The David Pakman Show - 10/27/25: The slow coup grows as Trump makes major announcement, unexpected confrontation

Episode Date: October 27, 2025

-- On the Show: -- Nathan Taylor, Executive Director of Public Engagement for Election Truth Alliance, joins us to discuss discrepancies in the 2024 election and follow-up from the first interview -- Donald Trump is effectively bypassing Congress in 2025, using legalistic and bureaucratic maneuvers to consolidate power --Margaret Brennan questions Hakeem Jeffries in a way that frames election denial and gerrymandering as a bipartisan problem --Kristen Welker confronts Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about rising food prices and tariffs, highlighting Trump's negative impacts on American farmers --Donald Trump reveals he received an MRI at Walter Reed, sparking questions about his health and medical transparency --Donald Trump discusses cognitive tests and a dementia screening while making unfounded claims about his health, third-term eligibility, and attacks on political opponents --Donald Trump posts dangerous and scientifically unsupported medical advice on Truth Social about vaccines and childhood health --U.S. Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino faces a federal judge after allegedly violating a court order, and struggles to answer questions --New data suggests historical midterm trends could severely damage Trump and Republicans -- On the Bonus Show: NBA players face federal charges in a major gambling investigation, Javier Milei wins big in Argentina's midterm elections, Trump rules out running for Vice President in 2028, and much more... 🥑 MASA tortilla chips: Get 25% off with code PAKMAN at https://masachips.com/pakman 🍷 Naked Wines: Use code PAKMAN to get 6 bottles for $39.99 at https://nakedwines.com/pakman 💪 AG1 is offering you a FREE $76 GIFT when you sign up at https://drinkag1.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Start (01:53) Trump bypasses Congress (08:20) Brennan questions Jeffries (13:52) Welker grills Bessent (20:52) Trump’s mysterious MRI (26:44) Trump’s cognitive decline (33:37) Trump’s vaccine misinformation (39:55) Nathan Taylor Interview (1:08:08) Border Patrol court drama (1:14:28) Midterm polling trouble for Trump      

Today on the show is the coup happening in slow motion. Congress is paralyzed. Trump is governing by decree. He's deploying troops, firing workers, spending taxpayer money with no authorization. We're going to talk about whether this is the coup rather than something we're waiting for. Donald Trump also has confirmed he received an MRI at Walter Reed raising immediate questions. Why would someone in perfect health need an MRI?

haven't been told and the lack of transparency simply will not stop. Plus, what about the vaccine schedule? New recommendations emanating from people who have no idea about hepatitis, about chickenpox vaccines, dangerous medical advice being given by people who have no business giving it. And a CBS reporter stunned Donald Trump's Treasury secretary with basic facts about grocery prices, uh, of egg prices and more. And we will see a border patrol commander now facing a judge for allegedly violating court orders.

We'll look at new midterm polling data. And finally, my follow up with Nathan Taylor from the election truth alliance. What is my verdict about his claims? Finally, there is a campaign to hurt the podcast by leaving one star reviews on Spotify. and Apple Podcasts, I am asking you today with peace and love, leave us a rating, five stars on Apple Podcasts and on Spotify. It's free. It costs nothing and it'll really help us. Just leave us a five star review, Spotify, Apple Podcasts. I appreciate it. On to the show, finally. happening right now. What if we are living through the coup right now and nobody realizes it?

Because the best evidence that Donald Trump would attempt a coup is that he already did. Think back to January 6th, which was not a one-off tantrum. It was really an organized attempt to stay in power after losing an election. It failed, but Donald Trump certainly learned from it. And so there's like a fun fact that isn't so fun, studies show that the biggest predictor of doing a coup is having attempted a coup in the past. If you've done it before, you're more likely to try it again, especially if you didn't really face any consequences. And I think it's important for us to look honestly at what's happening today in 2025 and

say, is there the possibility of a coup attempt sometime in the distant future over the horizon of our spherical earth? Or could it be happening right now? You have a government that is officially shut down. Congress isn't passing laws. They're not swearing in Adelaide Grahalva. The Senate can't move anything. The House is barely functional.

And somehow Donald Trump is still governing by decree. We're hearing talks about troops in Venezuela, move which under the Constitution requires authorization from Congress, which obviously Donald Trump is not going to seek. We are seeing attempts at mass firings and layoffs of federal workers, tens of thousands, some reportedly escorted out without any kind of due process or proper termination, even though civil service laws are supposed to prevent political purges from federal employment. And while Congress is locked out, the Trump administration is spending taxpayer money like it's monopoly cash, hundreds of millions of dollars for Christy Noem's new private jets.

and executive orders rerouting agency budgets. We've got demolition happening at the White House that would normally need all sorts of approvals, never mind congressional approval. And the legal problem is the following. Congress holds the purse strings. Congress declares war. Congress oversees the executive branch. This is basic civics.

But if Congress is paralyzed and Trump just keeps acting anyway. he is effectively ruling without checks or balances. That is arguably a form of a coup. Now, Trump's defense and the people around him's defenses are always the same. If Democrats would just reopen the government, then okay. And it's sort of is the perfect setup, kind of the perfect foil. You create chaos and then you say things are so chaotic, I have to ignore the rules. And that is what makes all of this feel less like dysfunction and more like a strategy. Congress shut down. And so Trump has eliminated one really the major legislative body that could stop a lot of what he's doing. It's like a loophole. If no one else can act, the president just

acts and then the president is acting alone. And the country and legacy in corporate media, Republicans, certainly, everyone's mostly shrugging. This is not a coup with tanks in the streets. It's a paperwork coup of sorts. It's bureaucratic. It's almost boring until suddenly you realize, wait a second, the rule of law is gone. What do we do now? And this is how complacency can be such a dangerous thing.

A new norm is broken and then people adjust. They go, ah, that's weird, but I guess like this is the way we do politics. now. We've had 10 years of that to the point where we now have an administration, denying people due process, not seeking authorization for military action. It's a very, very long list. And so we go from unprecedented to it's kind of normal now, even though it really shouldn't be. And if you look at how democracies in the past have stopped being democratic, it's rarely like a single dramatic moment where everyone goes. It's no longer a. democracy. It's these, it's a death of a thousand cuts, these little technical violations that

get bigger and bigger and bigger. And this is how other countries have lost their democracies. Hungary did not collapse overnight. Erdogan didn't seize Turkey in a day. They chipped away at systems until there was nothing left to protect. And Trump is applying the same model, whether he knows it or not, with sort of better branding, ready. hats and make America great again and I know what you're suffering from and only I can fix it. So I think we have to be open to the possibility that this is the coup. It's not a wild, violent one like we would have expected based on what happened on January 6th of 2021.

It's a procedural coup. It's a paperwork coup. It's a quiet coup. And that may be the coup that works precisely because nobody recognizes it as a coup while is happening. So we have sort of been asking in a sense the wrong question. We've been asking a lot of questions, but one of the questions that maybe is wrong or maybe misdirected is, is Trump going to try another January 6th? It kind of doesn't really seem like Trump needs another January 6th because he's figured out how we can do it slowly and in plain sight, a little ignoring of a court

order here or whatever. And when people finally realize, It won't be the start of the coup. It might be the end and that should terrify every single one of us. What can you do? Stay engaged. Obviously vote. Talk to people in your communities about what's going on. Get involved either by running for a position or by doing media and content, making sure that

if the time comes for the mass rallies and the protests, you're prepared, you're engaged, you know how far you're willing to go. We don't want to end up in a situation where we say, whoops, we miss the coup and now we're at the end of it and they've completely taken irreversible control. That would be very, very bad. All right. I've got video of a reporter from a CBS has faced the nation playing the both sides game with Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. You could say that this is the Barrie Weiss effect, even though she hasn't yet really dug in at CBS. But they are now pretending that Trump isn't the only one who has tried to steal elections. Now, I'm going to play for you this line of questioning from Margaret Brennan on CBS. And I want to make it clear.

We are not like, oh, my goodness, Hakeem Jeffries is just so awesome and he's the perfect leader. We have been very critical on this show of Hakeem Jeffries. But in this particular instance, Jeffries is in the right and Margaret Brennan is desperately trying to do the both sides game when there is no both sides game to play. I want to ask you about something you said. You said Democrats, there are no election deniers on our side of the aisle. You said that back in January. But recently, you've been using the term rigged elections in reference to the upcoming midterms.

Democrats were appalled when President Trump used language like that. How do you justify using that now? Doesn't that undermine faith for voters you need to show up? No, I've been using that term in the context of Donald Trump's unprecedented effort to gerrymander congressional maps in a partisan fashion all across the country in order to rig the midterm elections and deny the ability of the American people to actually decide who should be in the majority as it relates to the House of Representatives. You know, Democrats are also going through gerrymandering and redistricting. No, no, no, all Democrats are going to push back aggressively to make sure that we have fair maps across the country, not partisan gerrymandering, which Republicans have initiated in state after state after state. This is a completely dishonest line of questioning from Margaret

Brennan. I mean, something very strange is happening with my hair today. The, um, Hakeem Jeffries is right. When Trump said, I won the 2020 election, it was rigged and Stalin, by Joe Biden. There is no moral or logistical equivalency between that and our recognition that partisan gerrymandering is something that has systemically pushed elections to Republicans. When she says, well, Democrats are also gerrymandering, yes, we have made it very clear on the left that Democrats should not unilaterally disarm. We would we would all vote today to end partisan redistricting altogether. Republicans wouldn't.

Given that they wouldn't, we need to use every tool like Gavin Newsom, for example, is using in California to try to level the playing field until such time that we can do away with this partisan disaster. Now, there is another issue here, recognizing that purging voter rolls, limiting early voting hours, strategically restricting polling places in left-leaning areas. either left-leaning areas on the basis of race or just historical voting patterns. That is very different than I believe Biden was in bed with some voting machine company and they just did some kind of hack to steal the election. What we're talking about is something at the structural

level. Make it more difficult for people to vote in areas where you don't want those people voting, make it more inconvenient, restrict the times and days. These are not morally equivalent and these are not logistically equivalent. And so for Margaret Brennan to do this is yet another example of the fear that exists in legacy and corporate media right now that you are going to be seen as adversarial and antagonistic to the administration, that they might come after you and that that that could be a problem for you. Now, they are in a sense correct that that may happen, but they're laying down. Now, we are trying not to lay down. And I know that our colleagues in the progressive media ecosystem, independent ecosystem, are doing the same thing. Are they going to come

after one of us? Everybody thinks that the answer is yes. Everybody, you know, we've done substack lives now with Brett Micellis from Midas touch and Brian Tyler Cohen, Aaron Parnas, Carlos Espina and all of these folks, everybody thinks they're going to come after someone in our space and we've got to be ready. But how is it that there is more courage coming from the independent space than from legacy and corporate media that of all the money in the world, the best lawyer's money can buy? It is a really tragic and sad thing to see. And Hakeem Jeffries, for all of his faults, is pointing it out that this is not a, of

There's no equivalence here. This is not a fair comparison. And my expectation would be that with Bari Weiss running CBS News upcoming after the purchase of the free press, I can only assume it's going to get worse. Trump official Scott Besson did not expect to get confronted like this. And NBC news is Kristen Welker on NBC sort of stunned him with actual facts. guess he thought it would be an easy interview and he was wrong. Welker confronts Besson with prices, prices that are up. That includes coffee, beef, bacon. Why did Trump promise and claim and say over and over and over again? Prices will come down as soon as I'm sworn in.

Besson says, you know what, Kristen? You're the problem. You're cherry picking. And the truth is she isn't. Grocery prices are up. Okay. Let me ask you about. something here back at home. Inflation, we learned this week that inflation in September ticked back up to 3%. That's the highest level since January. I want you to take a listen to something that President-elect Trump told me back in December. Take a look. I started using the word the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time. And I won an election based on that we're going to bring those prices way down mr secretary coffee prices are up 19% from a

year ago beef is up almost 15% and bacon up almost 6% just to name a few so when are all grocery prices going to come down as president trump promised well christian you know it's unfortunate as much as i like you you like to cherry pick so you know when we came in it was eggflation egg inflation, egg pollution. You know, egg prices are down. Gasoline prices are down. Overall, the inflation since President Trump has come in, has come down. We inherit. Notice that that's not true. It's essentially flat, which means prices are still going up. Trump promised prices would go down. This terrible affordability crisis from the Biden administration. The first thing we had to do

was get it under control. And this month's inflation number was actually actually below the consensus number. If we look at core inflation, it was 0.2%, which was below us. It's been in a time in a long time. Rents are coming down. So, you know, it, Chris, you don't get to cherry pick. Inflation is a composite number. And I am confident that in the coming months, inflation is going to come down. So now it's, it's going to come down. So was the problem solved by Trump or wasn't it? By definition, she's cherry picking in the sense that she's picking, but grocery prices are simply up. They're just up and Trump promised they would come down.

This was not a good interview for Besson, and he pulled something that's really wild. Besson tried to say he as a low low low lowly soybean farmer is also getting crushed by what's going on. And it's interesting because he's not really just a soybean farmer. I'll explain that in a moment, but he seems to be acknowledging that the situation is bad for soybean farmers, which he has attempted to deny up until this point. Listen to this. I did mean the second term. I know they have. And I should mention, this is from a different interview. He was interviewed on a bunch of shows. This is from this week. Met before. The president has

also said he does want our farmers to be taken care of. You did mention that China has been boycotting American soybeans and American farmers have really suffered. Do you see a real life? at the end of the tunnel there, they may allow soybeans again? Well, Martha, in case you don't know it, I'm actually a soybean farmer, so I have felt this pain, too. So there is pain being felt. That's interesting. And there are a couple of things happening here. One, the Chinese have substantially dropped their purchases to almost zero. So they have. And why have they done that, Scott? Fortunately, have been using American farmers who are amongst President Trump's biggest supporters.

I think he had more than 90% support. And then this was one of the biggest crops in 20 or 30 years. So it was a perfect storm. But I think we have addressed the farmer's concerns. And I'm not going to get ahead of the president. Yeah. You know, he calls himself a soybean farmer. Scott Besson as part of his $600 million network.

net worth owns a farm. The farm is worth 25 million. He is not a farmer. He has people working at the farm for him doing the farming. He owns a farm. And even if that $25 million farm went to be worth zero, he would still have $575 million of net worth left. They attack others for playing the victim, but then they say they are the biggest victim. Bessent is just the lowly soybean farmer. He's getting crushed to. Eric Trump and Don Jr. go on TV. Nobody's been treated worse than our family.

It's terrible. They say grievance politics are bad until they do the grievance. They say victimhood is bad until they start to claim they are the victims. Bessent is disgusting. But deep buried in there, he's acknowledging, yeah, there is pain for the farmers, but it's going to be fixed. He denies that there's inflation, but then says soon it'll come down. Oh, so you're saying there is inflation.

He denies that there's a problem for farmers with Trump's policy, but then says, I'm one of the people like the soybean farmers getting hurt. It's pick a position if you like it. And if you don't, wait five minutes and I'll pick a different position that maybe you'll like better. Sometimes the best snacks are the ones that have been around for a long time. You don't have to reinvent the wheel to get a great snack. And that is what our sponsor, Masa, is aiming for with their delicious tortilla chips that are made

the traditional way. You know I love this stuff. Okay. Masa makes their chips with three ingredients, organic, niximalized corn, Redmond real sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. The chip is sturdy. I don't want a weak chip that crumbles when I try to dip into the guacamole. I need a sturdy chip.

And that is exactly what Masa's tortilla chips do. They also are using non-industrial oils, which pushes the industry away from some of this unsustainable monocropping. I also love that. If you are ready to try the most delicious tortilla chips you've ever had, which are sustainably produced, go to masa chips. dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 25% off your first order. The link is in the description.

We have major Trump health news with a series of new questions after Donald Trump admitted just a few hours ago. He was given an MRI during his recent visit to Walter Reed Medical Center. Now let's hear what he had to say. And then we're going to talk about it. The readout Walter Reed mentioned advanced medical imaging. Did you get an MRI? Can you tell us what that was?

I did. I got an MRI. It was perfect, yeah. I mean, I gave you the full results. We had an MRI and the machine, you know, the whole thing. And it was perfect, yeah. Did you say one in particular? You could ask the doctors.

In fact, we have doctors traveling with us, but I think they gave you a very conclusive. Nobody has ever given you reports. like I gave you. And if I didn't think it was going to be good, either I would let you know negatively. I wouldn't run. I'd do something. But the doctor said some of the best reports for the age, some of the best reports they've ever seen. These are incredible reports. Now, I want to cover this fairly with tact and empathy and a sense of decency because that's what Donald Trump always affords everyone else, right? Right. So the speculation, of course, is you don't get an MRI for no reason. Why did Trump?

Trump get an MRI. What was the MRI for? Trump said, ask the doctors. You normally would do an MRI if you have a suspicion about something specific. You don't randomly MRI people, right? Well, let's talk about that. One of the things about an MRI is it doesn't emit radiation, like an x-ray or a CT scan or a PET scan. One of the, the nice things about an MRI is if you have the time, the money, the wherewithal, you can get a full body MRI and not have to balance the information you get with radiation because there's no radiation. And in fact, there are now companies my doctor told me about some of them where you can just pay and get a full body MRI and they can look and find little things. Now, this is controversial in the medical field. There are many doctors

who will say, you know, it's kind of a fishing expedition. It's not standard of care. It can find meaningless things that we don't know what to do with little nodules that now you're down the garden path. Now you're testing. Maybe you're doing biopsies. Does it really make? sense. We don't always know what to do with the information. But you can get a full body MRI. Now put that aside for a second. This is the president of the United States. If he wants a full body MRI or his doctors want a full body MRI, he's going to get a full body MRI. So he could have simply been getting one of these proactive full body MRIs, except he probably didn't. He wasn't really at the hospital that long. If you account for all the things that he had done, a full body

MRI by itself is 60 to 90 minutes if you go straight through. It's more if you need dye or contrast for some parts of it. It's more if the patient doesn't want to sit still for 60 to 90 minutes and needs some breaks. Trump was reportedly at Walter Reed two to three hours total. That makes it not very likely that this was a full body MRI. If it wasn't a full body MRI, then the question is, well, what part of his body were they looking at? What were they looking for?

Why do it at all? If Trump is in this top notch health that is stunning to the doctors, no one can believe how healthy is he is, then they should be able to tell us clearly what the MRI was looking for. And it should be no big deal. Now, it is not clear from Donald Trump's statement whether this MRI was a follow up from an earlier evaluation. Was it separate? A new concern.

Trump said, talk to the doctors there here. Now, this obviously could be way. smaller of a deal if this administration had a history of medical transparency about Trump. But in reality, they have quite the opposite. Now, I am going to go into full speculation at this point, full speculation based on a couple emails I got from doctors this morning. If we are just guessing and we are just guessing because this is not a transparent White House, we are merely guessing. If we're just guessing based on what we know, one would guess that Trump's doctors suspect a stroke. And what a couple doctors that wrote to me, including a neurologist from

the audience said, Trump has the unexplained absences over the last few months where he's gone from cameras for sometimes up to five, six days, the swollen ankles, the bruised hands, the swollen eyes. He had the strabismus, the eyes pointing in different directions at an event. Now you do an MRI, maybe of the brain we don't know. The concern would be, did he have a stroke? We're not saying a super serious stroke. It's clear it's not a super serious disabling stroke, but it would explain a lot about what is going on with this guy. Strokes can often have rapidly changing symptoms.

You can mask lingering effects if you're determined, if you're out of the public for the right periods of time. So bottom line, Trump acknowledges doctors requested an MRI for a guy who is supposedly totally healthy and presents no concerns. It just doesn't sound believable. Now, maybe in the next 24, 48 hours, there will be an update. The only problem with these updates is that they usually are too little too late. For example, after everybody could see something was up with Trump's hands and ankles when

it was much too late to be coming out transparently, Caroline Levick came out and said, oh, his hand is bruised from shaking hands. Well, that might explain the right hand, but not the left hand. Trump doesn't shake hands with his left hand. And so what we usually get from this White House is too little too late. That doesn't really answer any questions, but it only raises more. That's where we are right now. And we will have to see where we are a few days from now.

Donald Trump bragged about passing a dementia screening test in an unhinged rant on Air Force 1. Trump is really sure that he doesn't have dementia. And the press were clearly stunned by his bizarre. claims. As usual, Trump talking about people with low IQ. Usually when Trump talks about people with low IQ, it is non-white women. And indeed, here he talks about AOC and Jasmine Crocket. They have Jasmine Crockett, a low IQ person. They have AOC's low IQ. You give her an IQ test. Have her pass like the exams that I decided to take when I was at Walter Reed. I took. I took

Those are very hard, they're really aptitude tests, I guess in a certain way, but they're cognitive tests. Let AOC go against Trump. Let Jasmine go against Trump. I don't think it's Jasmine, the first couple of questions are easy, a tiger, an elephant, a giraffe, you know, when you get up to about five or six, and then when you get up to 10 and 20 and 25. No, when they make you write that it's 10 after 11 on an analog clock by Dr.

drawing the hands of the clock, it gets really tough. They couldn't come close to answering any of those questions. Understand that the president is putting other people down for their lack of intelligence, according to Trump, and bragging about having passed a dementia screening test. That's what he's bragging about at the end of the day. Trump was asked about a third term. He says, I would love to do it. Very good people.

They are good people. You said that for 2028, they're very good people. Well, we have great people. I don't have to get into that, but we have one of them standing right here. We have JD, obviously. The Vice President is great. I think Marco's great. I think I'm not sure if anybody would run against us.

I think if they have a formed a group, it would be unstoppable. I really do. I believe that. I would love to do it. I have my best numbers ever. It's very terrible. as if good numbers would justify violating the constitution to try to serve a third term as president and then trump saying it would be a little too cute for trump to run as vice president too cute one theory on how you might try to serve a third term is that you can run as the vice president

yeah i'd be allowed to do that is it the white house or the white house or the Why does counsel do your legal position? No, you'd be allowed to do that, but I wouldn't want, I wouldn't do it. I think it's really good. It's too cute. Yeah, I wouldn't rule that out because it's too cute. I think the people wouldn't like that. It's too cute.

It's a little too cute to try to shred the Constitution. Too cute. Trump asked about Elon Musk. I guess they're sort of on good terms now. He says, no, Elon, I like Elon. I'm always going to like Elon. It sounds like they've made up. I think it's good. I mean, you saw that during Charlie's beautiful tribute.

Elon came up. It's good with Elon. I like Elon. I've always liked Elon. Elon's good. Have you talked to him since the memorial? On and off, a little bit. Yeah, very little. Nothing much. Look, he's a nice guy. And he's a very capable guy. I've always liked him. He had a bad spell. He had a bad Perry. He had a bad moment. It was a stupid moment in his life. Any moment in which you appear to contradict the dear leader when you suggest this tax bill may not really be what I thought Trump was running on. Anything other than unflinching, unending loyalty is a problem. He said a little

stupid something or other, just a little bit of a problem there. Finally, lying about grocery prices just seems to be part of the job. It's in a work hazard of sorts at this point in time. Donald Trump continuing to lie both about the changes to grocery and egg prices and lie about blame. And it's just a mess all the way down. It's who can debase themselves the most, but whose followers are most willing to accept obvious lies. depending on the result of that like that we'll see we'll see we're going to take care of look we're going to take care of our ranchers one way though we have two situations the ranchers for 35 years have done very poorly the cattle people they've done very very poorly and now they're doing well

but the prices are so what i can see happening is we're going to take some beef because i have to get the price down i want to get most prices are down if you look at energy and all the i have things down but beef is high and the cattle ranches are doing good they backed me from day one What we're going to do is we're going to make sure that they don't get hurt, but we have to also make sure that I get the prices down. I want to get the prices down like I did with eggs, like I did with lots of others. We had a couple of them where when I first took over, eggs were double and quadruple what they were.

That was Biden's small. A lot of this is Biden's small too. And we're going to get the price of beep down and I'm going to make sure the cattle ranches don't get hurt. Yeah. You know, rather than breaking some. something and having to fix it every damn presidential term, maybe just don't break it in the first place. And of course, the farmers and the ranchers were crushed by Donald Trump's tariffs in the

first term. He had to bail him out. Predictably, the exact same thing is happening now in the second term. And Trump is now paying lip service to the idea that he cares about these folks so much that he's going to make sure they don't get hurt. Well, we're talking about a bailout again. We're talking about more taxpayer money, more of your money, more of my money. Rather than what about prevention? What's that phrase pro pro an ounce of prevention is worth a metric ton of cure or treatment or something like that or as Bernie Sanders says, if you set a fire in a waste paper basket, you can't then ask for credit for putting the fire out. And that's sort of what Donald Trump is constantly doing. Are people falling for it? Yes, they are. You look online. You look at Reddit and all of the different

places where where these MAGA supporters hang out, they are falling for it. They're going, man, Biden, he really screwed us on the grocery prices, but Trump's fixing it. Trump's fixing everything. They are living in a fantasy world. It's very hard to get cult members to leave the fantasy world, but we should welcome them out of it if and when they are ready. Donald Trump made a truth social post that is genuinely one of the most disturbing things I have

ever seen from him. And that says a lot. Trump posted to truth social, quote, truth central to troth central, sorry. Pregnant women don't use Tylenol unless absolutely necessary. Don't give Tylenol to your young child for virtually any reason. Break up the MMR shot into three totally separate shots, not mixed. Take a chicken pee shot separately. And, take hepatitis B shot, hepatitis be shot at 12 years old or older, and importantly, take vaccine in five separate medical visits. President Donald J. Trump, he links to a daily caller article. Where do we start? The president of the United States wrote chicken pee instead of chicken pox and hepatitis instead of hepatitis in a fully capitalized medical recommendation post.

He's giving detailed and specific medical advice that contradicts every major health organization in the world. No published scientific evidence shows benefit in separating the MMR into three separate shots. I have news for you. It's not available in the United States. I was just talking to some pediatrician friends of mine and they said, you know, we do have people who come in and they say, listen, I want to get my kids vaccinated, but out of an abundance of caution

because of what Trump said, let's separate it. Let's do measles. Let's do mumps on a different day. Let's do rubella on a different day. And my pediatrician friends say it's not available in the United States. It's just that we do not have that. Trump is recommending something that does not exist in the United States. Never mind has zero scientific support, but it gets even worse. MMR is done twice. If you break it up into three, three times two, three times two, carry the zero, divide, sign, cosine, tangent, that is six instances of injection. That increases the chance that you get. I mean, every time you inject, there's this teeny tiny risk of the puncture getting inflamed or whatever. Why do it six times instead of two? Also, you could miss

showing up because if you've got six appointments instead of two, people get busy. The kid doesn't want to go. Anyway, now there are six appointments that you need to go to rather than two. There is no evidence for doing that. Trump's recommending an experimental approach that is not even available. Now, the CDC does recommend doing chickenpox separately for young toddlers for a very specific and limited reason. And the reason for that is that through age three, the MMRV, V for Veracella, aka chicken pea chicken pox, that does have a slightly increased risk of febrile seizures seven to 10 days after vaccination.

So you separate it out for the first dose in very little kids. Second dose is given between four and six. Then you do the MMRV. We have all of the information on this stuff. And Trump misunderstands, recommends things that don't exist, so on and so forth. Now on Hep B, not hepatitis, but hepatitis B. Without vaccination, as many as nine out of 10 infants infected with Hep B in their first year of life develop chronic infection that can lead to liver failure and death.

You give Hep B, we just two and a half months ago, my new baby daughter got it. We give Hep B within 24 hours of birth because it's really effective and because you don't know who your baby may come into contact with, even though Trump talks about it like a sexually transmitted disease, even just a little bit of a skin opening. up against someone else's blood could theoretically transmit it, a caregiver, someone who doesn't know that they're they have it, they're asymptomatic, the vaccine is so effective. The risk is so high if a baby develops hep B. Why would you wait until age 12? It doesn't make any sense. And then finally, Trump says, take vaccine in five separate medical visits. Do you understand what

that means for working families? Instead of getting vaccines on the recommended schedule, just get endless appointments, endless, endless appointments. And then vaccines get delayed. They get missed. Parents forget. You get lower vaccine use. And then that's a public health risk. Parents deserve real medical guidance from qualified professionals. Not all caps rants from people who look like traffic cones. Okay. And have no medical experience. Chicken pee and hepatitis is not valid language for medical advice. Call me crazy. I love it when a box. of bottles of wine from Naked Wines shows up at my house. We unpack it.

I'm partial to the white wine. My girlfriend is more partial to the red wine. Our sponsor Naked Wines is a wine club that will connect you directly with independent winemakers all over the world. This means you are getting world-class wine delivered to your door at up to 60% less than what you would pay in stores. And the reason is very easy. No middlemen, no huge markups, just the winemakers and you.

Every box has introduced us to bottles we never would have picked up on our own. Makes any regular weeknight dinner feel a little more special and it's an easy way to enjoy. Great wine without overthinking it too much, whether you're a wine expert or you're like me and you know virtually nothing at all about wine. Head to nakedwines.com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman as the code and password to get six bottles for only $39.99. included. The link is in the description. It is great to welcome back to the program today. Nathan Taylor, the executive director of public engagement for Election Truth Alliance. Nathan, it's great

to have you back. I appreciate it. Yeah, thanks so much for having me. Hopefully your inbox didn't absolutely explode since last time. Well, listen, you, I don't want to redo the first interview. People should watch that interview. We're going to try to sort of build on that. But in the first interview to sort of summarize, you brought us information that you believed pointed to irregularities and red flags within the 2024 election results. And we explained the methodology. We looked at heat maps. We looked at hand counts versus machine counts. And we sort of left it as Nathan has presented a case. The audience can evaluate. I can evaluate. And then we will come back. Is that sort of a fair assessment of where we were? Yes. Yes. Good. So listen, I'm going to put

the lead. I'm not going to bury the lead. I'm going to put it up front. Okay. I am not convinced that there has been any kind of fraud or rigging based on an analysis I've done speaking to other statisticians about your work. Now, I want to give you the opportunity to respond. So I'll just kind of lay it out as I see it. You presented us some heat maps. They show some statistical patterns. That's for sure. I didn't find evidence of fraud in the heat maps, which you conceded, right? I mean, you said the heat maps are a signal that we should look into.

I have not found evidence of fraud in the heat maps necessarily. And then I went further and I said, can I find any direct evidence of a vote change or manipulation? And I didn't. And what I did find is that Republicans performed. pretty damn strongly in 2024 up and down the ballot. And what I mean by that is Trump won. The Republicans did well in the Senate. The Republicans did well in the House.

And to me, that sort of raises an Occam's razor question, which is what is more likely here that a conspiracy involving multiple states and election officials successfully rigged machines while leaving intact paper trails, but fooling off. audits and all. Or did Republicans just kind of do well? And where I land right now, Nathan, is I think Republicans just did well. I love it. Excellent points.

Those are the very same points I've actually come to address today, prepared. And you bring up the same things we're hearing when we put out the Minnesota report, when we've started making public some of our additional findings. And I'm happy to talk about some of the on-to-ground findings that have been made public recently. Main pushback, as you said, right, is people cannot, I'd say people argue very valid that if this happened, right, the idea of if there was a grand compromise of our systems, it would have to be a massive operation, right? And it would have been leaked by now. It would have required so much coordination across multiple states, et cetera. Well, let me pause only because

I don't want you to respond to a claim I'm not making. I do think it is true. I didn't make an assertion about the number of people that would need to be involved. I did make an assertion about how widespread and all-encompassing it would have had to be. But I think the biggest thing I'm kind of looking at right now is we would have some of what I would consider direct evidence rather than the heat maps and the statistical representations of data that you've presented. That's I think where I am right now. Yes.

And that's an excellent point because if there's smoke. there's fire. And where's the fire, right? You know, if there's all of these concerns. Now, I will highlight, as you said, the analysis that the ETA has been making public is not proof of election fraud. Statistics on their own is not proof of election fraud. It is at best a good indicator of where you should go and investigate and where you should go look. And as I mentioned in our, when you talked to me last time, the ETA has actually been investigating on the ground in the places that we've been flagging concerns. And some of that is Florida. And we'll, we'll talk to me last time. The ETA has actually been investigating on the ground in the places that we've been flagging concerns. And some of that is Florida. And we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll talk to about that here shortly. Yeah. But there's other places as well that we will be making public very soon with some legal action. And I can talk just a little bit about some of those other findings. But a few things I wanted to bring up that aren't well known right now. And as you said, right, if there was a compromise of our systems, where's the additional support? Where's the concerns? Well, a few things that most people may have heard of but may not have actually looked into is that per the reports of the FBI and the NSA, Russia was found to have been involved in a

targeted campaign to breach county election systems and their voter registration databases across all 50 states in 2016. Now, there are some caveats about what they say are the implications, but what's important is we've also found during our investigations and we'll actually show you some examples, but they successfully infiltrated two counties. Florida. And one of those is St. Lucie County. And we've actually been investigating St. Lucy County for the 24 election on the ground. And we've been releasing reports with some other investigative journalists. We'll talk about some of those findings. And as you said, you want hard evidence of actual issues. Well, let me mention, I mean, about the infiltration,

tell me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the reporting is Russia did target all 50 states in 2016. Yes. And that they, the word infiltrated seems a little squishy to me, because number one, I know that there are county officials that denied that that county was infiltrated, but I believe the consensus is that not a single vote was impacted and that was eight years ago. And a lot has changed since eight years ago, right? I mean, we're using eight year old data.

Well, here's some important pieces. One, it is confirmed by these public reports and a recent book that came out as a well, I think it's called Rage, um, where they confirmed that not only did they get into the systems in St. Lucie County, Florida in 2016, but there were concerns that the malware involved could have allowed manipulation, but they didn't find any actual evidence. Well, it's a little more than that though, Nathan. I want to be fully clear with my audience. It's not only that, it's that what they were able to infiltrate with the malware was the voter

registration database, which correct me if I'm wrong. is not the voting system. It is not, but okay, good. There are, generally speaking, two systems we use, right? You've got your registration, which is, you know, a account of who can show up to vote, and you've

got your tabulation system, or however you count your votes. In the U.S., it's system, it's machine-based. What's important is as we've dug a little deeper, especially now, we are starting to bring up some major concerns. There's one other pieces

there was per 2016, the Illinois State Board of Elections did report that not only was their voter registration database breached, but they found that they didn't find any manipulation or changes, but they did report that over 200,000 registered voters' information was stolen. So we bring this up. And what's important is yes, we're not saying that any changes happened in 2016. But what's important is a few things. One, if you have successfully infiltrated the system, cybersecurity-wise, there are concerns of one. How did you do it? Can you do it again? And what do you get out of it? And so it's kind of the equivalent of saying, well, the robbers broke into the house. They didn't steal anything. But, you know, we're all good to go. Well,

our concern is maybe they didn't change anything when they came into the system. But just having access to the voter registration information allows you to know who is active and who is inactive in voting. you were to successfully compromise both systems, now you have the list of people who are eligible to vote and you could potentially vote for them. And so those are concerns. As I said, there's no current evidence that's been made public showing that this has happened yet. Right. What's important is those are two pieces of the pie you would need to successfully manipulate elections, especially digitally speaking. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you that those might be necessary, but they certainly wouldn't be sufficient.

We agree on that. It would require a bit more effort as well. Yeah. And I guess the issue I came up, and by the way, I think you're doing really good work and I think everything you're doing is valuable. I'm just giving my opinion of where I come down and I just think Republicans won and I wish it wasn't the case. I think every one of these things is worthy of investigation.

I think the problem sometimes people who point to smoke and say this means there's fire and fire means one particular thing, sometimes exclude other explanations, which in our first interview as I presented them, you kind of acknowledged, yes, it also could be that, but we're worried that it's this other thing. Totally legitimate. As one example, we talked about the Clark County stuff in Nevada and this artificial cap on turnout. And one of the things I found when researching Clark County, a lot of older folks in that county, right, demographically, it's kind of an interesting county. If you're counting turnout as votes divided by registered voters, if you had outdated voter

roles, maybe because it's a population that skews older, maybe because a lot of those folks have passed away, that would give you a signal that might look like smoke, artificially low turnout. And in fact, it's a result of the demographics of Clark County. This is like one micro example of how you've identified some smoke. Awesome. I've found a source of the fire that may be different than what you are alluding to. Fair to say. Am I explaining it clearly at least? Yeah, that's good. And the main point is, as we said, we kind of make the findings public so that we can have these conversations.

Right. Good pushback for Nevada, though. And as we actually put in our reports is we don't use turnout to do that analysis for Nevada. It is based purely on the cast vote record, which is the individual vote cast per voting machine per voting location. So there is no turnout analysis in that. And the effects we're seeing, you know, the strong shift in the amount of votes Trump is getting after 250 or so ballots cast per machine or per location, it does bring up some other concerns because we have started looking at those down ballot races, the partisan and nonpartisan races. And the, as you said, if we're looking for some smoke, one of the symptoms that has been brought up time and time again by election fraud experts across.

the world, for example, Roman UDOT, Sergei Schviken, they put out papers and reports looking at Russian elections, looking at more normal like Swedish elections, and they flagged that the symptoms they see in what is attributed to be manipulation in Russian elections is that there is some type of effect where, for example, in the 2011 Russian election, it'll be like 80, 90% turnout for polling locations. And then that is where a very large spike of the votes begins to be seen for the pro-Pudin party. And it matches the concerns we've been finding across the U.S. But as you said, it itself is not proof of election front. So what I'd like to do is I would like to go back and very quickly touch on what we recently put out for the Minnesota and the

handcount data. I want to make an update on that. And then I'd like to talk about Florida and the on-the-ground investigations that have been conducted there and the things we're finding. And what would be great as you do that is give us the top lines and then. And we'll dig into it just so people don't get lost. Yeah. Got it. All right. So for Minnesota, very simple.

The ETA, after we last spoke about some of that initial preliminary data we put up, we have now put on our website, AlexaTruthliance.org, a special report for Minnesota. We are looking at, I believe, District 8. Let me verify here. But yes, District 8, Minnesota. And so some important pieces is District 8 has those hand count rural areas that were small enough where they hand-counted and never counted their votes digitally during the 24 election. And then they have the rest of the county and the rest of the district, which is machine-based.

And pretty much what we put in that report, and as we spoke about last time, is we are seeing a significant discrepancy between the locations that hand-counted versus the locations that machine counted. Well, I want to address a few things first and first and foremost. Well, in our initial preliminary report that we put out, the heat map had some. errors in it that we went back and we made a follow-up, you know, address. And we said, hey, here are the errors. Here's the update and the corrections. Did it change our concerns? Absolutely not. And what our report actually does and we visualize it for you is we're showing

that of the same size rural areas, the same amount of registered voters and amount of voters in these precincts for hand count and rural count, or sorry, hand count precincts versus machine count precincts, we did that direct comparison, not only the presidential race, but we did this as well for the down-ballot races. So we did the presidential, the Senate, and the House for the District 8 of Minnesota. And we show that statistically speaking. And the reason why we think it is important is, as we said before, right, if there was a compromise of our systems, what would normal look like versus what would have normal look like. And for our analysis and per the work of Roman Ud.S. Sergei Spilkin and their statistical findings, they argue this. They say that a

normal election should have no, little to no relationship between the amount of turnouts or the amount of voters that are showing up across multiple locations and the amount of vote a candidate is getting. In layman's terms, it means that you shouldn't see a substantial change in the percentage of votes a candidate is getting from low turnout to medium to high turnout. And we actually see that effect. And I do have a visual for you. It's the first visual in what I sent you. And it shows the hand count on the right scatter plot wise versus the machine count. And we see that. We see that in these precincts that hand counted in District 8, the relationship is flat. And Trump is winning a majority of the votes in those locations. And that was one of the issues we found in that

initial heat map is that, in fact, those rural areas that were hand-counted when we fixed the data based on over 50% or higher registration voters to get rid of the noise, Trump is winning in those hand-counts smaller, more rural areas. So can we, you've said a lot, Nathan, and I just, I want to keep it conversational so the audience doesn't get lost and we take these things one by one. You're completely right in how you are representing the data in terms of the relationship. between turnout, hand versus machine count, and who people were likely to vote for. This was something we talked about last time. I think it's extraordinarily important to look into that.

However, I see a differential diagnosis that doesn't point to subterfuge. And that includes demographic differences. In other words, these count these areas precincts that you have indicated are more likely to go Trump. They are, by their nature, I believe, more likely for demographic reasons to be Trump precincts, if that makes sense. And I think when I said that last time, you said, I don't have anything to rebut that. I'm just investigating other explanations, which I think is great.

I think to be honest in and not honest, I think you're being honest, to be robust in our analysis, we have to be able to explain away the demographic differences that exist, whether some of these areas had more mobilization or community characteristics that impacted turnout, whether some of these had barriers to voting or access issues in terms of early voting or number of places to vote, this sort of thing. And I don't believe you've done that yet. So I would actually push back and say that this recent analysis, we did dive into a little bit more of the demographics. Okay. And actually, I agree with you and what you said. And that was the the main pushback we had was the demographics of the hand-counted areas, we believe, is

Trump aligned, and we do show that. But what's, what we're highlighting is less of the demographics and more of the behavior that the voters are exhibiting. And that's what's important is we're saying that even though in these hand-count areas that Trump is winning the amount of votes, he's getting a majority of the votes in these smaller precincts that were hand-counted in the district, the relationship those precincts are showing is normal human voting behavior. We don't see that in higher turnouts. Trump is getting more votes. We don't see that here.

We actually see he's keeping around the same amount of votes across all of the range of turnouts. But this is why we compare it then to the machine count precincts. And these are the same size precincts, by the way. So we said, let's look at just the precincts across the rest of the county and the rest of the district. and look at them and say, if these are similar demographics, they're more rural areas, they have the same amount of voters in them, how does it compare? And that's where we've been

flagging, that there is a strong relationship for our analysis where in places of higher turnout, Trump is getting more votes. And I'll give you a rough estimate. I believe the relationship is almost one to one, meaning for every 10%, so for example, if we start and we look at the precincts of 60% turnout. Let's say Trump is getting close to 45% or so. These are just, you know, rough estimates. Yeah. And then let's say you go up to 70%. Trump is on average getting 10% more votes per 10% turnout. That's a one to one. That is a huge red flag because we're not seeing this in other places that look statistically normal. And I wanted to show this last piece for you and just explain why this is abnormal voter behavior wise. This is the third graph.

This is a new way of looking at the scatterplots in the math without it just being a big blob of dots. And I understand, like, it's hard to look at the big blob of dots and scatter plots be like, okay. So what we did, this analysis is the same thing. This is all of the precincts in the district, for example. And instead of just showing them as a scatterplot, we put them in bins. We grouped them by 10%. So lowest turnout precincts in the district is 30% turnout. highest is roughly somewhere to 90, 95%.

And so all we did is we said, let's look at that relationship between as turnout increased or precincts of higher turnout versus precincts of lower turnout, how were both candidates performing? And this is where we flagged the same concern we're seeing

in Pennsylvania, in North Carolina, and we've now just made public in Florida, and it's the same type of relationship we're seeing in Nevada, but they don't use turnout. And what's important is, and we'll talk about this for Florida, we've started looking at what we would argue is more normal behavior, and it seems to be exhibited in mail-in voting. And I think we touched based on this last time, I don't recall, but we said mail-in looks statistically normal, but when we look at election day or early voting, the effect we're seeing is what this third graph shows. And I'll explain what this shows. It shows that, for example, from 30% turnout to around 70% turnout, so precincts from 30 to 70%

Trump has a majority of the votes, but it begins to decrease as turnout is increasing across all of these precincts. Hold on. Am I looking at the wrong chart? Because to me, it looks like, are we looking at District 8 turnout binning right now? Yes, we are. Yeah. It looks to me like Trump's share goes up, not down.

So I was saying Harris, so if I was wrong, I think you, I think you said Trump, but you, so you meant Harris. Yes. Sorry. Okay. So good catch. So at 70% and lower turnout, Harris has a majority of the votes. And then we actually see a almost a stair step, right, where higher turnout, more votes for

Trump until Trump actually begins to win a majority of the votes around 80% and then around 90% they kind of switch again. Now, why would Harris go back up and win at 90% turnout? In other words, Trump only ended up with the slightest margin of victory at the 80% level. And even there, it's barely. Why did Harris go, what does Harris go back up? Well, a good point to looking at these bins, and this one doesn't show it, is you want to look at how many votes are in each of these bins and how many precincts.

So there is a little bit of statistical noise when you do it by fixed percentages. So I assume there's not a lot of 90% precincts here. So you're going to see some of the noise pick up again. And that's what's really important in what we started doing now, and I'll show you for Florida, is we've shown it both ways, 10% increments, and then that like weighted total of you've got like 200,000 votes or 20,000 votes in each bin. But this effect, to be honest, this effect mirrors the concerns seen in Russian elections, where you're seeing a strong relationship to the amount of voters that show up or the amount of votes cast to one candidate growing. And as we've argued

time and time again, there should be almost a flat effect where both candidates are sitting at whatever vote share. Let me explain why this is weird because maybe I haven't covered it well. This is a snapshot, by the way. So this is when all the votes are cast. There's no time component here. And the bottom axis, right, the vertical, the horizontal X axis is the amount of votes per the amount of voters. So turnout is just, I got 100 voters that could vote, 50 of them vote. 50 votes cast. And what's important here is let's argue that this is a effect of a really popular candidate, right, which is the common pushback we get. Let's say Trump is really popular and he gets a lot of the votes in some of these bigger places. Well, the problem here is, as we said, in order to

mobilize voters to do this, it's not really possible to mobilize voters to create this effect consistently across all of these precincts. Why? Because you don't know what your turnout it's going to be until after the votes are cast. You can't just target specific precincts. And this effect is across all the precincts in the district. The thing is humans, because of how we vote, there's not really a way for us to target and be like, all right, my precinct is going to get 60%. Let's mobilize all the Republicans in this band of precincts and get them to show up. And so we're not just seeing this effect in certain bands of precincts. We're seeing this effect across all precincts in the district. To put that bluntly, our concern is that humans can't create this

effect because there's no way for you to coordinate the effect occurring. And to see this effect not just here, but across multiple places such as Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, which is the most liberal county in Pennsylvania, to see this in Clark County, Nevada, Las Vegas, where they use voting machines, to see this effect in North Carolina and even in Florida where we've you now made public Miami-Dade. Why would you see that in the most liberal places in these states, the same effect, it really raises alarms. Now, I want to hear your concerns, your thoughts, your pushbacks. No, listen. I mean, now, now, so we're basically at the end of our time. And I know you had six other slides to get to. And I just don't think we're going to get

to them today. You've now made a number of new claims, which I would have to research, certainly, which is what I encourage everybody to do. I'm not prepared to rebut everything I just heard right now. The impression I came away with from our first conversation was I am not at this point in any way comfortable suggesting that this was a rigged election. Before I let you go, if someone just said, hey, Nathan, what is the most direct single piece of evidence you have that points not to a statistical anomaly alleged or real, but rather to an actual manipulation or rigging? Is what you just mentioned it or is there something more direct you could point us to?

Oh, we definitely have things that are more direct that I can point you to. And we've started making them public. So recently in Florida, St. Lucie County, the ETA has been working with Allison Green, independent investigative journalist. She's started putting the findings on her substack. It's up to us. And the concerns we're finding is we've actually been to these counties that are raising red flags that our statistics is showing is weird. I've actually been on the ground and done some door knocking. And we've looked at the voter registration database from the county's own records and compared it to, you know, who cast their votes and precincts that are highly anomalous. And we've started making this public. We'll be making even more

of this public and doing some type of joint video. But I went to Florida. I went to St. Lucie County. I met with Allison. And we went to some of the places that were strange on the ground and we knocked on their doors. And the first place I knocked on was in a neighborhood that was under construction during the election and no one lived there and we asked the residents who lived there after the election and the house was complete hey did you vote in the last election they said yeah we we voted in palm beach county they're in st lucy county now and we said oh okay so you moved after the election they said yes and then we said this we said well what's interesting is we have your record right here and it says your husband voted in this county for the 24 election are you aware of this and they said

oh uh no that's weird and that was the first door we knocked on We then proceeded to continue to investigate, and we're now starting to make those further investigations public. All right. Well, I want to look at that in more detail, and we will do it. We have set some new elements to look at here. But I want to hear from my audience. What have you come away with?

We're going to make all of these presentations and data public. We've been speaking with Nathan Taylor, the executive director of public engagement for election truth alliance. Nathan, you're very kind to come back on and deal with my antagonism. I really do appreciate it. Now, thank you so much for having me. And I would love to talk a little bit more about the actual, you know, as you said, on the ground stuff as we go forward if you're interested.

So thank you so much. Thank you. You've probably heard me mention AG1 before. It's part of my morning routine. Just gives my nutrition a daily boost. The team behind AG1 has now created a nighttime option. It's called AGZ. It's just a drink designed to help you unwind before bed and get them.

better rest on the nights that you need it. AGZ is non-habit forming. It's a blend of herbs, adaptogens and minerals, no melatonin. Each serving provides 250 milligrams of highly bioavailable magnesium. That's over half of your daily value, along with other carefully selected ingredients. The idea here is support relaxation, improve sleep quality. Very simple concept. Just like AG1 helps you get more out of your day.

AGZ can help you get more out of your night. If you want a tool you can reach for when you want to calm your body and your mind, recharge and wake up ready, this could be it. Go to drinkag1.com slash Pacman. Get a free frother with your first purchase of AGZ. The link is in the description. The Border Patrol Commander glitched badly. This is Gregory Bovino.

And he ended up mush mouth trying to explain how citizens don't need immigration paperwork, but you need to carry immigration paperwork to prove that you're a citizen, but citizens don't need the paperwork. This is such a simple question, okay? I'm going to play this for you. I know because my audience, it's so smart, you are all going to pick up immediately on the impossibility of what is being suggested here. You know, if somebody's walking down the street, if they should be arrested or not, do you look at their language, their vehicle, they're driving?

And by the way, just as a preview, Bovino speaks a little Spanish, so at some points, they switch to Spanish. It's where they are working. What do agents do look for? Sure. Well, you know, it's a, there's many things that we can look for. So I could ask. I could simply ask someone. I was like, Julio, what's your citizenship? Very easy, I can ask that. So that would be one indicator if you said, well, I'm not a citizen, then you're going to get arrested.

So I would say, Julio, what's your citizenship? Now, there are citizens that have been arrested, even after they say that they are citizens. Okay. I've spoken to a couple of them. Okay, but who wear and when? Because a lot of times we hear this, but when the story comes out,

oftentimes it's American citizens arrested for assaulting a federal officer, or remember you have to carry your immigration documents you Necessi to try a sus documents that immigration on total of the tempo if So what he said there when he said total a tempo means all the time he says you got to have your immigration documents with you all the time but if you're an American citizen you're not required to carry documents so it doesn't make any sense and it continues don't have your immigration documents how do I know you're illegal or illegal So now he's not so now he's asking all American citizens have to have passports

with them to which Bovino says no. No. No, you don't have to be the Immigration or Nationality Act states by federal law that you must carry immigration document. But American citizens don't fall under the Immigration Nationality Act completely different. So an American citizen doesn't have to carry a passport. Why would an American citizen carry their passports if they are American citizens? That's up to them if they want to.

You guys understand how ridiculous this is, right? They don't have to carry it with it. But so then what are we talking about? We don't have to. We're going to determine alienage on illegal aliens. We're very good at, again, we've done that for 101 years now, Julio. We're very good at that. Yeah, according to some recent reports, within 170 American citizens have been arrested

by these ice operations in the past nine months. So I'm sure you know what you're doing, but there have been some American citizens being detained. Consider the absurdity. Consider the absurdity of this. You have to have your immigration papers with you, but American citizens don't. Cool. So then if you stop somebody, they don't need paperwork because they can just say I'm an American citizen, right?

No, immigrants do need their paperwork. But if you're a citizen, you don't need your paperwork. So they go, I don't have paperwork because I'm a citizen, but they don't accept that. It sounds it. If all of this sounds like it doesn't make any sense and it's teetering on the border of legality and illegality, it's because it is just this weekend as that interview was being published. Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, the guy we just heard from, has been ordered to face a federal judge in Chicago after being accused of violating a court order because a federal judge in

Chicago is now ordering Border Patrol Commander Bovino to attend a hearing in a courtroom next week because he has been accused of violating a temporary restraining order limiting federal agents use of certain tactics to suppress protests, prevent media coverage of immigration enforcement operations in Illinois. If it sounds like they don't really know what they're doing and they may not be staying on the correct side of the law. It's because they don't know what they're doing and they are allegedly not staying on the correct side of the law.

And we all know, you know, the first questions from Julia there were really quite astute. Because the question is who, how do you decide who to talk to, okay? If I as an immigrant to the United States who has white skin, mostly white, if they see me and I speak with no accent and I go, yeah, I'm an American. citizen, which is true, by the way, they will certainly accept it unless they know who I am and they're trying to target me. But the point is, they will accept it from me because I speak English without an accent other than when I say sorrow, sorrow. When Julio asks, so how do you decide who to talk to? Is it based on their appearance, how they speak, their accent? And he goes,

oh, well, I can just ask, are you a citizen? Of course, there is. a selection bias. There's a sorting that's going on based on exactly those things. And we know that because they showed up at a Home Depot parking lot where day laborers are waiting for gigs and they go, hey, here's some brown people speaking Spanish amongst themselves. We're going to talk to them. So it is exactly that type of profiling. Now, you can argue that that profiling is legal within a certain distance from the border or in a special operation. I'm not making a case one way or the other that it is or isn't. But I'm saying you can argue that that's legal, but don't lie because you're not going up to certain people based on their look

and asking them for papers. You don't need the papers if you're a citizen, but you got to have them with you in case you're asked. But if you just go, I'm a citizen, I don't need papers. They're going to believe you. They'll believe you depending on what you look like. They'll, they'll believe you depending on what you sound like. That's where we are right now.

All right. For historical reasons, Democrats should be set up for a very good midterm. Typically, when one party takes the White House, in the immediate midterms two years later, the other party takes a bunch of seats back, sometimes control of the House, sometimes control of the Senate. We are now in a situation where it may be the case that Trump and MAGA are facing disaster. There is new polling data, CNN sort of summed it up. Let's take a little bit of a listen to this.

All right, we've got an off-year election two weeks from today. We've got midterms one year and two weeks away. And members of both parties looking for any sign as to who may be gaining momentum. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enton is here. And I had to say some new polling just out was really eye-popping to me. It was shocking to me, John. And it comes down to party identification. Do you identify as a Democrat or as a Republican?

And traditionally speaking, this is a metric that has been quite telling of election. and we'll get into that a little bit. Party ID margin, Denver versus Republicans. Specifically, I'm talking about Gallup. Back in quarter one of 2025, it was a tie. Look at how much Democrats have gained on this metric, according to Gallup, their latest metric. Democrats are ahead by seven points.

That is a seven-point movement to the left. I looked at some other pollsters as well to see if there was similar movement among Quinnipiac. It was plus one Republican. And you can see, again, movement to the left, Democrats plus three. You know, last year going into the 2024 presidential election, that was the rare time in which Republicans

rare time in which Republicans actually held a lead in Gallup's party ID measure. That Republican lead is no more. Adios amigos eliminated. Now Democrats ahead by seven points, at least according to Gallup. And this is when pollsters call and ask you for your party. Basically, this is self-reporting of what party you're in. And now you're seeing this seven-point swing in what people are saying in this. So listen, this alone doesn't spell disaster for Republicans. And you have to remember, the baseline is this should be a bad midterm for Republicans. But this could be a disastrous midterm for Republicans. Farmers are turning on Trump.

Nobody's buying that prices are declining because prices are actually going up. How much a president even controls that is a different story. It doesn't matter. Trump said he would control it and he hasn't controlled it. But the thing I keep coming back to is that if Republicans come to believe, if Trump comes to believe that he and they are facing certain disaster, I don't believe that they will easily allow this process to take place in something as quaint as a fair election as what we might want. Now, I am not saying the stuff like from Nathan Taylor's interview about statistical analysis.

I'm just saying we know the playbook for voter suppression. It's intimidation. It's deregistering voters. It's at the house level redistricting, which they're doing, reducing early voting hours, reducing the number of precincts. We know all of the stuff. And there is no way in hell after, I mean, listen, look at how much progress they've made on project 2025. Look at all of these different areas in which they're, they are by their standards making progress on this dystopian vision.

There's no way they're just going to go, oh, it's not looking good for us. All right. I guess we just lose. There's no way that they're going to do that, especially when Trump is now obsessed with legacy. depends on having the house on his side. If they lose the house, he loses control of the purse strings. That would be a disaster. So we need to be prepared, as I always say, Mark Elias at the Elias Law Group is working

on this stuff. There's lots of other great activists working on this stuff, but we've got to be ready. Because if what CNN is pointing out here plays out in the way that it might, just a massive party ID shift away from Republicans and towards Democrats, this could be one of the the worst midterms in decades for the party that just won the White House. And Trump and Republicans are simply not going to allow that to happen. I want to do my free way to help ask today. There is a concerted campaign to destroy our podcast ranking on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Please just give us a rating. It's literally just five stars on Spotify, five stars on Apple. It helps so much.

We want to push that back up. It makes a massive difference in the discoverability of the show. There is a concerted effort right now meant to downrate one star, a lot of left-leaning shows. So my, this costs nothing. My ask of you today is leave us a five-star rating on Spotify. Leave us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts. We've got a phenomenal bonus show for you today. We'll talk about what's going on in Argentina.

We'll talk about the NBA gambling scandal and so many other things. All of that and more on today's bonus show, sign up at join packman.com.