The David Pakman Show - 9/10/25: WWIII on the brink as Trump trolled at DC restaurant

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

-- On the Show: -- David hosts a Substack Live with Dan Pfeiffer, Pod Save America co-host and former senior Obama advisor -- Poland shoots down Russian drones in NATO airspace while Donald Trump stays silent -- Trump calls the Jeffrey Epstein birthday letter a "dead issue" as allies and Democrats demand more files -- Trump denies the Epstein letter, saying the signature and language are fake despite mounting evidence -- A handwriting expert confirms the Epstein birthday letter signature belongs to Donald Trump -- Karoline Leavitt insists multiple documents are fake as reporters press her with contradictions -- Karoline Leavitt dodges questions about tariffs possibly driving the United States into a depression -- Protesters confront Trump at a Washington DC restaurant, forcing him to demand their removal -- On the Bonus Show: New Mexico is making childcare free, RFK Jr. weighs blaming mass shootings on video games, sugar consumption goes up when it's hot outside, and much more... 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🌳 MyHeritage: Discover your family roots for FREE for 14 days at https://davidpakman.com/myheritage 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/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) Poland shoots Russian drones (06:52) Trump calls Epstein letter "dead issue" (15:25) Trump denies letter authenticity (19:48) Expert confirms Trump’s signature (24:46) David hosts Dan Pfeiffer on Substack Live (58:26) Leavitt claims documents are fake (1:07:07) Leavitt dodges tariff questions (1:11:51) Protesters confront Trump in DC  

Welcome to the show of major foreign policy news with potentially catastrophic implications today. Something light to start the show with, right? For the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, a NATO country has fired in self-defense. What happened is that Poland says 19 drones entered its airspace during a Russian strike on Ukraine. Polish forces shot down those that posed the threat. This is not like a minor border incident the way we've sometimes heard about and read about. Poland's prime minister says this is a large scale provocation. It has triggered Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which demands urgent consultations with all member countries. The Polish prime minister is saying

this is the closest we have been to war since World War II. Now, this is the is not only, you know, our primary concern is we don't want anybody hurt. We don't want anybody killed. By the way, the death toll in this Russian invasion of Ukraine has reached completely unconscionable numbers. I mean, just dwarfing, uh, dwarfing anything going on globally since 2022. And there is after the humanitarian concern, a foreign policy concern, a domestic concern, a NATO concern. This is the kind of crisis that NATO was created to address. The whole point of NATO is collective defense, shared deterrence, strength in numbers.

But right now, the most powerful member of NATO, the United States, is led by Donald Trump. Donald Trump is skeptical of these sort of shared defense treaties. Donald Trump has spent years insulting NATO allies. Donald Trump has questioned why should we even defend anybody? He has sometimes publicly sided with Vladimir Putin and he has talked about who's paying their fair share and who isn't. So you've got European leaders saying we need unity. This is an urgent situation. They're talking about sanctions.

They're talking about readiness. They're talking about putting more pressure on Russia. But from Trump so far, we have heard nothing meaningful. went to a restaurant in D.C. last night, was booed mercilessly, asked about what's going on in Poland and said nothing. And arguably the part that really matters here is respect. And this is not like authoritarian. Have you said thank you? Do you respect? What I mean is, does Putin respect Trump? Do the member nations of NATO respect Trump? Putin is testing. And Putin is testing. And Putin has tested American presidents before.

Under Obama, the test was Crimea. Under Biden, it was the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And now under Trump, it's direct violations of NATO territory. Is Trump going to have the testicular fortitude or even the interest in doing anything here? Because just a couple of weeks after Trump welcomed Putin to the United States in that totally farcical Alaska summit, they show. They shook hands. They smiled for the cameras. Trump was barely able to walk in a straight line on the red carpet, but he still laid out the red carpet.

Just weeks after that. And by the way, weeks after we asked, have you asked Putin for any concessions? Has Putin agreed to any concessions? We didn't really get reasonable answers to any of that. Just weeks after that, Russian drones fly into Polish airspace. Do you believe that that's a coincidence? either knows or strongly suspects that Trump is not going to act decisively. And why would he?

Trump is enamored with Vladimir Putin. Trump is impressed by the sort of authoritarian dictatorial power of Vladimir Putin. He knows Putin does that Trump doesn't really value the NATO promise that if you attack one country, you're really attacking all of the countries. Trump has said it's a bad deal. He said everybody needs to pay up before we defend anybody. So the whole point of the alliance is shared defense and Trump has turned it into a kind of shakedown where it's like, well, maybe send in some more money or do this or do that.

And in fact, under Trump, the peace president, remember he's the guy with the peace president, we have seen Russian drone and missile launches increased dramatically. We have a chart on the screen showing you that. So that is not a sign that Vladimir Putin respect. ex-Donald Trump or fears Donald Trump in any way. We have everybody right now asking the same question. Is Trump actually strong or is the tough talk only an act? Strength is not about photo ops and loud threats. Strength is about showing that when allies are tested, the United States is going to show up. And history tells us that these moments can be turning points. I hope we're

not heading to World War III. You know, there are commentators, analysts, pundits, pundance, as many people incorrectly pronounce it, who have been saying for a decade, we're on the brink of World War III or for two decades. I'm not saying we're on the brink of World War III, but the Polish leader has said this is the closest we have been to war since World War II. Now, when you think about NATO, NATO's credibility only works if adversaries believe it will respond as one. If that belief collapses, deterrence collapses. And so this is a test for Donald Trump, not only in so far as is he going to be there in terms of American responsibilities in this instance, what would it signal to authoritarian and autocrats around the world more

generally about the future if Donald Trump goes, eh, eh, right now Poland is calling for greater NATO support. Europe is moving quickly. Trump so far is standing still. And if he continues to stand still, it's going to be weakness. Now, this doesn't mean Trump launches a war. That's not what we're talking about. Right now, it's not even about that.

Putin doesn't even think Trump gives a damn about this. The question is, is Trump even going to signal, hey, we are part of this shared defense agreement. We are going to uphold our responsibilities there. So the question of whether Putin respects Trump, that question is gone. The answer is no. The remaining question is, does anyone respect Donald Trump? And we may find out very, very soon.

Trump has found a way to make the Epstein scandal even worse. When Trump was asked about this by NBC News yesterday, after the drawing, the letter with Trump's signature to Jeffrey Epstein was published by the Wall Street Journal, Trump was asked about this by NBC News. He says it is a dead issue and he refused to talk about it. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released this alleged birthday letter. that Trump sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. This is a letter that Donald Trump previously denied existed. It appears to have Donald Trump's name written in the pubic

area of a drawing of a woman, a naked woman. Some are saying this is, David, this is a naked girl. The text says that we have certain things in common, Jeffrey, and ends with a pal is a wonderful thing. May every day be another wonderful secret. Now, the White House has said the signature doesn't match Trump's current signature, but we're going to hear from a handwriting expert later in the show. Earlier signatures contemporaneous to this one, including one from a letter released by attorney George Conway, who's been on this show, show that at the time, that is what Donald Trump's signature looked like. Trump's public response after it becomes apparently undeniable that Donald Trump did do the thing he denied doing, Trump's response was to call it a dead issue

and to say he's not going to talk about it. Now, when a letter like this comes out, I am not an expert in PR the last two weeks, I think, proved that. When a letter like this comes out, it seems to me that it's a bad idea to look away and say nothing after you've already denied its existence. You say it doesn't exist. Then it comes out. Now you say nothing. If it were fake, you would expect like this furious detailed denial. Trump now has gone silent. And that really suggests he has no defense here. And so the fallout is growing. You've got some of Donald Trump's own MAGA allies. We've talked about Marjorie Taylor Green before, Nancy Mace.

They are now joining the call for the Epstein files. This is more than a minor crack in this loyalty wall that Donald Trump has built. The wall is sort of collapsing in real time. Trump is desperate for the story to die. His silence now is going to make it louder. And it's, by the way, note to Democrats on this, I saw some of these comments. online, if your primary reaction to the Epstein letter is that it's sexist, that the drawing is crude, lewd, and sexist, you're blowing it.

Like, of course the letter is crude and disgusting. But the political kill shot is not about whether Trump is sexist. We knew about Trump and misogyny a decade ago. And everybody already knows about it. It's not news. Voters didn't care in 2016, they didn't care in 2020. They didn't care in 2024. It is not going to move the needle to go, oh, look at the sexist letter.

The smart play is to focus on what Trump's response tells us that he calls it a dead issue and he's refusing to answer questions. And the denials make it abundantly clear that he's terrified about this. This is the behavior of someone with something to hide. So the sexism does not seem to be the right play here. If this were fake, we would be seeing a different reaction. Trump is hoping silence will make it go away. And Democrats should be hammering on the evasiveness.

Hammering on no innocent person would behave the way Trump has behaved over the last three months when it comes to this issue. The pointing to the sexist angle has already failed Democrats for a decade. And so you've got to approach it from a different perspective. Now, there are a number of other elements to this. One is who from MAGA will stick with Trump versus who will abandon Trump. We're going to deal with that a little bit later in the show. Another aspect to this is, can we just get the handwriting part out of the way?

Because you've still got people all the way up to J.D. Vance, the vice president himself, Caroline Levitt, saying it's simply a fake. It is a fraud. It is not Trump's handwriting. We're going to hear from a handwriting expert who says this is just undeniable. So hopefully that part can be put to. bed. And then we have the question of, is it even possible that Trump will succeed on blocking this vote in the house to release the Epstein files? The latest calculus, the latest sort of whipping

of the votes, colloquially speaking, is that this may be a battle Trump cannot win and the vote is going to happen. And every Republican is going to be on record. Do you want the Epstein files out or don't you? So much of that later today, some of it tomorrow. We will get to what we can't get to today. I will also be joined later by Dan Pfeiffer from Pod Save America. Looking forward to that. A lot of people think identity theft is something that only happens when someone hacks into your account. But the truth is that it usually starts with your personal information being posted online by data brokers where anybody can find it. Our sponsor Incogni is a service that helps protect your privacy by forcing the data brokers to delete your.

information. This includes your name, address phone number, even sensitive things like property records or your political affiliation. And now with their custom removals feature included in the Unlimited plan, you're not limited to just the list of 250 plus brokers they work with by default. If you find any site exposing any of your private information, even one they've never seen before, you can send a link and Incognies team will work to get that removed. This is serious protection for you and your family against identity theft, against fraud, doxing, harassment, and Incogni's data removal process is the only one independently verified by Deloitte. Get 60% off an annual plan when you visit incogni.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman.

The link is in the description. I've been tracking my family tree for a long time now, and the service I've always relied on is My Heritage, which I started using long before they became a sponsor, trusted by over 90 million users. My Heritage makes it easy and fun to build your family tree with a range of powerful genealogy tools at your fingertips. One of my favorite features lets you quickly find new family members and add entire new branches to your tree. It's always a good time to sit down with my family, show them what I found. For example, the other day, I found a scan of an immigration document from when my mother's uncle's aunt arrived at Ellis Island or this document from the

U.S. Canada border for my relative who was born in 1895. This is remarkable stuff and really interesting artifacts that are part of the puzzle of my family's past. My heritage gives you access to over 19 billion records like this, making it easier than ever for you to uncover amazing new pieces of your family's history. You can try My Heritage completely free for 14 days when you go to David Pakman.com slash my heritage. The link is in the description. The David Packman Show is proudly, primarily funded by our audience.

We don't get cable carriage fees like Fox News. We don't get any of that stuff. We've got ad revenue and of course, we have memberships. You can sign up for a membership at join packman.com. If you want the extra audio visual content, you can get a substack premium membership at substack.david packman.com if you prefer additional written content. We also do Q&As on substack where paid subscribers can submit questions, which I will answer or Or be a gold member.

This is much better than Trump's $5 million gold card for foreign rich people to get citizenship. You can become a member on both the website and on substack. We call it gold membership because I'm very uncreative and have come up with no, no better name for it. But if someone has a better name idea for that, please let me know. Join packman.com, substack dot David Pakman.com. Is Donald Trump's worst lie ever the claim he made yesterday. out and about in Washington, D.C., that the Epstein letter that has now been released is neither

his signature, nor his drawing, nor his writing. Let's listen to what Donald Trump said. The only statement he has made, he has since gone mum and told NBC News, it's a dead issue. I'm not going to talk about it. Here is Trump. Listen to the number of different claims he makes about the letter. Thank you. Thank you.

It's not my signature. And it's not the way I speak. And anybody that's covered me for a long time, no, that's not my language. It's nonsense. And frankly, you're wasting your time. All you do is trying to get off the great success of DC and about 200 other things we've done that are so successful. If only the reporters would stop questioning Trump about his obvious brazen defiant lies.

and ask him about, oh, sir, the streets are so clean. The National Guard did such a nice job mulching. Sir, is that weird? How did you choose black mulch? We love it. If it weren't for that, then we would be far better off, says Donald Trump. If it weren't for the reporters asking about the Epstein thing. Now, there's a couple different things to consider here.

And we've got the letter, the drawing. We're going to put it up on the screen. There's sort of like three elements here. There is the text, there is the signature, and there is the silhouette of a woman or girl, depending on your perspective. The signature very clearly seems to be Donald Trump's. We're going to hear from a handwriting expert in a moment. The drawing, I mean, I don't know. Trump is a known dutler generically, so it doesn't seem completely implausible.

And then this sort of, you know, the writing, I don't really know as far as the writing goes. You know, it says Donald or voiceover. There must be more to life than having everything. Donald, yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Epstein, nor will I since I also know what it is. Donald, we have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Yes, we do come to think of it. You know, to me, it is kind of the way it's, it is written in the way that Trump speaks.

Trump uses the phrase, come to think of it. Trump, uh, uh, I, it seems to me that it's plot. that this is Trump's writing. Now, you do have to get to one of these sort of like what is more likely scenarios. Is it more likely that someone created this, making it look retroactively as if it was sent at the time, planted it. And Trump neither signed his name to it, drew it or wrote it or sent it. And it is some big conspiracy with all of the risk that comes with the fact that I spoke to a lawyer yesterday who said that publishing this, like the Wall Street Journal publishing this doesn't seem to have any kind of criminal issue. Trump can sue for defamation,

which he claims that he is doing. But criminally, the Wall Street Journal publishing this isn't an issue. But the person who created this if they did make it up as Trump claims might have criminal liability. Does it make sense that someone would do something for which they would have potential criminal liability or is the most likely explanation the simplest one, which is Trump did do this. And that's all. Trump did do this explains why Trump's signature is on it. It explains the reporting. It explains the release of this document.

It explains the publicity around this document. It explains a lot of things, the simplest, the sort of casual Occam's razor. Or are we going into it was created by someone at significant risk that it would be find out, we found out. We know Trump is litigious. We know Trump would do everything he could legally, criminally civilly if this was completely fabricated and it would require so much advanced planning or did Trump just do it. Now let's focus in specifically on the handwriting aspect of this.

There are three elements, as I mentioned, to the Trump-Epstein letter. to kind of analyze. There's the writing on the letter. There's the drawing on the letter. And there's the signature on the letter. I doubt you need to be convinced that it's Trump's signature. Since we have already seen contemporaneous examples of Trump signature, they're all exactly like this. Just to be thorough, just to be thorough. Let's hear from a handwriting expert on the signature. My professional opinion, the chances of this not being his signature. are too minuscule to talk about. The signature that came up last night purported to be Donald Trump.

I can absolutely say it is Donald Trump. But it's very much the signature that Donald Trump had in the early 2000s as opposed to his signature now because it's changed really quite a lot since he's become president. We can compare it. This was purported to have been written in 2003, I believe, and this is 2000.

So it's only three years apart. So it's relatively recent. If we look at the final stroke there, there's a very gentle going down of the stroke and then a long horizontal stroke. And it's exactly the same formation in this letter of 2000. We've got the very tall pointed upper zone strokes of the L and the D. And if we examined these under a microscope, which I have done, you would see that they were exactly the same. and the idea that it could be forged would be almost impossible. When I'm analysing somebody's handwriting, somebody's signature, the whole text,

it's how they are at that time. It's, if you like, a snapshot of the personality in time. And we do change over time. Sometimes we change in minuscule ways, even during the day. We can feel more tired or more upset about something, and I can see minor changes in the handwriting. However, with Donald Trump, there have been huge changes over the last 20 years. And the reason why it's changed now is he has had to become far more aggressive,

far more adamant, far more absolutely assertive in every single thing that he says and he does, hence the total angularity of his writing. You know, I don't really, I, it's interesting that even Trump's, Signature changes, according to this expert, and I will be the first to tell you that this this handwriting science stuff, there are elements of it that are very objective and hard and fast. The stuff about personality, I think is considered more, you know, a little bit speculative. According to this handwriting expert, the changes to Trump signature over time reflect the changes to his personality that we have observed publicly. So listen, I think we can put to bed the argument that it's not Trump's signature. After my conversation with Dan Pfeiffer, we are going to hear Caroline Levitt's explanation,

which is, no, we've got experts who say it's absolutely not Trump signature. You can evaluate and see who you believe. The handwriting expert or Caroline Levitt will evaluate that for ourselves. But at least as far as the signature, I think we can move on and say it's definitely Trump signature. You then would have to argue, well, Trump's signature, it was almost like copy pasted onto the document. It is true.

That'll be the next step, right? is Trump signature from that period of his life, but he didn't sign or make this document. They just placed his signature on it. They photoshopped it or something like that. So let's take a break. We're going to talk with Dan Pfeiffer and then we will hear from Caroline Levin. Our sponsor, Magic Spoon, has been with us a long time. They do the high protein zero sugar cereals and treats, nostalgically reinventing some of my favorite

childhood snacks. Many of you know, for me, cereal was not breakfast, it was a snack, and that is still the case. And what Magic Spoon has done is taken your favorite sugary cereals from when you were a kid and turn them into something you can feel good about. Magic Spoon is also launching a brand new high protein granola, true to the Magic Spoon Promise, packed with protein, crunchy, 13 grams of protein, zero added sugars, and in delicious flavors like dark chocolate almond, honey almond, and peanut butter. They've got their high protein treats as well, crispy, crunchy, airy, with 12 grams of protein in many flavors. And of course,

if you don't love Magic Spoon as much as I do and our team does, Magic Spoon will refund all of your money, no questions asked. Get $5 off your next order at MagicSpoon.com slash Pacman or look for Magic spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store, the link is in the description. I had a great conversation with Dan Pfeiffer from Pod Save America on my Substack live. Make sure you're subscribed at Substack. David Pakman.com. So you can actually watch these live as they happen. Let's check out that conversation now. I'm here today with Dan Pfeiffer from Pod Save America, a best selling author in

his own rights with numerous campaign credentials in his storied, storied past. It's really good to have you. I'm glad to talk to you today. It's great. I've been a big fan of yours for a large times. I'm excited to do this. Oh, thank you. Likewise. It's mutual. Well, listen, I mean, to start with, you know, recent scandals notwithstanding. I've been more and more concerned and displeased, I think, are the words I would say with what I'm kind of seeing from the Democratic Party over over the last year. And I did a piece recently where I kind of said, you know, I was kind of optimistic after the failure in 24 offices from, you know, mayors all the way up to President Biden, actually. I've been engaging more with independent media, trying to figure out what went

wrong, cautiously optimistic. And like, I'm not super impressed with what's going on. It's still kind of like what I've identified as the same tired risk aversion and sort of lack of understanding for how to work with us. Not that independent media is how Democrats are going to win elections, but my point is, after everything that's happened, I'm feeling like not really that much has kind of changed and Democrats are potentially just pointing in the same direction for 26 and, you know, 28 further away. Let me just open it to you. Like, what are you seeing? Yeah, I think, I think you're right. Like, there was this moment where,

and I think it was an oversimplification of the election. And it's sort of almost a crutch for political parties to be like, the problem was we didn't do enough podcasts, we didn't do enough YouTube shows, we didn't engage with independent media and content creators. Because if you pick that as they may, and I think that's all true. Like I think our media strategy was outdated.

We needed to do more. We got dominated the information space. That's all true. What that, when you pick that as a primary reason, it allows you to align more challenging, questions about like what you actually stand for do you have anything to say when you go on the go on independent media like i think that's one of the problems like i've done i spoke i've been to

meet with the house caucus i've been to meet with the senate caucus i talk too much of politicians and i'm going in i'm doing like presentations on podcasts and presentations on youtube and like how youtube's new the new tv and all of that and like there is they get it theoretically like they hear it some of them are truly shocked like i did a uh i mean one presentation did i pointed out just pretty simply that an individual episode of Podsap America has twice the prime time audience of CNN and literally you would have a pin drop in the room. So they're like trying to get it, but I think the thing that is missing, and some of them are better than others, right, like sort of a younger generation of people who really get it. There's some, you know, people with presidential

ambitions like Newsom who are really aggressively doing some of the strategies is you kind of got to have something to say. You've got to be willing because you can't just take your CNN MSNBC talking points and bring them to a three-hour interview with Flagrin or to talk to you or to talk to us because that's not what the audience is looking for. And so, yeah, I do worry that we are like appending on this new thing, which is like, we're going to do podcasts, we're going to do YouTube, we're going to talk to TikTokers,

but we're adding it to this old playbook we've still had before, which is about more than just like, where you say it's what you say and how you say it. Yeah, there's a degree to which it's sort of like, saying you're going to write a strongly worded letter. Yes. It's not going to work that much better on independent podcasts than it works anywhere. It's sort of, I think, what you're getting at. Yeah.

Are you, I'm interested because you've clearly had more conversations from the point of view of, like, presenting than I have. I've had some conversations with members of the house and their staffs off air, for example, where I try to explain why it doesn't work for a not particularly well-known member of the house to come on my show and go through six topics in 12 minutes and then say, I got to run. And part of it is I don't think my audience really connects with that in an authentic way. It's just sort of like, let me go through my bullet points. But also, I think a big aspect of what Trump and the right did really well in 2024 is it didn't feel as much as though there was a political agenda during some of these appearances, even though it obviously is political.

There's a point here. We're running elections. But like when Trump went on with the Nelk boys, it was an atrocity from the standpoint of like, did he say things that were true and were they good ideas? But it seemed sort of unscripted, which it probably was. It seemed like authentic Trump. He talked about things that weren't political. There was just something about it that connected with voters who are not already in the hyper political space, which I think is also like another aspect of this, which is I can figure out 10 different ways to talk to my audience. but most of the country doesn't listen to

overtly political content and it seems that that's an area that the Democrats haven't yet really crack. Yeah, there's a real, like one of the things that I try to tell Democrats is one, like I said, like you can't do your CNN thing on independent media like that does not work and you can't. And if you sound like a politician, like these are people who are, it's not just people listening or watching us, it's people who are on

somebody's, you know, bar stool, knelt boys, more or further left stuff, cultural, stuff. These people have already opted out of the traditional way of getting their news. So they already bring to bear some sort of skepticism of politics and institutional, sort of the institutions around politics. And so if you just sound like a politician, you're not going to succeed. So I try to tell people sometimes what are you going to do. And this is a thing that Trump, I think, does well. I don't think it's a plan. It just happens is just like, what are the things you care about that are not just politics that you can find

a way to talk about, right? That could be sports. It could be reality TV. It could be movies. It could be books. It could be painting, where you can try to connect with people like on a human level. And this isn't rocket science. Like, because I always say that when I work for President Obama, every year, no matter how busy we were, the thing he was like sacrosanct on the schedule was we were going to do his Marsh Madness bracket on ESPN. Because it was a thing he liked doing. It was authentic to him. He loved basketball. And he was doing it at a time in which everyone around the country was also doing their brackets, whether they're serious sports fans, like doing the office pool or the family pool

and it's like you seem like a human and you've got to find ways to seem like a human and if you're just reading these like poll tested talking points, you're not achieving anything. You're just reminding people why they don't like politics. I'm curious if you have specific thoughts

about the right. I don't know if it's language talking points or messaging that maybe Democrats are going to have to adopt, but to give some examples of what I'm identifying that isn't working well. You know, you think about Kamala Harris's campaign and her ideas for the economy.

When I ask people what were her ideas for the economy, almost no one can say anything. Some people do remember this idea she had about we're going to have, it's either a tax credit or deduction, I don't even remember, against expenses when you start a new business. So it's like sort of convoluted and it only applies to a small portion of the population. So when I have elected officials on, they say, no, well, we have to have a clear economic message and it has to be abundantly clear that we are the ones that are here for the middle class and here's how we're going to do it. But like what exactly does that look like in your mind?

Is it more of a language thing? Is it a policies thing? Like here are the three specific things because the exit polling did show what Bernie Sanders said, which was overall, the feeling wasn't when I think about Harris and Trump. I feel really strongly that Harris has my back as a middle class person. Voters didn't buy that. So what do you think actually needs to be said? I think it's a combination of things.

One, it is, we have to have, like, more emotionally evocative language. Like, this is what Bernie does very well, right? Where it's like, you get it. People know Medicare for all. They probably know he wants to tax the rich. Maybe they know about a billionaire tax. But what they get is he thinks rich people and corporations are screwing you over, and he's going to do something about it.

And so just like being that clear, AOC did that very well in the fight for oligarchy tour they did together. So that's one. Two, when we have policies, I think we have to have our policy, like this is going to drive my governing friends, my policy friends from the White House and campaigns insane. We need less serious policies. We need policies that are simpler, easy to understand. Like, this is the beauty of Zora Mandani's campaign is free buses and city-run grocery stores do a couple of things.

They're not going to solve all, obviously not going to solve all the affordability problems, but they're easy to understand. they send a message to people that he's doing something that they get. And they're controversial enough that they piss off people so that then there's a conversation about it. Like if you just, I know all the people who wrote Kamala Harris's housing tax credits and her business tax credits and all of that. And they're as smart as can be. And they're the people you want in her White House when it comes time to say at the economy.

But it can't be a white paper. It's got to be an idea that people get. Obama had this idea that he did in the State of the Union in 2012. It was called the Buffett Rule, which was simply that. that no one could pay a tax that Warren Buffett's secretary was paying a lower tax rate than he did. And we can't allow that to happen. And that people, she sat in the box from the union. Like that obviously doesn't solve our massively convoluted broken tax system, but it's something people got.

And so we need some ideas that are simple. They get them, they may not like pass all of the like the nerdy checks and from the like the policy walks. But they send a message. I mean, that's what the wallet, build the wall is. It's an absurd policy, but it sent a very clear message to people what Trump's priorities were, and we need some policies like that. You know, as you talk about that, I'm reminded of I'm from Argentina originally. It's been a long time since Argentina had what I would call a good president.

And one of the guys that wasn't good was this guy, Makati, who's friends with Trump, actually. And he had this very visible idea, which was he built a rapid transit bus in like a very important, highly trafficked part of Buenos Aires. And so all of these disasters were going on corruption and terrible economic policy. But there was this like emotionally salient thing about like on 9th of July Avenue, though the widest street in the world, they've got different colored lanes and these brand new buses and they're zooming back and forth. And a lot of his defenders who couldn't really defend a lot of the stuff that he did, they would go look at this bus. It's just phenomenal. It's fantastic.

You can see it right there. And it seems that the emotional salience of some of the This stuff seems highly relevant. Yeah. I think we're just going to be more, we have to grab people's attention and you need policies that do that. You worked for Al Gore. You mentioned working for Barack Obama. You've seen a lot of different campaigns.

I would love to hear from you about, from the outside, there was this perception I had and some others had that, like, the first couple of weeks of Kamala Harris's campaign had a certain vibe or feel. Yeah. And then after the two weeks, something happened. And it got less good, less dynamic, less exciting, et cetera. What happens within a campaign? Like when these shifts happen, is it that someone is brought in and they go, we got to do everything

completely differently? Is it that there's a push pull for the candidate's support or the candidate's confidence? And then the candidate goes, we're going to go more this way than that way. Like what causes these kind of shifts in campaigns? So I'm also looking this from the outside. I don't want to friends who work They don't have like all the inside detail Give me the dirt

But I'd say a couple things One, every campaign is a reflection on the candidate. So if a candidate is risk-averse, the campaign is risk-adverse. Like you just can't, if someone is in a candidate politician And most politicians, particularly democratic politicians are risk-adverse. They know that no matter how brilliant the campaign team is

and matter how great the messaging is, you can't change that factor of it. That was, you know, and you saw some of that in her 2019 primary race. That's one. Two, I think when they first started, they really benefited from they were playing with House money. Like one day she's vice president.

Next day, she's in this race. Like, who knows what else can happen? I remember she went to headquarters right after Biden dropped out. And she basically got the nomination. And she went there and she gave this great speech. So it seems like off the cuff. Yeah. There was no, maybe she had some written notes.

But it was not like put together by a team of 100 people. She just kind of like did her thing. And it was quite good. And then I think as you get more people and you get and you're just, and you are naturally risk adverse, and my friends who worked for John Kerry says, say the similar is that you can always find someone who will validate your risk aversion to avoid doing something. And so I think that sort of defaulted to the way she was. I think, I mean, she was hampered in the sense that she took on this campaign.

She kept most of the leadership of the old campaign. Then she added in her new people. And that's not probably a particularly efficient way to make decisions quickly, and that probably hampered them. But, you know, you kind of saw it in her media choices, right? She was very just risk-adverse in how much media she did. I mean, she did some, like, Call Her Daddy was a, you know, a bold choice, I think. Even if it did read more like a, or seen more like a political interview than a Caller Daddy episode.

But I think it just, it was, and they didn't, and I think the other thing I think is fair is she could never, really articulate, like, why she was doing this. Which, did I say, in her defense, she didn't choose to do it, right? It wasn't like, you normally have a year of the primary campaign and you're out there and you're talking, people, are doing a million-town halls, million interviews, and you can, like, hone your rationale. She just had to do it from a standing start. But, like, that, like, why me, why I'm doing this, why I'm the unique person, like,

is critical to everything you do. It's the framework for why you make every decision, and that seemed a little bit like on vacuum. Even if she did, I will say in her defense, deliver in big moments, like the convention speech in the debate. Did, for my context to know how to kind of frame this, did you read either or both of Jake Tapper's book and Jonathan Allen's book? I read Jake Tapper's book. I've not read Jonathan Allen's book. Okay. There's some overlap in the two books about the degree to which there was a lot going

on behind the scenes in the Democratic Party in terms of people. who didn't seem that thrilled with the idea of Kamala Harris kind of being the default. You know, the books are sort of mixed in my mind now because I read them very close together. But the narrative about former President Obama resisting and resisting an endorsement and sort of working behind the scenes maybe for a mini primary. And then this dramatic scene of Chuck Schumer going to Biden's Delaware home and basically saying like, you got to do it. And he was crying on the way home.

you know, all this, these sort of factions, is your sense either from your experience working in the Democratic Party or from people you've spoken to or whatever, right? You can tell us what it's based on. Is your sense that that is typical in every election or that there was something about these particular circumstances with Biden saying, I'm stepping back and Harris looking for the delegates and getting them that generated that within the party? I think it's unique. Like, I would say it's primarily unique to this. election. This is obviously, we throw around the term unprecedented a lot these days, but I think this is legitimately unprecedented. You have the incumbent president of United States to drop out

107 days or whatever it is before the election. And I think there was, you know, people in that month period between the debate and when Biden actually dropped out or three weeks, whatever it was, there were, I was part of a gazillion conversations, not with anyone who was making any decisions, just really like idle shatter among Democratic operatives and staffers and politicians about, like, should he do it? Should Biden drop out? If he does drop out, can Kamala Harris pull it off? Is she the right person? And the, I mean, those conversations didn't amount to anything because what ultimately happened is no one else ran. The question on like the mini primary and all of that is I think there was this sense among some people in the party. And I had some of these conversations that

was you didn't, if other people wanted to run, right? But that could be Gavin Newsome. It could be Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Westmore, whoever else, who decided they want to throw their hat in the ring, the Democratic Party needed a process. So it didn't look like, you know, it didn't look like you're just handing it to one person over the other because that would be probably politically unwise and lead to a divided party.

But then ultimately, no one decided, much like the primary against Biden that never materialized, no one wanted to run against Harris, probably because they recognized what most people did, which is she was probably going to win any, any sort of, whatever that process was, she would win. So I think this one is, unique. The closest analogous thing, I think, is when Obama and Clinton, at least from my experience, were in this primary that would not end in 2008. And it was pretty clear that Obama was going to win. And then there were some real discussions behind the scenes from a lot of party players about how do we land this thing in a way that allows the party to reunite when the primary is over, right? How can you, because it was, you know, you have a black candidate, you have someone wanting to be the first female president. How do you, how do you,

you know, how does this process play out in the right way? And that's the kind of things were like the equivalents of the time were Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to Schumer and the others involved this time. And they got involved in a way, but they couldn't, you know, we don't, but they weren't like, it was all sort of trying to just land the plane. I think that's what was happening here. I think that people were, they just had no idea what you expect. I think Kamala Harris knocked out of the park, as you mentioned, those first two weeks.

And then people were like, this is what we're doing, we're on board. And there was this really added benefit that was very important, which was she could accept the Biden money that was raised in the Biden campaign machinery. Anyone else would have had to start from zero, which would have been a very hard thing to do in a short period of time. I want to talk a little bit about, I guess, 2028. It sounds so weird because it's 2025, but there are sort of some interesting and unique things that are going on right now.

I've been starting to get emails from people. So let me back up. I've been talking about who's visibly fighting right now. Obviously, Gavin Newsom's spiting right now, Whether it's a fight that will make a difference in 26, different people have different opinions. What's the math? What's the numbers? But in terms of, like, visibly fighting right now, Newsom's definitely there. Wes Moore's name has become increasingly interesting.

I find him formidable. I saw him speak in a relatively small event a few months ago and was super impressed. He just said yesterday, I'm not running in 2028. There's a pretty interesting bench. Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer are interesting. There's people in the Senate. There's people in the House. I mean, there's a lot of kind of names right now, but I'm starting to get emails from people

who are saying the DNC has already decided it's Newsome, Moore's getting out of the way, he's clearing a path, it's just up to the DNC. Take the scenario however you want, but to what degree does the DNC decide and particularly like this early? The DNC decides nothing. I'll be very clear. There is no greater dissonance in American political discourse than the power of people think the DNC has and the power it actually has.

They, okay. So what DNC does have one important role to play here, which is, for the first time, we don't know what the calendar is going to be, right? We've been on this Iowa, New Hampshire, you know, South Carolina thing for, you know, a couple of decades now. That got tossed up in the air after the Iowa caucus meltdown of 2000 and so 2020. And then Biden, with the DNC under Biden, moving south. Carolina to the front of the line. That was a one-time thing. So now it's an open question

of someone's going to happen. That is the place where the DNC could theoretically put their thumb on the scale, but they won't. It's a, the people who make that decision is the Rules and Bylaws Committee, they don't have, or maybe it's been, maybe there's a subcommittee on nominee, but either way, there's not, no one, we're not a situation when this is like Hillary Clinton running or the sitting vice president running where they control the DNC. It's really, like, no, the DNC has no real influences. They're definitely. definitely not throwing it to Gavin Newsom. There are, you know, maybe if you could, they came out and said the first primary was

the San Francisco and the second primaries in Sacramento and the third primary was in L.A., you could say that, but in general, they're going to try to come up with the thing that will be the best for 2028, both the primary and then helping in the general by having, if we've been in this thing where we spend all these money in these states like Iowa were that and we organize the state to within an inch of its life and then we leave and never come back again for four years. And so that's why you may get like a Michigan or something, you know, the front of the line this time. But the DNC really has no power to rig it for anyone.

And I promise you, I promise anyone they're not trying to. If they were trying to, they could not. And so, yeah, and there's no, there are no power brokers who pick the nominees are, especially now that people raise grassroots money so well through the internet. So you can't even get a collective donors who could raise enough money to really like tip it for one person or else. It's like the people will really get to decide here. So she doesn't we change to super delegate rules too. So that's the one thing I'm not worried about is some, like the Democratic, I mean, you're watching the Democratic Party.

It looks like they can bring something right now. So in that context, then, is your inkling that as early as it is, something really is happening with Newsom here? Or, like, what do you make of the news something? Because his approval in California is up, his name recognition is up, his approval nationally is up. He's doing this. By the way, I'm participating in this fundraiser for the redistricting thing on Wednesday, which I think it's the only thing going on that I can really get behind the No Kings protests and that. So I'm doing what I can. What do you think about this as a play for 28?

I would stipulate that I'm not just being a fundraiser, but I think my podcast co-hosts are and we've been involved in it and I talk to them. I think that Newsom has done a very good job as being one of the only Democrats who's found a way to actually get attention in this moment. And it was happening before the redistricting thing. It's happening after the redistricting thing. I think the rise. And he also is speaking in a language that the base agrees with. And the base, I don't mean the left. I don't mean the center.

I mean the people who are deeply engaged in politics who think Donald Trump is bringing our country to an end. and a bunch of Democrats are sort of sort of fiddling Mount Rome Burns. And he is actually, he's saying Trump may not let, there might not be election 28. He's just as he is, I think, reflecting how the base feels. And I saw someone make this point. I can remember who, which is when people want a Democrat who's fighting, the only Democrat they're seeing fighting is Newsom because he's the only one who's breaking through. Whether that will last him until the first, you know, even the election kicks off in

early 2027, I'm kind of skeptical, but he, I think he, what he has shown, I don't think this boost will like carry him above anyone else, but it has opened doors for him. And it does show some inherent political media talent that people are going to be looking for in a candidate. There is, you know, one of the things I hear from the people in my audience who don't like Newsom is this guy's just, he's a centrist. He's center left or he's center, you know, whatever. Let me zoom out a little bit from that. There's been a very spirited debate within my audience over the last week or so about, you know, in the past, my view always was, like, I'm not a socialist. I'm a social Democrat. That's a form of capitalism. It's sort of like Denmark. Okay, everybody gets that.

I've thought, for the most part, the socialists and I are kind of on the same page right now because our next stop is the same one. They want the bus to keep going. I want the bunch to get to my stop and sort of that's it. And so we're definitely working together here. But there's a growing section of my audience that is now kind of like, you know, some of these actual socialists from them staying home rather than voting Harris over Trump, from them kind of being indifferent to the impact of the Supreme Court when it was Hillary v. Trump, are we really part of the same movement? Do we really want the same things? I don't know. I think I'm kind of making clear the question as to how fragmented or united are these different parts of the left?

What's your kind of view? I think we, I think that the Democratic Party is quite divided. We're divided on every lane. We're divided ideologically. We are divided on issues. We're divided on which politicians are good. We're still, we're like, it happens in our audience. It happens online.

We're still divided over Joe Biden's decision to drop out, right? Oh, is that right? There are people who think you should have stayed in. Yeah, I mean, you saw that when Hunter Biden, did his interview with Channel 5, and he came very aggressively after me and my host. Like, that was a thing that somehow, because Biden made, Hunter made the point that,

which I'm very sympathetic to feeling this way about your own father, that if he had stayed in the race, you would have won. And so you, there is his people, Jimmy Harrison, the former DNC chair, carries this point a lot, that the reason we lost is because Democrats melted down instead of sticking with Biden. Like, that's a conversation that goes, kind of like we debated the 2016 primary for a decade,

you know, sometimes still do, I guess. I, you know, we, I joke that we are, we're divided over, as for Klein's latest book, right? Like, we're fighting over abundance versus populism and all that. I think, I sort of, I tried to simplify this in, like, in my own head, that the real division is not left, right, it's not on any individual. Those are all real division on the issue, but the central divide is whether you think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, to our freedoms, to our rights, to the countries

who know it, or whether you think, he is really, really bad, but largely survivable. Like, that's how I think between Newsom and Whitmer. That's always sort of thinking about the people who sat out because, or will plan to continue to sit out because they didn't get their policy purposes. That could be center, that could be left or whatever it is. And that's sort of the main divide. Because it helps you sort of understand why Newsom takes this giant step to do the redistricting,

which is putting a fair amount of skin in the game. And Schumer votes to fund the government in April or March, whenever that was. why Newsom's doing what he's doing. J.B. Pritzker is talking the way he's talking, where he's talking, and why Greshia Whitmer is meeting with Trump to deliver for the state of Michigan, right? It's just, it's like two understandings of the world that explain, I think, the court, I think that's the division that's preventing us as a party organization from mounting a unified vociferous response to Trump. A couple quick things in the last few minutes we have, one on Pritzker, one on Newsom, two people you just mentioned.

Did you see the interview where Pritzker was asked whether he's on Ozzympic? I, you know, I saw that the right about, but I didn't see the actual interview. What did he say? Well, he just said, you know, he was very direct. He goes, you know, I don't think I'm going to answer that. And then he goes, because there are people who are taking the drugs and blah, blah, blah, but. I was very, I wanted to ask you about your take on it as a political answer because it seemed, I loved the directness where he goes, I'm not going to answer that. his explanation didn't really make sense

like the fact that some people are on it and some people aren't means he's not going to tell us it was kind of like oh I guess he tries not to shame anybody one way or the other but like I was going to ask you whether it made sense from the standpoint of he was clearly prepared for the question did the preparation make sense yeah that is a

classic ums prep of a politician is we've decided we're not to answer the question so we're going to give you the best answer not answer possible which is almost always unsatisfactory right it's like i do i care if he's on his epic no does anyone should anyone care probably not will people be annoying about it because he didn't answer the question probably right okay fair

on newsome yeah if newsom if he loses if if if california decides not to do the redistricting in the vote which is sort of like newsome loses it right how damaging is that to his potential 28 run. Like, does the outcome of this November on that matter for his chances in 28? I think it, if it would not end, if it were to, if his measure were to fail, it would not end his campaign. It would mean, he could bounce back from that. It would be a blow. Because it would say something about his political operation. It would say it would be, he would admit it would be opportunity cost because if he actually passed it, he would get a boost. I don't think, he'd say, he'd say, at risk by doing it, I don't think, I really don't think it would, like, ruin his campaign.

I think he would actually appreciate him actually trying when others did not. But it would be, I think it'd be, I think it's hard to argue it wouldn't be a blow of some kind. Last thing I want to ask you, as we get closer to this primary, do you on a personal level, do you think it's good slash do you want independent shows like Pod Save and my show and Brian Tyler Cohen and everybody? Should we be coming out early in the primary and put pushing one candidate over another. Like, do you want to hear, do you think it would be good for people to go, okay, the Pod Save guys are behind this candidate and then David Packman's behind that candidate? Or do you think that the movement is not well served by everybody coming out early and endorsing primary candidate?

I think everyone should do what they want to do. And because what makes independent media and content creation work for people is the authenticity. So if, like, you or Brian were decide you like this candidate or this candidate, like, I would probably encourage you to just go for it. I, we have not had any real detailed discussions about how we're going to handle 2028. In 2020, we interviewed every single candidate, except Joe Biden, who didn't come on our podcast. And we wanted to be a forum where they could come on.

We were doing special one hour episodes, you know, around one hour episodes. So we did have, like, an extended conversation to introduce our audience to people. it was very beneficial for people who to judge did it very early in the process when no one knew who he was. He did great. It was one of those things. It was like in that moment where Pete was sort of taking off. And our audience was like, who was this guy? And so I think I'm assuming we'll probably do something like that again that we never got to a point in 2020 where you can see maybe as it narrows down and you get to the end. And there's like two people and you have a strong feeling about one or the other you could possibly get involved. For us, there were four of us. So it may be

weird if like two of us were like, we're for Newsom, the other two were like, we're for Pritzker, but we haven't thought about it a lot. But I think if people think, uh, somebody, you know, someone is good and they want to do it, you know, I, I'm kind of encourage him to do it because I think it's probably, you know, it's what you're, you know, it's chat and maybe challenging for your audience. We saw that in 2020 for us because there were people who, even if we didn't have our thumb on the scale, when we like criticized a candidate or we're not happy with their debate performance, the supporters of candidate X were very always upset with us

and, like, there was fair to be on the extension. But, you know, if you think someone really is the best chance to win and the best president, like, probably go for it. I want to hear from our audiences, too. Like, are you interested in these shows all staking out who they're

kind of supporting? It's an interesting question. Yeah, I think so... We've been speaking with Dan Pfeiffer. Dan, so good to talk to you. I really appreciate your time and I'd love to do this again. Yeah, this was so much fun. Great. Great to finally connect. All right. Take care. You too. Bye. Bye. Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation

as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're reframing it. So it all sounds a little more palatable. And that is why I use ground news. This is. is a news comparison tool, doesn't just feed you headlines. It shows you here's how different outlets left, right center, are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias, catch stories that your usual sources might downplay or not cover at all on everything from immigration policy to economic

shifts. If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, ground news is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And Ground News is offering my audience 40% off their top tier vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to ground. News slash Pacman or enter the code Pacman in the app to get started. The link is in the description. After a very long absence from press briefings, Caroline Levitt is back, the White House Press Secretary, and she is just getting smothered with questions about. about the Epstein letter and Trump and the economy and foreign policy, she took an unexplained absence from press briefings during a time where things were not exactly going particularly

well for this administration. And she was just peppered with questions. Here is a reporter saying, wait a second, you're arguing Trump didn't sign the letter. He didn't do anything. What's the theory as to where it came from? And this is a great question. It's a natural question. Are you saying someone just fabricated it?

What exactly is the argument? Caroline Levitt, if you're looking for common sense and depth and coherence, doesn't exactly provide it. If he didn't sign these, if you said he didn't sign the birthday card, he didn't do this, he also didn't do the check. Those were in documents from the estate. So what is the working theory as to why he's in the- The president has one of the most famous signatures in the world and he has for many, many years.

You know that Maggie, you've covered him for a long time, long before he assumed this office when he was a businessman in New York. The president did not write that letter. He did not sign those documents. He maintains that position and that position will be argued in court by his lawyers. The president is very confident he's going to win this case. You can maintain the position, but that doesn't make it true. And you really need to understand the context of that letter to realize how unlikely Caroline

Levitt's version of the story is. Because if it's a forgery, they're not denying that the Epstein birthday book. in total is a forgery, right? That birthday book contains letters, drawings, and notes and cards from a whole bunch of people to Jeffrey Epstein. This letter from Trump was in the book. The book was provided by the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. So the theory would require that somehow, while the book is real, only Trump's letter was

forged and inserted and then released at great risk. civil risk and potentially even criminal risk depending on what we were to find out about the hypothetical forgery. It just doesn't make any sense. And Caroline Levitt, I assume, must realize it. She was then asked more about the signature. And it was pointed out like the signature's being analyzed and it's Trump's signature. She doesn't like that about the Epstein case.

Would the White House support a professional handwriting expert review of the document released yesterday to prove that it's not the president's signature? Sure. We would support that. And in fact, I have already seen many forensic analysts of signatures coming out. I believe it was the Daily Signal that published a piece with three separate signature analyst. Understand that the Daily Signal signal is tied to the Heritage Foundation, the originator of Project 2025. As you said that this absolutely was not the president's authentic signature. And we have maintained that position all along. The president did not write this letter. He did not sign this

letter. And that's why the president's external legal team is aggressively pursuing litigation against the Wall Street Journal. And they will continue to. About the Epstein case. So I guess she says there is some handwriting expert that she can bring in. But of course, independent handwriting experts have already verified all of it. Next, she is asked about this oversized check that was given like the purchase for a depreciated woman. I mean, just vile stuff. And Caroline Lever. It says that's also faith. Follow up on a new question.

Thanks, Caroline. One of the other documents released by the House Oversight Committee contained a photo of Jeffrey Epstein holding an oversized check that was made out to him in the check from the president for $22,000 for a fully depreciated woman. I wondered if the president has any recollection of that or what do you guys make of that photo that was included in those documents. Did you see the signature on that check? It is not Donald Trump's signature.

It is absolutely not the president did not sign that check. It's just not Trump. It is all made up. Every single bit of it is made up. Then Leavitt goes on the attack. And we knew that she would do this. Leavitt goes, oh, Democrats only care about this because they need to attack Trump with a new hoax.

It's all made up by Democrats. And of course, remember that the birthday book was released by Epstein's assistant. state? Are you saying Democrats interfered with the birthday book and inserted pages into it? None of it makes sense. It's sort of one of these. He didn't say it. If he did, he didn't mean it. If he meant it, you didn't understand it. And if you understood it, you didn't understand that it was a joke. Epstein files are back in the news because a lot of Americans feel that those, that Jeffrey Epstein's victims never got justice. Is the president care about these victims? Do you think he can deliver, does he want to deliver more justice for them? Is he willing to meet with them?

The president cares about victims of all crimes, and that's why Republicans in the Trump Department of Justice have done more in terms of transparency when it comes to the Epstein case than any prior administration. And why are the Democrats all of a sudden caring about this? It's because they are desperately trying to concoct a hoax to smear the President of the United States. We have seen this time and time again. Rokana and all of these other Democrats, they could have cared about those victims four years ago. When Joe Biden was in office, they could have pushed for transparency then. Unfortunately, the Democrats are using victims as political pawns to try to smear and to push a hoax against the President of the United States. And I will get you numbers on the amount of child predators that this administration and this FBI and this Department of Justice have locked up under President Trump's leadership.

We have done more than any president to protect victims of crime, especially disgusting, heinous sexual crimes. And that includes the deportation of illegal aliens who are perpetrating these crimes against innocent victims in our country right now today. So Caroline, desperate to talk about other things and says it's. all been made up and crafted by Democrats. Does anybody believe that? Polling says people don't believe that. Even half of Republicans believe that there's a cover up here. Now just one other note on the stuff that Trump has said or and then something Maga Mike Johnson

has said. Caroline Levitt was asked about Trump's comment, which we played yesterday. When Trump goes, you know, it's so safe in DC that now if a man and woman have a little fight at home, they're saying it's a crime. It was seen as totally dismissive of domestic violence. And Caroline Levitt attempting to clean that up as well. Yesterday, the president spoke about D.C. crime and talked about how there was virtually none.

And then he expressed frustration about things that take place in the home, they call crime. He said, you know, they'll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say, this is crime. See, now I can't claim 100%. exactly what crimes was the president referring to he wasn't referring to crimes that's exactly the point he was making wija what the president is saying and that is that these crimes will be made up and reported as a crime to undermine the great work that the federal task force is doing to reduce crime in washington dc now i have to hand it to her this is her best defense uh uh a spin

attempt of all of this stuff where she goes no no no no that's his whole point Things that aren't crimes, Democrats will seize on them and say, look, here's a crime because the real crimes have been diminished to zero. It's total horseshit, but it is her best, it's her best planned attempt at spinning. And then finally, finally, before we move on to the economy, after Maga Mike Johnson said Trump is an FBI informant on Epstein, Levitt goes, actually he's not. You know, Mike Johnson, he came out and said that the president was an FBI informant. Do you know what he meant by that if it's not true?

I can affirm that is not true. I think the speaker was referring to the fact that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Marlago property for reasons the president has already discussed. All right. So Caroline Levitt resurfaces for a disastrous press briefing. Let's now focus in on the discussion with her about the economy. As the cracks in the economy become impossible to miss, a downward revision of nearly a million jobs over the last year, job hiring numbers declining, manufacturing index lowest in five years,

the prices of groceries that were going to come down, not happening, travel and tourism down dramatically, as all of this is happening, in some circles, you're starting to hear talk of a depression. And a reporter brought this up yesterday to Caroline Levitt during the press briefing and said all of this stuff Trump is doing. Is there any concern that he is pushing us towards a depression? Here's how she answered. Thanks, Caroline. Following up on Ed, now that we have these revised jobs numbers, is the president concerned at all that price spikes, you know, stemming from his tariffs through the end of the year might actually be driving the country towards a depression or a recession. What I'm asking is, is he committed to these policies now that we

know how faulty the jobs data was? The president is committed to his policies because his policies are working, Christian. And there have been a lot of people fearmongering about inflation in this room, but it just has not come to fruition. On a monthly basis, CPI inflation has now come in at or below the market's expectation for six consecutive months every month that President Trump has been in office. Overall, inflation has run at a 1.9% average pace in the president's first six months in office. I would have told all of you that in January, you would not have believe me, but those are the facts and those are the numbers. And we also see many other positive signs. And by the way, I apologize that the audio and video are out of sync here.

I realize, I realize that. It's just the clip. In economic indicators, like real GDP. In the second quarter, it was revised up to 3.3%. That beat the market's expectation. We know there's a capital spending boom right now, which we know is one of the greatest economic indicators of job growth. We know wages are increasing at a far faster pace than they were under the previous administration. We see productivity in the second quarter was also revised up to a strong 3.3%. So listen, she is rattling off numbers about productivity and other things. One of the things we we learned during the Biden presidency was even if the economic indicators are good. If people don't feel that the economy is good, if polling shows that Americans overall believe the economy

is going in the wrong direction, you're going to have a political problem. And one of the things that Caroline Levitt and the Trump administration are doing now, which is arguably the same mistake that the Biden people made, is believing that if you just insist that everything's awesome, people will believe that it is awesome. Now, there are people who will believe it when Trump, says it, but not when Biden used to say it. Fine. I'm not talking about that. If you look at the fact that there are now more people looking for jobs than jobs available, that is a clear change from the way it used to be. That has to have an impact on people that they will notice. And so Caroline Levitt can kind of deflect. I can assure you that when somebody can't afford an unexpected

$400 expense, they're not going to go, well, listen, it's fine because Caroline Levitt told me productivity is up at the national level. It doesn't work that way. And this is bipartisan. This was a problem for Biden and it's becoming a problem for Donald Trump. Now, the other issue that they're having is they're going back and forth on when can you even trust the numbers? We talked about was it Bessent or Kevin Hassett saying, you know, the downward revisions are really just not believable. But the August numbers aren't that bad and you'll see when those are revised upwards. Wait, so we can trust upward revisions, but not downward revisions.

that doesn't make any sense. Caroline Leavitt was asked a relevant question. When will we be able to, when are we going to see the jobs numbers increase? And she goes, listen, we need truthful data here. The president has said a year. Secretary Besson said maybe the fourth quarter, when can we expect these numbers to increase? Well, first, we need accurate numbers. We need truthful and honest data, which is why the president took the monumental step to try and appoint and confirm new leadership at the BLS. So we can have data that we can actually rely on. And that's, What's what the president has been is doing and we hope that his nominee will soon be confirmed. Let me translate that for you.

We are still struggling to find someone who can cook the books enough so that the job's picture looks good, but isn't going to cook the books in such an obvious way that no one's going to believe it. They're worried about the direction of the economy and you can tell from these answers. Donald Trump went to a DC restaurant last night and was brutally booed. and heckled. The genesis of all of this was that the other day, a reporter said to Trump, you know, you talk about everybody's going to these restaurants in D.C. and it's all awesome and the vibe is great. You've never gone out to a restaurant in D.C. for dinner since you've been

president. And Trump goes, how do you know that? And of course, the answer is, well, we know that because the whereabouts and movements of the president are a matter of public record. So Donald Trump comes in and he decides, I'm going to go to a D.C. restaurant. Here he. is entering joe's yesterday this really didn't go well let's uh let's go through it in sequence Oh, okay. Have a good time, everybody. Right. All right.

Thank you. Yeah, I gave it. Thanks. Good stuff. I like it. Where's your family? They're back in Atlanta. Oh, okay.

Say hello. All right. Have a good time. All right. All right. As someone who is familiar with Joe's Stone Crab, Joe's Stone Crab was not struggling before this. In fact, I actually, I think it's the Miami one. I think I wouldn't be right if I say this about the DC one, but I think the Miami Joe Stonecrab is like the most profitable restaurant in the country or something like that.

It's just like completely crazy. Joe Stonecrab in D.C. is doing fine. Joe Stonecrab and D.C. is doing fine. Trump's showing up there and going now that it's safe, we can all go to Joe Stonecrab. It's very stupid. If you know anything about like the whole space, there's some interesting. Actually, there's an interesting Harvard business review case about Joe's. I'm getting off track. But Joe's being busy is not exactly a testament to the safety or lack there of of anything. But it got a little difficult for Trump where hecklers, who apparently were not cleared out by Secret

Service, hecklers started yelling that Trump is the Hitler of our time. Trump is a Hitler on our time. Let's go. And then as you see that, maybe you can see it better in this other clip, Trump starts Trump starts signaling with his hand for Secret Service to clear these people out. Trump is a hit. We're all right. All right.

So Trump doesn't like it. Trump wants them out. And protesters just chanting it relentlessly and brutally. Enjoy your dinner. Thank you. All right. All right. Free D.C.

Free Palestine. Trump is the Hitler of our gun. All right. And then unfurling Palestinian flags. All right. And then unfurling Palestinian flags, which I'm sure made a really big impression on Donald's impression on Donald Trump. Now, the sort of ironic thing about this entire stunt is that Laura Ingraham went on TV last night and went, it's so safe now that the president

can go to a restaurant. But see if you realize the absurdity of what she said. Fox News alert. Donald Trump is out on the town dinner with members of his cabinet in D.C. showing it's safe to walk around the city after deploying the National Guard. Crime, as we know, has plummeted in the city. But President Trump talked to reporters just a few moments ago. Yeah, you know, the irony, I get that it's the president, okay? D.C. is so safe that Trump was able to go for five minutes to a restaurant with a full advanced team prepping the, the, the, the, the, the, the, prepping the location, full series,

multiple concentric circles of secret service protection and then D.C. police. The entire two by two block radius around the place cordoned off and a dozen black SUVs blocking streets and sidewalks. It's so safe that Donald Trump is able to go under those circumstances. Now, I understand I'm kind of tongue in cheek, right? Because of course, presidents have security. The thing is that it doesn't really prove anything about the safety of D.C. one way or the other that in this way, Donald Trump is able to go. The reason Trump never went to D.C. restaurants before is because it doesn't want to.

And because as a general thing, I think Secret Service sees it as a security risk to put him in those environments. But the idea that this proves the safety of it, pathetic and laughable, but Trump getting a very rude awakening there and saying, get the protesters out of here. We've got a great bonus show for you today. RFK Jr. has a new idea for what causes mass shootings. Video games. We're back at it.

We will also talk about soda marketing and sugars effect on the brain. and we're also going to talk about the first state that is going to make child care free. The state is New Mexico. All of those stories and more on the bonus show, sign up at joinpacman.com. Get my substack at substack. David Packman.com. See you then. Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier Podcast.

I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier. The goal is to help you do your life better. The series is called Reset. It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life. Each week will tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career. We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice. It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality. 10% have here is self-help for smart people.

Come join the party.