcoming midterms. And there's a new documentary about Elon Musk that [2:38] is raising even more questions. I think this deserves some attention. Now, I want to sort of remind you or [2:44] set some context. Elon Musk did help Trump get elected in 2024, but that's not all that he did, [2:51] because he then went into the federal government with Doge and they were going to find waste, [2:55] fraud and abuse. And once his people got inside, according to filmmaker Alex Gibney, [3:01] who has this new documentary Musk, what the Doge staffers did, first of all, they didn't know a [3:07] damn thing about the agencies they were supposedly reforming, but they knew how to access data. And what [3:13] the film argues is that within days of getting access, some of these young Doge staffers [3:20] obtained what's called super administrator access to government systems. So that means they have [3:25] access to super sensitive information about Americans, social security numbers, addresses, [3:31] phone numbers, all sorts of information. And then it starts to get interesting. Ronan Farrow is an [3:37] executive producer of the documentary. And what Ronan said to HuffPost is that there are some serious, [3:43] unanswered questions about what the hell happened to that information, [3:47] because what we believe happened is that the data was harvested. It was transferred. It was provided [3:52] the third parties. And we don't have a clear accounting of all of the places that our data [3:58] ended up. And then we get to the electoral implications of that. Think about what somebody [4:05] could do with all of that information. You could combine government records with commercial databases, [4:13] identify individual voters and use AI to develop really sophisticated political targeting [4:20] to those individuals. So we have to distinguish between changing votes and influencing elections. [4:29] When we talk about election interference, it doesn't mean you've hacked voting machines, [4:35] something that the Trump people have accused Democrats of doing for many election cycles. Now, [4:41] election interference could mean we got information about people improperly or illegally, [4:47] and we're using that information we obtained improperly or illegally to target voters with misinformation [4:54] or to impersonate a trusted institution to trick people or to discourage certain people from voting at all. [5:00] And Elon Musk happens to own X, one of the largest social media platforms, by the way, along with XAI, [5:08] which is the company that owns the chat bot grok. So what we have is someone with huge tech resources, [5:16] access to major communications infrastructure. And this relationship with Donald Trump and sort of an [5:23] eagerness and an interest in pleasing Trump. So that's already bad enough. Now add to it another [5:29] really strange piece of the story. The documentary Musk from Alex Gibney includes text messages that [5:36] Ashley St. Claire, who's been a guest on this show, she's one of the, you know, I don't know if this [5:41] term is inappropriate. She's called one of Elon's baby mamas. Some others call her one of the breeders. [5:47] Well, anyway, she has a bunch of text messages that she says Elon sent her just days before the 2024 [5:55] election. And Elon Musk reportedly told her he's optimistic about the election because they are [6:01] about to unleash the anomaly in the matrix or the anomaly. Both pronunciations are appropriate, [6:09] interestingly enough. And when Ashley St. Clair said to Elon, what do you mean? He said, oh, [6:14] we've got thousands of lasers in space. And according to additional reporting about those messages, [6:19] Musk also said on election night, we have the best real time data. So the implication, [6:25] the suggestion here is maybe Elon Musk was referring to unusually early access to election reporting info, [6:35] not changing or manipulating votes. But it raises some interesting questions about the kind of information [6:41] that Elon Musk believed that he had access to. And that brings us to the midterms that are now just [6:46] three weeks away, right? Yeah, three, two or three weeks away, three weeks away. A viewer on the David [6:52] Pakman show subreddit, in fact, raised the question that connects all of these stories. Trump's been talking [6:59] about the elections and a surprise. There's speculation about whether Trump expects some kind of Republican [7:07] success that would run counter to the polling. Could the confidence that Trump has have anything to do [7:15] with the information that was obtained through Doge and whatever Elon Musk is planning to do? Could the [7:21] data gathered from federal agencies be used to build a really sophisticated electoral targeting operation? [7:29] And could AI make that operation so much more powerful than anything we have previously seen? [7:37] These are the questions that we are trying to investigate, and we have limited ability to [7:41] investigate that. Now, I think the most important part of all of this is that the government data issue [7:47] exists regardless of the secret election plan. Like even if the data isn't going to be used for some [7:52] secret election manipulation plan, we have an administration that gave politically connected [7:58] outsiders, often with no business or experience being involved in this stuff, insane levels of access to [8:05] sensitive federal systems. And so we now have documentary filmmakers and journalists and content creators, [8:12] influencers saying, hey, where did that information go? What is being done with that information? [8:18] And then on the other side of it, we have a billionaire, Elon, who controls major technology, [8:25] major communications companies, is deeply involved now in Republican politics. And so the immediate [8:31] question isn't has someone already manipulated the 2026 election results? It's who has this information? [8:40] What are they doing with it? What safeguards are in place? Clearly not enough to prevent all of that [8:46] data that Doge extracted from the federal government from being turned into a political weapon. Because [8:52] if data collected by the government for legitimate purposes, if you believe they were legitimate, [8:56] were legitimate ends up being exploited for partisan electoral advantage, that would be an insane abuse [9:06] of public trust. And with the midterms at this point days away, we don't have answers to those questions, [9:13] but we need the answers now, not after the votes have been counted. All of the talk about Trump declaring an [9:20] emergency, which we figured out doesn't really mean anything. States run their elections. All of this talk [9:25] about Trump sending ice to the polling places. Well, that could very much intimidate, but that's on a totally [9:32] different level. That that's like the old technology. The new technology is all of the data that Doge has [9:42] extracted, combined potentially with AI tools that could micro target voters with disinformation campaigns. And we [9:52] simply do not know what are they going to do with the data. What capacity do they have? Terrifying. And [10:00] we are three weeks from this election and it makes sense to figure this stuff out now, not later. We just [10:06] witnessed over the long weekend one of the most embarrassing conspiracy theory collapses of this whole [10:12] election cycle. It involves James Tallarico. It involves Elon Musk and Stephen Miller and Ken Paxton and a [10:21] completely fabricated story about a supposed mental breakdown. But the best part, there is a good [10:27] story. There's something that should be refreshing here, which is it all fell apart in a matter of hours. [10:34] So let me explain what was what what this was all about. Texas has a Senate race in that race. James [10:40] Tallarico is the Democratic nominee and Ken Paxton is the incompetent, disgusting, dilapidated [10:48] Republican Senate candidate who has been endorsed by Donald Trump. Now, Tallarico recently was off the [10:55] campaign trail for about nine days. Why? Despite speculation, the answer is he had the flu. That's [11:03] it. He was sick. He stayed home. We have video surveillance evidence that was reviewed by The New [11:08] York Times. He was homesick. That's all that was going on. And he recovered and he's now back on the [11:13] campaign trail. But that isn't good enough for Maga's universe. And they need something because [11:20] they are terrified of losing this race. There must be something sinister they can do with this. There [11:26] must be something scandalous or something they can use to destroy James Tallarico's campaign. [11:31] So they took the opportunity and they started making things up. And so first it started with Ken Paxton [11:37] asking, where where is James Tallarico? And he led a chant about it at a Trump rally and then Paxton set [11:45] up a tip line. So if you believed you had information about the supposed whereabouts of James Tallarico, [11:50] you could contact the tip line. Now, remember, there's a guy who had the flu. Then things got [11:56] completely insane because right wing influencers started claiming, oh, Tallarico has been secretly [12:03] admitted for psychiatric treatment in Ohio, not in Texas, where he lives. He was he he went to a psych [12:12] ward, one of Trump's asylums, as he likes to call them in Ohio. And some of these Republican influencers [12:19] said, hey, we have proof. We have a phone recording from the Lindner Center of Hope, which is a mental [12:26] health facility in Ohio where someone on the phone confirmed a James Tallarico was just discharged and [12:35] all of MAGA lost its collective mind. And you had Elon Musk amplifying the story and Stephen Miller [12:42] amplifying it. And Laura Loomer got involved and Republican lawmakers started spreading this millions [12:48] of views for this stuff. And they thought they finally had him, except there was only one little [12:52] problem. It's completely made up. The Lindner Center of Hope actually put out a public statement. They [12:59] put out and we used to call them tweets on Twitter. Now that it's X, we call them excretions. And they [13:05] put out a nasty excretion saying, quote, Representative James Tallarico has never received treatment [13:12] from Lindner Center of Hope. Imagine how ridiculous and pathetic and flaccid your conspiracy theory has to be [13:23] for an actual mental health facility to come out and say this person was was never here. It's made up. [13:29] Now it gets even better because James Tallarico has already gone back to public events in Texas. [13:34] He was at Austin City Limits on Friday and he attended another event on on Saturday and he was [13:41] photographed with Casey Musgraves, which I have to admit, I have no clue who that is, but I gather that [13:46] she's well known and it was triggering all of these mega potamians. And meanwhile, the Internet detectives [13:53] were trying to convince everybody he was secretly hospitalized in a psych ward in Ohio. Now, as I [14:01] mentioned earlier, The New York Times was given time stamped security camera images. They were given [14:08] them on the condition that they not publish them because that would compromise James Tallarico security. [14:13] But the New York Times reviewed security camera footage and they said, yeah, the period during [14:19] which Republicans were saying he was in an Ohio psych ward, he was at home. And we then are left with [14:27] no evidence, no zero evidence for this extraordinary conspiracy theory that a Senate candidate left the [14:35] campaign trail to secretly receive mental health treatment out of state. Now, there is all sorts of [14:44] speculative non evidence that they've talked about this audio recording, a private jet flight, which [14:51] they said this is the plane. Tallarico went on. There's no connection between this plane and Tallarico [14:56] and a bunch of people really wanted the story to be true, but it's not. And what I think is so revealing [15:01] about this is one conservative influencer, Grant Cardone, said to the guy who spread this story, whether it's true or not, [15:12] that people deserve to see the potential of this. There it is, whether it's true or not. Remember [15:20] the entire they're reading the cats, they're eating the dogs after they were called out time and again [15:28] and again during the 2024 campaign about this. J.D. Vance during an interview, I'm paraphrasing here, [15:33] but you can find the exact quote. He said something like, listen, whether that specific story is true or [15:40] not, we feel justified in creating these storylines. And this is basically the same thing here. It [15:49] doesn't matter whether the allegation again against James Tallarico is true. It doesn't matter whether [15:54] there's evidence. Get it out there. Get people talking. Hope that it does some damage. And it's being [16:01] done not by random Internet accounts. We're talking about people with huge platforms, including the [16:06] guy who owns X, spreading a completely unsubstantiated allegation about someone's mental health. [16:13] And remember that there would be nothing shameful about someone saying, hey, I need help. I need [16:19] treatment. The scandal isn't that maybe he got treatment. It's it was manufactured and spread [16:27] with no evidence merely to damage a political opponent because, by the way, their guy is one [16:33] of the worst candidates I've ever seen for any any national level race. Now, Tallarico had a pretty [16:38] good response. He said, you know, Paxton is asking for proof of life. We want proof of spine from Ken [16:47] Paxton because Tallarico has been challenging Paxton to a debate. And Paxton is instead saying, oh, we think [16:53] Tallarico's in a psych ward. This entire episode is a reminder that instead of debating health care [17:00] or the economy or corruption or affordability or anything that Texas voters give a damn about, [17:07] they manufactured a mystery about a guy who had the flu, the flu. Did you know what I'm hearing? [17:15] He didn't even take Tamiflu. He took children's blood in order to recover more quick. I just made it up. [17:24] There's nothing that the facility with which they make this stuff up. And we have no grand revelation [17:30] and no hidden scandal and no smoking gun. So it's just an embarrassing reminder that millions of views [17:38] don't make it true. The theorists were wrong. James Tallarico was sick. But the reason they're [17:45] doing all of this is they are terrified he's going to defeat them. Now, as I've said before, I think this [17:51] is going to be tougher than the polling suggests. Let's, by the way, take a look at where the polling [17:56] is today. James Tallarico still leading every poll. I believe this is going to be more difficult [18:02] and closer than the polling suggests. But the Republicans know they might lose a Texas Senate [18:07] seat for the first time in decades. And so what do they have? They don't have. Well, you know, [18:12] our candidate is going to show up and debate him and show that he has the right ideas. No, [18:17] because that would be impossible. Paxton would lose that debate. And Paxton has terrible ideas. [18:22] So instead, it's Tallarico took a private jet to a secret psych ward in Ohio, even though there is [18:29] video evidence that he was simply at home with the flu. We've got to do something about this, folks. [18:34] We cannot let these people get an ounce of power. And that is part of, by the way, one week from today, [18:42] October 20th, we are doing our one day membership drive. This is the final membership drive before [18:48] these elections. We need to be well positioned as independent media to get everything we can [18:56] out of these lamest of lame duck two years that are probably forthcoming for Donald Trump. [19:00] So if you've been thinking about supporting this program or maybe you didn't know that this is an [19:05] audience supported program, I would love it. I would love it if you got a membership on Tuesday. [19:11] Two ways to be notified of the discount that will be live in a week. One, send me a text message, [19:18] six, four, six, five, three, one, four, three, three, three, or just get on my sub stack newsletter [19:23] at sub stack dot David Pakman dot com. Debt has a way of turning ordinary months into math problems that [19:32] never seem to get solved. You pay what you can. You sort of like move money around. You keep up with [19:38] different due dates and the balances are sitting there and they cost more every day. Our sponsor, [19:44] PDS debt might be able to help you. What PDS debt does is work with people struggling with credit card, [19:51] personal loans, collections, medical bills. They review your situation. They'll build a customized debt [19:57] relief plan with options designed to reduce what you owe and move from juggling multiple payments [20:05] to one lower monthly payment. They'll go beyond the numbers. They'll personalize the solution [20:11] to your specific financial situation, not some generic formula. There's no minimum credit score [20:17] required savings can start right when you complete the free 30 second assessment. PDS debt is the top [20:26] rated company in the industry. Thousands of five star reviews, a plus rating from the Better Business [20:31] Bureau. Lots of people in my audience use PDS debt and we looked at the numbers for people coming just [20:38] from my show. It turns out the average David Pakman show viewer who uses PDS debt saves an average [20:48] of twenty four thousand nine hundred ninety four dollars. Get your free 30 second personalized [20:56] assessment today at PDS debt dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Something extremely [21:05] disturbing happened in Michigan and the most important part of the story was almost completely [21:11] buried in a newspaper editor's note. Let me explain this one. This is crazy. We had all these debates [21:18] last week and one of the debates we had was in Michigan for the Senate between Republican Mike [21:24] Rogers and Democrat Abdul El Sayed. And afterwards, the local paper, the Detroit Free Press said, hey, [21:32] we're going to publish some letters from readers reacting to the debate. Totally normal, not controversial, [21:37] just like, hey, there was a debate. People are going to write in. Except there was something [21:41] extraordinary in the editor's note at the top of the article and the newspaper explained that most [21:46] of the letters that it received either said the debate was a tie or El Sayed won. And so the newspaper [21:53] felt the need to explain why aren't there any letters from people who thought Mike Rogers won. And they [22:00] did receive two letters from people who thought that Mike Rogers won. But those letters were so [22:06] riddled with racial slurs that the newspaper said, hey, we can't publish this shit. Take a look at this. [22:14] They the note says the following quote editor's note in letters sent after the October 8th U.S. [22:21] Senate debate between Abdul El Sayed and Mike Rogers. Most writers either viewed the debate as a wash [22:28] or believed El Sayed was the winner. We strive to present a fair reflection of reader sentiment when [22:33] publishing letters to the editor. But the two letters from readers who considered Rogers the winner [22:40] contained racial and ethnic slurs as well as demonstrably false claims about El Sayed and thus [22:47] did not meet our standards for publication. Think about that. The newspaper wanted a fair representation [22:55] of reader sentiment. They said we want letters from people who think it was a tie, from people who think [23:00] El Sayed won and from people who think Mike Rogers won. But the two letters they got from the Mike [23:06] Rogers one side were riddled with racial and ethnic slurs and lies. Now, obviously, we don't know what [23:12] those letters said because they didn't publish them. We shouldn't pretend that two letters represent [23:16] every Republican voter in Michigan. But this is an extraordinary detail, especially when you look at [23:22] what happened during that debate. Most of the debate Mike Rogers spent trying to associate Abdul El Sayed, [23:30] who is Muslim with Islamic terror. And according to the published letters, Rogers repeatedly brought [23:37] up Hamas, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, El Sayed's family. And one reader wrote, you know, Rogers is [23:45] trying to frighten voters by talking about El Sayed's Muslim identity endlessly. Another said, you know, [23:52] Rogers spent the whole debate going after El Sayed's ethnicity and didn't provide any answers on cost of [23:58] living issues. Another said Rogers essentially is accusing his opponent of being a terrorist. And [24:03] then after all of that, the newspaper goes, well, let's publish some stuff from people who say Rogers [24:08] won. And those letters had racial and ethnic slurs. So look at the connection. The politician [24:16] normalizes the idea that El Sayed's religion or his ethnic background is a matter of suspicion and debate. [24:25] And he doesn't have to say to any of his followers, hey, write racist letters. He just spent a bunch of [24:32] time doing that during the debate. And then the letters that were sent into the Detroit Free Press [24:37] from the people who agree with Mike Rogers that his ideas are better and that he won contained racial [24:44] and ethnic slurs. Now, of course, Mike Rogers, as far as we know, didn't write the letters. It was people [24:50] who like Mike Rogers, people who think Mike Rogers won. So there is an obvious question here about the [24:55] political environment that these attacks are encouraging. And of course, there's a much bigger [24:58] context. Trump has spent years turning immigrants and Muslims and Latinos and racial minorities [25:05] into targets. And he, in a sense, has won with that. He has shown that making people angry about, [25:14] resentful of and afraid of certain groups of people can be pretty damn effective electorally. And so now [25:21] we have a far less charismatic Republican Senate candidate in Michigan who isn't really debating [25:28] health care. He's not really debating housing or tariffs or affordability. He's just insinuating [25:34] things on the basis of El Sayed's religion and ethnicity. Meanwhile, the supporters of El Sayed [25:40] are writing letters about health care and economic inequality and the cost of living. So this is not [25:46] a scientific survey. It's just the people who wrote to the Detroit Free Press. It's not proof that every [25:51] single Rogers supporter thinks this stuff. But it is a very revealing snapshot about the ugliness, [25:57] just rank ugliness of this campaign. And what is particularly interesting is the newspaper could have [26:04] made this the headline. They could have said all letters from Rogers supporters are racist. [26:11] It wasn't really what they wanted the story to be about. You could have these editors notes are like [26:16] you skip by it. But it's the most important detail in the article because it raises this question that [26:21] goes so far beyond Michigan. When Republicans make a candidate's ethnicity or religion a central part of [26:29] their political attack, are they persuading voters on policy at all or are they just persuading voters [26:36] based on prejudice? I'm prejudiced against these identities. You should be as well. Vote with me when [26:42] the resulting political commentary from a debate is so offensive that a newspaper can't even publish it. Maybe [26:49] you should reexamine what kind of a campaign your guy is running there. That is really the big story. Honestly, [26:55] who won the debate like Mike Rogers was a disaster in the debate. Debates don't really move polling very [27:01] much unless someone makes an insane mistake. Debates are basically adjudications of who is more prepared, [27:06] more articulate or better at debating. But when the response to the debate from one side is you, it's two [27:15] two letters, but it's unanimously racist. You have to be wondering what on earth is happening to your [27:22] political party and we know what's happening to their political party. It has been taken over by [27:27] exactly this sort of stuff. Now, can you win with that as a strategy? Yeah, you can win. I mean, listen, [27:34] Trump has won with it before. Is Mike Rogers going to win? I think probably not. And I, you know, [27:40] it's sort of a weird thing to say, but Trump is more charismatic in his scapegoating of religious [27:47] and ethnic groups. Mike Rogers isn't very charismatic. And so it's rubbing a lot of [27:52] people the wrong way. And that may be the difference maker. So an incredible they really [27:57] they really buried the lead. The Detroit Free Press did in that editor's note, which is remarkable [28:04] in how disgusting it truly is. Donald Trump went to Ohio hours ago and a bloodthirsty authoritarian [28:14] crowd sucked Trump. They just were. He was spoon feeding them. He glitched badly and he also examined [28:23] the ass of another candidate. This is what happened now. Donald Trump was supposedly in Ohio last night [28:32] to promote Republican candidates. The Republican candidates in Ohio are terrible. They're some of [28:37] the worst candidates. Vivek Ramaswamy, John Husted, Max Miller, just terrible, terrible candidates. [28:44] And instead, Trump told us a story of examining another man's body. Take a listen to this. He's [28:51] speaking, by the way, about John Husted, one of the Republicans he's there to support. And I don't do [28:57] this with men very often. I started examining his body because I didn't know he was a grader. And I [29:04] looked and I watched up and down and I looked at his ass and I looked at all Trump doesn't usually do [29:11] this with other men. But with John Husted, he did an exam. He did an ass examination. I don't do this [29:18] with men often is a remarkable way to start a sentence. Now, what does this have to do with [29:25] anything? Imagine quite literally any other president ever telling a story. Imagine George W. Bush. [29:33] I I don't do this with men often, but I examined his ass. And then Trump movie. This is remarkable. [29:41] The glitches were fast and furious. You know how Trump has already screwed up the word mutilation. He [29:48] says it mutilization. He's created a word. And I guess nobody has the gall to go up to Trump and go, [29:55] sir, the word is mutilation, not mutilization. Trump glitches here on a word that already doesn't [30:03] exist. Trump trying to say mutilization, which is already a glitch. And he does one of his famous jerks [30:13] as he struggles to even get the word wrong. Speaker 1 We got critical race theory and trans [30:18] gender insanity and utilization. You see that mutilization, mutilization. I'll play it for [30:26] you again. Those are those physical glitches that happen when Trump's brain short circuits. We've [30:32] spoken to experts about it. Utilization. There it is. Mutilization. The underlying rhetoric is [30:41] inflammatory enough. Transgender mutilation. Trump can't even get through his own talking points without [30:48] glitching now. Now, nobody around him, you might notice, seems particularly bothered. This it is so [30:53] routine that the audience barely reacts to Trump's brain turning to rancid mayonnaise before our very [31:00] eyes. Here is Trump trying to say recycled and he glitches badly. Swing and a miss. And the audience [31:08] doesn't give a damn. This guy in the blue shirt and the white hat over Trump's right shoulder. He could not [31:13] care less. Speaker 1 I mean, now it's much more than that. That was only as of 15 months. But the only [31:19] caveat or the Trump dividend is that you have to spend the money in the United States of America, [31:25] if you don't mind. It's recircled, gets recycled, gets recircled and recycled, actually. So that's a [31:37] glitch where Trump tries to cover it, acting like that's what he meant to say. The confidence makes these [31:43] moments so strange. He doesn't correct himself. He doubles down. Now, imagine the nonstop coverage. [31:50] If Joe Biden had delivered the same remarks and if he had said, I'm looking at transgender mutilation, [31:58] and then he said it's recircled and recycled, recircled and recycled, we would have days of analysis [32:05] about what was going on. Fox News would have four fake doctors on there going, well, what I believe is [32:10] happening. The crowd chanting four more years, four more years, four more years. And Donald Trump [32:17] saying he would love to do it. Speaker 1 Thank you. I would love to do that. We looked at polls. Oh, [32:45] I love those polls. Speaker 1 Technically, I know it's like, who cares about technically? [32:50] Technically, Trump cannot do four more years because the 22nd Amendment prohibits Trump from being elected [32:56] president. Again, not exactly an obscure technicality. But if Trump is serious, you know, [33:02] I think we have an answer to that Obama. I think we have Obama on standby if Donald Trump is going to [33:08] try to serve another term. Now, I know we've gone back and forth on this. Is Trump joking? Is he [33:14] fantasizing? Is he deliberately testing the audience? The interesting thing is the crowd is cheering for [33:19] something that is unconstitutional. They are cheering and cheering and cheering. And then maybe the most [33:25] revealing moment of this entire disastrous speech was Trump saying he could be the last Republican [33:31] president in the history of our country, as he calls it. And there is an underlying theme here [33:40] that I want to call your attention to. Speaker 2 And that's what they want to do. And [33:44] if they get in, they will do that. They'll be able to do that. You know, if they get in and you have [33:50] a bad presidential election in the next because we have some very good people. But if you had a bad [33:55] presidential or one of these lunatics get in, you will look at me right now and you will say he's [34:03] going to be the last Republican president in the history of our country. I will be. I will be. [34:10] I will be the last Republican president. Speaker 2 This is a fascinating thing to say [34:16] while you are supposedly campaigning for other Republicans. Now, I've talked about this before. [34:22] Trump, I don't think wants anyone else to succeed as a Republican president while he is alive, [34:29] because Trump wants to be able to make the case. I was special. I was unique. I was the best. I was [34:35] the only one that could do it. You think Trump wants another Republican J.D., for example, [34:41] to succeed and become a popular Republican president to show Trump wasn't unique. Trump [34:48] had 30 percent approval. But here's another Republican who has high approval. No, he wants [34:53] to be the center of everything. And the party's success only matters to him insofar as it is his [34:59] success. And so Trump doesn't want to go off to Mar-a-Lago and to sit there while someone else has 52 percent [35:08] approval as a Republican. Trump wants them to fail so that he can go. I told you guys I was the only [35:13] one. I told you guys you should have given me four more years. That is not the Trump or that is the [35:20] Trump rather that we know. It is not a gracious guy who is going to go to Mar-a-Lago and say, [35:26] I'm so glad that the guy who succeeded me is doing so well. That is not Trump. All right. Finally, [35:33] Trump clearly misunderstanding the entire issue of gender in sports. I don't know what the F he's [35:41] talking about here places, by the way. No, think of it or or allowing men to play in women's sports. [35:48] Can you imagine a 15 years ago? I said, we will not allow men to play in women's sports. You'd say, [35:55] this guy's crazy. What a stupid thing to say. But that's part of our thing. I'll tell you, we have a [36:03] We have a problem, John. We have men. We want men to allow women to take their place at offensive [36:10] tackle in the end. Notice that he's getting confused here. This is actually not the this [36:15] is not the thing he normally fear mongers about. He's disoriented, folks. I don't know. I'm not [36:20] sure how that's going to work out. It's not going to work out well. No, but could you imagine having [36:27] to say it if I said it 15, 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago about men playing in women's [36:33] sport and we will defend women. We are defending. All right. Nobody's proposing that women be [36:39] required to replace male offensive linemen in the NFL. He's arguing against the scenario he just [36:44] invented. But the picture of these rallies, are these helping any of these candidates? Bizarre [36:49] personal stories, glitch, glitch, mangled words, confused statements, chance for unconstitutional [36:55] third terms and completely imaginary sports controversies. These are the people telling us [37:01] everything is going well and it's going well, thanks to us. And we're supposed to vote them [37:05] back and give me a break, guys. The most appropriate consequence, the most just desserts to all of this [37:15] would be that all of these clowns lose and are sent packing. I hope that we do that. [37:20] The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support [37:28] the show is by becoming a member at join Pakman dot com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily [37:34] commercial free show and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing [37:42] up at join Pakman dot com. They beat a woman at Trump's rally. And what did Trump do? Did he tell people [37:52] stop the violence? Did he say, hey, security, make sure nobody gets hurt? No. Trump called the woman [37:58] a fat guy and said that the woman who he believes is a guy needs to lose weight. The sequence here is [38:06] absolutely outrageous. This happened just hours ago at Donald Trump's rally in Ohio. I should tell you, [38:12] protesters are descending on these rallies and disrupting them, which I think is absolutely [38:17] phenomenal. Donald Trump interrupted by protesters numerous times. Here's just one of those times. [38:22] Just to give you a sense of what's happening at these rallies. Almost destroyed our nation. [38:26] She was she was very quiet. What flag was that? Was that the Palestinian flag? You know, [38:58] the one I like the best. I shouldn't say this. Should I? The one I like the best is gays for Palestine. [39:06] Gays for Palestine. You know what they do if you happen to be gay? They throw you off the top of a [39:15] building. That's the one I like the best. Gays for Palestine. They throw you. They bring you to the top of [39:22] the top. All right. So protesters interrupting Trump's speech numerous times. But take a look [39:28] at this. What you really shouldn't be able to do is physically attack someone because you don't like [39:35] what they're saying. Watch what happens in this second video. A woman is punched in the face. [39:41] There's a physical confrontation. And then Trump starts talking about the woman as a fat guy, [39:47] and he urges a more aggressive response. They're just beating women at Trump rallies, guys. Take a [39:54] look at this. And I know the video is chaotic. We'll do our best to interpret it. Columbus should not be [39:58] in Columbus, Ohio. Here we go. Paid protests. The woman's getting beaten now. Hair pulled, [40:18] bashed in the back of the head. People, people are chants. Folks, this is a woman is getting and [40:26] people going, USA, USA. And the one just smashed in the back of the head. And it actually looks like [40:38] that. Does this police officer kicker? Look at this guy flying in. Let's watch him. In comes from [40:44] the right. No, I guess I guess the guy tripped. In this moment, the police officer did not kick the [40:50] protester in the head. I take that back. Now, listen to Trump. He's a paid protester. They're all paid. [41:02] It's a woman. They get paid by the lefties in order to destroy our country. They're scum. [41:11] But he's going back home to mom. He's going back home to mom. Look at him. Look at him. Terrible. [41:26] Don't we love law enforcement? Oh, he's got to go on a diet. He's a fat guy. Wow. Gotta go on a diet [41:40] fast. We all do. You know, they're paid protesters. That's a very low class protester. What he doesn't [41:58] know is that his mother and father voted for me. So Trump calling the protester a fat guy, [42:08] urging a more aggressive response. A woman is being physically attacked and Trump is like, [42:16] rough him up. What would satisfy Trump? Now, according to reporting, the woman was wearing a [42:23] shirt that said, release the Epstein files. We are talking about an individual demanding transparency [42:31] about an issue which Trump has been very opaque about and getting punched at a rally while Trump [42:38] is insulting her and calling for more aggression. And we're supposed to treat this as normal. Now, [42:44] imagine for a second that this happened at a Democratic president's rally. Imagine a woman [42:49] started protesting Joe Biden and then got punched in the head by someone in the crowd. And Biden were to [42:55] make fun of the person's appearance and say, be more aggressive. That would be a major scandal. [43:00] And rightly so. But it's Trump. And this hasn't even really gotten coverage in corporate media. It's [43:06] like, oh, it's it's a Trump rally. It's Trump. It is not an acceptable standard. Now, there's a lot [43:11] of history here because remember that Donald Trump has said, oh, he'd like to punch a protester in the [43:17] face. And he's told supporters, knock the crap out of people and I'll pay your legal fees. And so we now [43:24] have a decade where these are not isolated rhetorical accidents anymore. They are. It is a [43:28] documented pattern of Trump using this language about protesters. Rough them up. And what is so [43:33] revealing about the incident is that the protester is treated as the problem, not the fact that there's [43:39] someone punching the protester, the person expressing dissent about an issue of significant public [43:45] importance, the Epstein files. And Trump goes, he's a paid agitator, presents no evidence, [43:51] mocks the person for their weight, encourages a more brutal response. And the one punching and pulling [43:57] their hair is praised, is and there's a USA, USA. What is the I thought the American part was free speech [44:08] and being heard. But apparently the American part is repressing speech with beatings. Now, [44:15] I don't know if everybody at the rally supports violence against protesters or against women. I [44:21] don't know. I'm not sure. I'm talking about what we can see in these videos and you don't need to [44:27] exaggerate it for it to be disturbing. A woman gets punched. Trump mocks the woman as a fat guy, [44:33] calls for more aggression and the crowd cheers as the woman is beaten. Where I want to end is keep [44:41] protesting peacefully and lawfully without threatening anybody. We cannot allow the answer [44:49] to intimidation to be that we shut our mouths. If someone interrupts a rally, security can escort [44:56] them out. But if somebody commits an assault on the protester, they should face legal consequences. [45:03] Americans shouldn't be worried that criticizing a president peacefully means someone gets to punch you [45:10] in the face and pull your hair and face no consequences whatsoever. And of course, like we're way [45:17] beyond. We shouldn't be encouraging greater aggression like that should be the easiest standard to agree [45:24] on. Let's not encourage more aggression here. But women are being beaten at Trump rallies and USA, [45:31] USA, USA, USA and Trump and Trump grunting and pleasure. [45:38] OK, if you thought this was bad, wait until Trump got into the dumb blacks portion of the speech. I'm not [45:45] kidding, folks. I'm not kidding. We're going to talk about that next. Donald Trump ranted about low IQ people [45:53] from Somalia. David, why are you pronouncing it that way? I don't know. Trump said it that way. It's like tsunami [46:01] Somalia. Trump goes full dumb blacks and the crowd loves it. A woman was beaten at this rally by a Trump [46:12] supporter and the crowd cheered USA, USA. And then Trump unleashes a bizarre rant about immigrants that [46:22] is particularly ugly. This is not we have a difference of opinion as to the top tax rate. We are not talking [46:29] about what legal number of immigrants should be allowed in. No, we are talking about the president [46:35] of the United States standing in front of a cheering crowd and talking about an entire group of people [46:40] as intellectually inferior. Listen to what Trump says about Somali immigrants and the low IQ thing. He slips in [46:50] Somalia land at the very end. I call it Somalia land, not Somaliland, because actually it's a totally [46:57] different country. Some people like Somaliland. It has nothing to do. You know, that has nothing to do. [47:03] I said, you got to be kidding. I think they should change your name immediately. But they like to, [47:08] they think they're in Somalia where they don't have pants to wear. They come here, they go in BMWs and [47:15] Mercedes and they like that. Somalia. They love Mercedes. They come in. They have nothing. And [47:22] they're the number one buyers of Mercedes Benz and BMWs in the state of Minnesota. The whole thing is [47:29] crazy. It's crazy. Low IQ people, low IQ people. You know, I'm getting the sense that Trump might be a [47:39] little bit insecure about his intelligence. He is really obsessed with this kind of thing. There is like [47:45] a racist desperation, low IQ people. And notice the distinction where Trump isn't criticizing any [47:53] particular policy. He's not presenting evidence about an individual. He's just going low IQ. And [48:01] the obsession with intelligence is something we've tracked with Trump for a long time. It's always [48:05] who's smart, who's stupid, who's low IQ, who's got the biggest brain. And somehow the low IQ people [48:13] tend to be non-white American female lawmakers, non-white candidates, immigrants from countries [48:23] that are predominantly black. And when you combine his fixation on immigrants from certain countries, [48:30] particularly those with mostly black populations, when you put it all together, there is a very [48:36] obvious racial dimension to the rhetoric. I don't think that we should go around going racism, [48:41] racism when it's not there. We shouldn't exaggerate. We shouldn't use that as a cudgel. But this just [48:47] seems racist. What he keeps returning to it. There's a difference between we must enforce immigration [48:54] law, which is a completely legitimate policy position. You can argue about what that law should [48:59] be, but totally legitimate versus low IQ Somalis on the basis of simply they are from Somalia. Now, [49:08] Trump wasn't done because he came back to one of the most notorious moments from 2024. Remember, [49:14] they're reading the cats, they're eating the dogs. Here is Trump going, I was right about that. Which [49:19] part were you right about, sir? He doesn't say they dropped 5,000 Haitians. I believe it's called [49:43] Springfield. Well, they're being taken out and they're almost going to be done. No crime, no problems. [50:00] A beautiful place to live. 32,000 people. Never a problem. Beautiful little idyllic place. All of a sudden [50:09] they dropped 35,000 people in from Haiti and it didn't work out too well. I remember during the [50:17] debate, I said some of the things they were doing. I was right. I was right. What exactly was he right [50:29] about? Trump claimed Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating the dogs and cats [50:35] of other people. It's one of the most absurd, absurd, absurd. I sound like I sound like Jordan [50:41] Peterson now. It's absurd. One of the most absurd moments of the entire presidential campaign. And [50:49] there was no evidence supporting it. Local officials said we have no credible reports of people abducting [50:53] and eating cats and dogs. And Trump is standing there going, remember that completely insane thing [50:57] I said? I was right about that. No evidence, no explanation of what supposedly vindicates the claim. [51:03] Just I was right. And we see this all the time with Trump. Claim gets debunked rather than [51:08] acknowledging it. He just repeats it later with more confidence. And the audience hears it and goes, [51:13] oh, I guess Trump was right about that back in 2024. Now, there's another part of this that I think [51:16] deserves a lot of attention. Trump talks about immigrants, these specific Somali immigrants, [51:23] as though they were dumped into an American town and are more like cargo than human beings. And these are [51:29] people with families. These are people who came here in many cases legally looking for work and to [51:35] improve their lives. And Trump is celebrating their removal just absent of any of the facts. [51:40] And what's revealing is he doesn't seem satisfied just going, hey, we have some immigration policies [51:46] that are wrong. He likes to portray the immigrants themselves as stupid, dangerous or incompatible with [51:53] the United States. And the groups he keeps singling out are black immigrants from Haiti, [51:59] black immigrants from Somalia. And so we have to just call it what it is. And this is what I mean [52:05] when I talk about the desperation in Trump's rhetoric, because he goes back to the same stereotypes and [52:10] discredited stories even years later. And it's happening at a rally where the whole point of it was help [52:15] Republican candidates. He has an opportunity to talk about health care, the economy, housing, wages, [52:20] whatever. He can claim accomplishments, but he has none. And so instead he goes, people from Somalia [52:26] have a low IQ. And I was right about cats and dogs being eaten by Haitians in 2024. And we have to also [52:35] consider why does he believe this is what his audience wants to hear? Why does he believe this [52:42] is what will help Republicans? Now, I think he's wrong, but maybe if he's right, it's almost worse. [52:47] Like whatever your position is on immigration, when you call an entire population low IQ and then you [52:54] repeat a debunked story, you're not being serious in any way. You're appealing to what you perceive [53:00] are the preferences and instincts of your supporters. And if he's right about that, [53:05] that speaks really poorly of them. If you like this show, I would love for you to get my sub stack [53:12] writing each day. I'll send you a rundown of what's on the show, what's happening, what matters, why [53:18] it's free. No spam. Sub stack is also the only place where we own our data. So if we get censored [53:25] on social media or on any platform, sub stack is going to be the only way I can tell you what is [53:31] going on. Sign up now at David Pakman dot sub stack dot com. Donald Trump had an extraordinarily [53:37] revealing exchange with reporters about the Russia Ukraine war. You may recall the Russia Ukraine [53:42] war would end within an hour of Donald Trump being elected in 2024 within a day of being sworn in in [53:49] January of 25 within a month, within three months. And then they kind of forgot about it. And this [53:56] exchange perfectly sums up the entire Trump sort of approach, quite frankly, to foreign policy. [54:06] Trump seems to believe that if you announce a deal, that means there is a deal. And if Trump says [54:13] two countries have agreed to something, then they've agreed to it. And if reality conflicts, [54:19] that's reality's problem. That's not Trump's problem. And now he's being confronted with the very [54:23] inconvenient fact that Russia and Ukraine both said we haven't agreed to the ceasefire that you [54:30] said we agreed to. But before we even get to that, listen to how Trump tries to assign blame here. [54:36] Speaker 3 Well, I'd have to look at it and see because there's been violations on both sides. [54:48] That's how he's setting it up, right? Both sides. If I don't know what happened, [54:54] but if something did, both sides made violations. The real question is what ceasefire? Where is the [55:04] agreement? Where are the terms? When were they accepted? What is Ukraine violating? Trump has this [55:11] idea much like I mean, listen, he's this isn't only a Trump thing. Announcing that a company is going to [55:19] build a factory is the only thing that matters if they ever build it is irrelevant. And similarly, [55:25] announcing that two countries have agreed to stop fighting and then announcing that one has broken [55:30] the agreement without establishing whether there is an agreement and what violations took place [55:36] is a whole other world for Donald Trump. And notice who Trump goes after here. He goes after Ukraine. [55:42] He goes after the country that was invaded by Russia. He goes after the country that is fighting a [55:46] defensive war. Now, you can be fighting a defensive war and do things that are wrong. Of course, [55:52] you're not automatically right about everything because you're the one who was invaded rather than [55:57] the one doing the invading. But it does mean we should ask for some evidence. Take a listen. [56:02] Speaker 3 I'd say they have not agreed to that. Well, they agreed. You know why? Because I said you agreed. [56:12] That's why they agreed because I said they agreed. And that thing has to get settled. That war is a [56:19] little Donnie. Why won't you eat your carrots? Because I said so. I said you agree. That's the [56:28] explanation. And the reporter is saying to Trump, neither of the parties involved agreed. And Trump's [56:34] answers. I told them they agree. The legendary dealmaker Trump, who has spent years telling us [56:39] nobody negotiates like him. Nobody understands deals like him. Nobody can bring world leaders together [56:45] like him. And the secret technique is I told them they agree. Now, imagine trying this in any other [56:53] negotiation. You're buying a house. The seller says, I haven't accepted an offer. You say, well, [56:59] I said you agree. And you go to a lawyer and the lawyer goes, where is the signed offer? And you go, [57:05] there is no signed offer. I told them they agree. Well, then there's no deal. And the stakes are much higher [57:11] here than, you know, buying a house. We are talking about a war in which massive numbers of people have [57:19] been killed or injured. We've seen cities devastated and millions displaced. But Trump said you agree. [57:28] Now, listen to what happens when Trump is asked a perfectly reasonable question about how will you [57:35] get Putin to comply? How will you do it? Take a listen. And I do think this. So let's get to focus [57:42] on making the deal. I'm not talking about that. How are you going to make Putin abide by the sea [57:49] fire? I think I think what's happening is he wants to make a deal. And we have to get to [57:54] Zelensky to want to make a deal. Where are you from? You know, you're president. You know, [58:02] I endorse him and he won. You know, I know that. I endorse the reporter's exhausted. He's like, [58:08] I know, I know you endorse. But how can't be too bad? Where do you see his willingness to make a deal [58:16] when he's striking Ukraine like he said? I think they're going to make a deal. I think actually [58:21] Putin wants to make a deal more than Putin wants peace. Zelensky not so much. Zelensky doesn't [58:29] want peace as badly as Putin based on what Putin invaded. The reporter's asking about Russian attacks [58:34] on Ukraine. And Trump goes Zelensky doesn't want want peace as much as Putin does. An extraordinary [58:41] inversion of responsibility. Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia keeps attacking Ukraine. And Trump goes, [58:48] Putin really wants peace. It's just like Zelensky doesn't want it quite as badly. Now, [58:54] there's another piece of this, I think, that makes it much more remarkable, which is that Trump [58:59] is defending a deal or he had just been defending a deal which would allow diesel Russian diesel back [59:06] into the international market. And Democrats don't like this. Republicans don't like it because [59:11] they have put sanctions in place and that deal would violate or it would undermine the sanctions. [59:17] So on the one hand, you've got Trump giving Putin the economic breathing room he wants on the diesel [59:21] market. On the other hand, he's going, listen, Putin wants peace. It's Zelensky who maybe not really. [59:26] And also the imaginary ceasefire is over because Ukraine violated it. How? Oh, he doesn't know. [59:32] Reporters asked for specifics. He's got nothing. He doesn't have the terms. He doesn't say when it [59:36] was signed, who signed it. Nothing. It's just they agreed. I said that they agreed. This is the difference [59:42] between announcing a deal and negotiating one with a with a car reservation. Right. Anyone can just [59:50] take reservations. You have to have the car. That's the key part of it. Right. From Seinfeld. [59:57] Anybody can just announce deals, but you have to get a real deal signed. And the thing that is [1:00:03] revealing here is that Trump is way more interested in just being recognized as the person who ended the [1:00:10] war than in proving that the fighting has actually stopped, which, of course, it hasn't. Very easy to [1:00:15] make announcements. How do you get Russia to stop attacking Ukraine? And right now it seems as though [1:00:23] when the reality doesn't match the announcement, Trump just ignores the announcement and he goes, [1:00:27] it's Ukraine's fault. So we've got no peace agreement. We have a press conference. We have a [1:00:32] propaganda document. And if you're living in Ukraine under Russian bombardment, you can't pretend the war is [1:00:39] over. Trump can pretend the war is over, I guess, as embarrassing as it is. But if you are being hit [1:00:45] by Russia, you can't pretend the war is over. And we know that it is not. Donald Trump's new press secretary [1:00:54] held a press briefing today. It's been so long since we had transparent, substantive, productive briefings [1:01:02] from this administration. And it lasted 14 minutes and she only called on three reporters. And it's [1:01:09] pathetic. Her name is Katie Zachariah. And she I mean, listen, Breitbart Fox News and the Daily Mail [1:01:19] got to ask questions. Start with the opening. She's reading from prepared remarks. She struggles to read [1:01:26] the prepared remarks. We are so far. It all fits if the glove fits right. Good morning. I am so honored [1:01:39] to work for President Trump and the American people as the new White House press secretary. [1:01:46] I want to thank President Trump for his trust that he has placed in me. I have wanted to work for him [1:01:56] for a very long time. Right. I'm looking forward to working with each of you as well, especially as [1:02:04] we are in the middle of the midterm blitz with energy and excitement never seen before in the history of [1:02:12] midterms. Thanks to President Trump. You can see that this is going to be a tough one for her. And there's [1:02:21] a sort of like SNL cold open vibe to this where you wouldn't be. I wouldn't call you crazy if you [1:02:30] thought this was a skit to officially be part of this incredible journey together. And with that, [1:02:39] I will take your questions here in our new media seat. There you go. Really just extraordinarily [1:02:48] dynamic in every way. And I mean, it's just like this is going to be a very long two years. He had [1:02:58] a historic one day war and now we are have a booming economy and a great relationship with Venezuela. [1:03:07] She is not good at this. Now, could she grow into this job? Maybe, maybe. But instinctively, [1:03:14] I don't think she's particularly good at this. Now, when there were sort of softball, [1:03:20] substantive questions from reporters, she didn't have any information. Has the United States stopped [1:03:26] sharing intelligence with Ukraine? She doesn't know. I want to ask a policy question. Has the U.S. [1:03:33] stopped sharing intel with Ukraine? I'll have to get back to you on that. There you go. [1:03:40] There's another controversy. I wouldn't say it has rocked the White House, but it's certainly been an [1:03:47] issue, which is that the ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, also the former fiance of Don Jr., I guess [1:03:57] they I guess they didn't ever get married. Former fiance of Don Jr.'s. She, I guess, was caught on text [1:04:05] messages asking a donor to pay off her hundred thousand dollar Amex bill. And Katie Zachariah [1:04:15] indicates they have asked Kimberly Guilfoyle to resign. And I have two questions for you. I can. [1:04:22] Speaker 8 00, first of all, on Kimberly Guilfoyle, the Daily Mail has been reporting on her since last [1:04:27] year. The president said yesterday to reporters that he is considering firing her. Do you know [1:04:33] a timeline for that? And also potentially who could be on the short list to replace her if he does. [1:04:38] Speaker 1 1, we have asked Ambassador Guilfoyle to resign. [1:04:42] Speaker 4 00, she has been a wonderful asset to the [1:04:46] team and we wish her well, there you go. Really powerful declaration from the new press secretary, [1:04:53] Katie Zachariah. She did at one point refer to her husband as my president, which is interesting [1:05:00] because with Natalie Harp, it's sort of the opposite. It's she she's obsessed with Trump [1:05:09] as a sort of stand in for either a romantic partner or a father figure. It's kind of hard [1:05:14] to tell with Natalie Harp and Zachariah also having sort of like husband president confusion here. [1:05:22] The idea of not spending evenings with my kids, kids are is completely unacceptable. So my president, [1:05:28] excuse me, my husband, that's a that's a good one. My husband, that's a good one. Good Freudian slip [1:05:36] is out here. It is. Oh, boy, isn't her family? And the video went black. We are very, very protective [1:05:44] of celebrating birthdays as a family. So he brought the entire crew out here. Bless him. It's a lot. [1:05:50] And we will be moving out here. And yeah, there you go. So if any of you were worried that we wouldn't [1:05:56] that her whole family wouldn't be with her in D.C., they will be. And then finally, after 14 minutes [1:06:02] of questions, I guess she wraps up the she's got to go in my work, though, my work will be demanding. [1:06:09] They will always be a priority. And I President Trump is the most family friendly president we've [1:06:14] ever had. He has hired more women with families. And the fact that he knew I had four kids and he [1:06:20] knew that this job would be demanding and still places trust in me shows that I know I'm capable [1:06:26] of being able to step up to that. So thank you for that question. In fact, I am going to end it [1:06:30] because President Trump is heading out to Marine One for our historic trip to Alaska. [1:06:35] Right. And we can ask him all of the questions out there. So thank you so much. [1:06:40] Did the president speak with the ambassador to the question on 30? The president will be back [1:06:49] on Thursday and that's what I will answer. I'll leave it there. He will answer those questions out [1:06:56] and a remarkable display of transparency from the administration. Folks, we have to hold them [1:07:09] accountable. This is not acceptable. This is a completely incompetent individual who has zero [1:07:15] intention of communicating anything of substance or importance to the American people. We have to get [1:07:21] these people so marginalized politically that they are the lamest of lame ducks. This is why [1:07:28] Tuesday next Tuesday we are doing a one day membership special. I hope you will join the ranks [1:07:34] of membership on that day. Get notified through my newsletter at Substack David Pakman dot com or by [1:07:41] texting me at six, four, six, five, three, one, four, three, three, three. We have a phenomenal bonus show [1:07:48] for you today. We will talk about a tree situation. We will talk about the raid of Ilhan Omar's residence. [1:07:57] And we will indeed speak about the resignation of Kimberly Guilfoyle as ambassador to Greece. [1:08:02] All of that and much more on today's bonus. I'll see you then.