The David Pakman Show - A truly bad day for people who care about reality

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

-- On the Show -- Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut, joins us to discuss Donald Trump’s military actions against Iran, who should be held accountable, and what steps Congress can take to limit presidential war powers -- Donald Trump demands the Texas Republican Senate primary effectively stop and says the candidate he does not endorse should immediately drop out -- Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove asks Kristi Noem during a congressional hearing whether she has had a sexual relationship with Corey Lewandowski -- Karoline Leavitt defends Donald Trump’s Iran policy with vague explanations and clashes with Kaitlan Collins while refusing to clearly state the administration’s goals -- Karoline Leavitt refuses to explain the cause of the cream used on Donald Trump’s neck as reporters press the White House about the unexplained rash -- Donald Trump delivers a series of confused and slurred remarks while repeating unsupported claims about Iran being two weeks from a nuclear weapon -- Photos of Donald Trump’s ear appear to show a diagonal earlobe crease sometimes associated with cardiovascular disease -- On the Bonus Show: The Senate turns down legislation to stop Trump's war with Iran, RFK Jr. pushes medical schools to teach more about nutrition, Dan Crenshaw's loss in Texas is largely due to a feud with a billionaire, and much more... 🛌 Helix Sleep mattresses: Get 27% OFF sitewide at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🥐 Wildgrain: Use code DAVID for $30 off & free croissants FOR LIFE at https://wildgrain.com/david -- 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(01:09) Trump tries to stop Texas primary(07:54) Noem questioned about Lewandowski(19:29) Leavitt defends Trump Iran policy(27:57) Leavitt dodges question on rash(33:16) Chris Murphy interview(44:22) Trump delivers confused Iran remarks(50:47) Ear crease may indicate health risk   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A truly bizarre moment during congressional testimony where a Democratic lawmaker asked Christy Gnome a question, I don't think anybody expected, which is, are you sleeping with Corey Lewandowski? And the camera caught Christy Noem's husband sitting right behind her looking furious. We're going to look at the entire hearing. Meanwhile, the White House is giving a very strange explanation for that rash that suddenly appeared on Donald Trump's neck. Reporters asked, what is the treatment for? And the answer from Caroline Levitt was not exactly.

Exactly transparent. We're also going to look at another hearing where Trump is struggling to speak, but maybe more importantly, makes a seemingly impossible claim about Iran's proximity to nuclear weapons after that capability was supposedly obliterated just months ago. And we will start with the demand that a Republican Senate primary in Texas stop now. Why? Why won't we let the people be heard? Well, tells you a lot about how this administration.

thinks elections are supposed to work. We sadly have to start with how dictators behave and the sorts of demands that dictators make. Sometimes it's just a tantrum, but sometimes it's a complete and total authoritarian meltdown. And that's what we have here. Donald Trump is furious about what's going on in the Republican primary for the Senate in Texas. This is the race that James Tolariko won on the Democratic primary earlier this week.

And on the Republican side, you may recall. that we are going to a runoff because nobody got the required 50%. The incumbent senator running for reelection is John Cornyn. Texas official Ken Paxton is a candidate. Wesley Hunt got enough of the vote about 13% that the two candidates with the most votes will now have to go to a runoff. Trump went on truth social and posted a rant demanding that democracy be suspended and saying that he will make an endorsement and that the person he doesn't endorse should

simply drop out. He wants the race stopped immediately. This is what authoritarian do. They say stop an election that's not going the way I wanted to go. Trump posting to truth social, quote, the Republican primary race for the United States Senate in the great state of Texas, a state I love and won three times in record numbers, the highest vote ever recorded by far, cannot for the good of the party and our country itself be allowed to go on any longer.

It must stop now. We have an easy to beat radical left opponent and we have to totally focus on putting him away quickly and decisively. Both John and Ken ran great races but not good enough. Now this one must be perfect. My endorsements within the Republican Party have been virtually insurmountable. By the way, that's only because he picks people who are obviously going to win. He could have endorsed in this race if he had known who was going to win, but he didn't.

Back to Trump, I endorse wins and wins by a lot, especially in Texas. I will be making my endorsement soon and will be asking the candidate that I don't endorse to immediately drop out of the race. Folks, this is not democracy. Is that fair? Trump asks. We must win in November. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Donald J.

Trump. Right. about the wording, okay? A primary election must stop. Is there anything more anti-democratic and authoritarian and dictatorial than saying that an election that is in progress must be ended because the dear leader wants it ended? It's not I support one candidate. I hope voters choose the right person. The race itself should end because Donald Trump has decided it's a really inconvenient one for him. And then he goes, I'll make my endorsement. The person I don't endorse should quit. The entire point of a primary election is that voters decide. The entire point of any election

is that voters decide, but that the idea of a primary is allow multiple people to make the case that they are the best person most suited to represent the party. They debate, they argue, they lay out their plan, and then voters decide. People vote. That is a democratic system. Trump does not see elections this way. To Trump, politics is supposed to function like a loyalty test. He will decide who is supposed to win. And if everyone is loyal to him, including the person he doesn't endorse, they should step aside. And the voters, of course, should fall in line and allow that and go, oh, I guess we'll let Trump choose instead of the voters. There's a hypothesis floating around that Donald Trump is going to fire Pam Bondi, make Ken Paxton, his attorney general, and endorse Cornyn. The idea being that if Ken

Paxton says, hey, you can be my attorney general, gets him out of the race and it gives him something to do. Have no idea whether that's realistic, but a bunch of people wrote to me about it. I don't think Trump would have any moral qualms with doing it, whether he's actually planning to do it. I don't know. Now, if we zoom out, this is the same mentality that shows up everywhere in Trump's politics. When a court rules against them, he says the judges aren't legitimate. When elections don't go his way, it says the results should be overturned. When Republicans compete with each other, he says the competition should stop. And the underlying idea is the exact same one in all of these cases. Trump needs to approve every outcome. And if Trump hasn't

approved an outcome, the process might be the problem. And historically, this is a mentality that you see in authoritarian leaders. In a functioning democracy, internal competition is normal, it's healthy, it's encouraged. In authoritarian systems, competition within the ruling party is potentially dangerous and a sign of disloyalty. The leader must decide and everybody else just goes, yes, yes, but I love it. Please, I'd like another. That is a lot closer to the model Trump prefers.

And one additional layer to this meltdown is why is Trump so afraid of this race going bad. Trump is terrified of losing control of the Republican Party. Trump's power comes from being the decider and the kingmaker. The guy whose endorsement should determine who wins. So when you see a race become competitive, or maybe it's unpredictable, it starts to threaten the illusion that Trump controls everything. He wants to be seen as controlling everything. And that's why he keeps repeating this line about how almost everyone he endorses wins. He wants you to believe that it's, he wants you to believe that his endorsement is so powerful and that his political opinion is dominant. The truth is, he mostly picks in primaries, he endorses someone who's already going to win. He doesn't ever go

well, I'm going to pick this underdog. And that's why he didn't endorse anyone in the Texas race because the polling was so close. He didn't want to endorse Cornyn and have Paxton win, which diminishes the perceived power of Donald Trump's endorsement. He didn't want to pick Paxton and have the incumbent John Cornyn win for the exact same reason. You should just endorse your candidate and let voters decide. But what we see instead from Trump is someone who thinks elections are supposed to be like orders from a boss. The boss has made an order. Now everybody needs to go out and make it happen. And if they don't do it, the tantrum begins. So I hope that whoever isn't endorsed by Trump. And I guess we'll know soon. He says he's going to make a decision

very soon. I hope that they don't drop out. and that there is a proper and full runoff in the state of Texas. Something wild happened during a congressional hearing where Christy Noem was under oath and answering questions. A Democratic member of Congress, Congresswoman Sidney Kamlajordoe, she asked a question, or maybe it's dove. She asked a question point blank. Are you having a sexual affair with Trump operative Corey Lewandowski?

Now, you might say, whoa, that is, that's like tabloid stuff, David. This is potentially at the center of a lot of the erratic behavior that Christy Noem has been involved in. There are reports about irregularities on flights, firings of government pilots, private jet shenanigans all allegedly related to this affair that some believe Christy Noem is having with Trump operative Corey Lewandowski. So the Congresswoman asks about it and Christy Noem pulls the, I am aghast that you would ask me such questions. Secretary Noem, at any time during your tenure as Director of Department of Homeland Security,

have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski? Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that we're going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today. Reclaiming my- I am, one thing that I would tell you is that he is a special government employee who works for the White House. There are thousands of them in the federal government. So reclaiming my time, secretary, it has no authority to be making any decisions. It is okay for you to be offended by the question.

By the way, pay special attention to whether Christy Noam actually denies it. But it is also a real question. So what I would say to you should be able to answer what we do at the Department of Homeland County. And without any hesitation, every single day is to protect this country, to make decisions. You or any federal official is sleeping with their subordinate. That should be the easiest. You should be wanting to answer that question.

Because it is not about your sex life. It is about your judgment. That kind of garbage has been refuted for years. So that I can hear my self-hack. Time belongs to the gentle lady from California, but it would be nice if you would let her respond. I will. I want to let you know. It is about your judgment and decision making.

It is about the 260,000 employees that work under you that want to make sure that you are giving information and making decisions clearly. It is about conflict of interest. It is about a national security risk. Department of Homeland Security was created right after 9-11 to protect the homeland. And DHS has circulated an internal bulletin to law enforcement partners warning that the conflict of the war, we're in could inspire long actors or small-scale cyber activity inside the United States, according to a memo obtained by ABC News. So American lives are at risk. The people who work for you are at risk. And they want to know that the person at the top, you, are making decisions

clearly without any sort of cloudiness. And that they're your decisions because you're the secretary, who was confirmed. That's what this is about, saving the lives of Americans. So she never denies it. She says that it's tabloid stuff. She says that it's a garbage question, but she doesn't deny it. Now, there's a couple different things going on here. First of all, this is not coming out of nowhere.

You know, if whoever, if Robert F. Well, actually, Robert F. Kennedy is a bad example because he's regularly having affairs. But you know, if Pam Bondi was asked, are you sleeping with Stephen Miller, right? That is not a story that is being explored and for which there is belief and controversy and could be impacting decision making. The Corey Lewandowski, Christy Noem thing goes to the very top of the Department of Homeland Security. Secondly, it's not just gossip because it is about influence and power.

Lewandowski has reportedly been operating as what is called a special employee around Christy Noam. He has no formal position that would normally give him. any kind of authority. And especially if there is pillow talk going on with Christy Noem, we would be particularly worried about what sorts of unofficial power has been conferred to Corey Lewandowski. Is he a shadow advisor? Is he influencing policy? And if there's a personal relationship, there would be a conflict of interest. There would be questions about transparency. And there would be questions that that go beyond simply, what is this employee doing? Because at the end of the

day, that's not really what he is. The questions didn't stop there. Our friend Jamie Raskin then got a turn. And he rips Christy Knoem apart over a particular incident involving Noem allegedly firing a pilot. Or maybe it's Lewandowski who fired the pilot after Noam left something on a plane and it might have been a blankie of some kind. We don't even know. But the dynamic in the room was something else. And you see Christy Noam's husband over her left shoulder.

He does not like this line of questioning. I like it, but he does. taxpayer funds to lease a third jet, a $70 million luxury 737 max with a queen-sized bedroom in the back, a deluxe serving bar and four flat screen TVs, a big, beautiful jet paid for by the big, beautiful bill. Yesterday, under questioning the Senate, you said you plan to refurbish this jet to make it into this kind of airplane, which is what's actually being used for deportations in order to save the taxpayers' money.

In other words, you're saying that's actually a deportation plane, but wouldn't it have been cheaper just to buy a deportation plane in the first place? It's like buying a Rolls-Royce to turn into a metro bus. I was almost prepared to buy that story of how the jet was both for executive travel and mass deportation. And then I heard about an airborne episode of Entitapherson. of entitlement, arrogance, and contempt that I could hardly believe. Apparently, when your special blanket, your blankie, was left on one of the government jets and not transported over the new one, your special government employee, Corey Lewandowski,

chivalrously stepped forward to fire the pilot mid-air, a 2003 Coast Guard Academy graduate and distinguished U.S. Coast Guard commander in Air Station, Washington, D.C. But then he had to be rehired immediately because there was no one else who could fly the two of you on the rest of the journey back home. Secretary Nome, you're flying high now, maybe even a little bit too close to the sun. But with all these free planes and houses and pilots, you've traveled a long distance from your actual job and the things you should be doing as head of homeland security. Your agency is charged with protecting the homeland. It includes FEMA, TSA, the Secret Service.

the Coast Guard, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, as well as ICE and CBP. Yet you've hollowed out the national security mission. You redeployed thousands of people responsible for tracking terror financing and fighting cyber threats to- All right. So, so Jamie Raskin really letting her have it and her husband just awkwardly sitting there as the chivalrous behavior of Corey Lewandowski with respect to Christy Nome's Blanky is discussed under oath in congressional testimony. Now, this really highlights a common issue in Trump world politics, which is that they blur the lines between personal loyalty, personal relationships, and official government roles. And you've got people with unclear titles, people with no formal

authority. They end up with significant influence behind the scenes. And during Trump's first term, we saw a ton of it, informal advisors, donors, political operatives who have access to decision making processes. There's no normal channels. There's no Senate confirmation. And that's why these questions are being asked. Government power is supposed to be transparent. We are paying for it at the end of the day. We voted for it. At least the country decided that Trump gets to pick. And then those people are subject to Senate confirmation. People are supposed to know who is making the decisions. Why are they making the decisions? And when someone with no official role like Corey Lewandowski appears to have influence, especially if there's a sexual relationship, of course these are real

political questions of importance. Whether Nome likes the questions, whether her husband likes the questions, that's why we call it oversight. They may not like the questions. The uncomfortable questions are sometimes the most important ones. They don't want to answer them. And there is now a lot of discussion that Trump is shopping around firing Christy Nome. The guy who's better at hiring people than anyone is asking everyone else, should I fire her? Tell me what to do. So we'll have more of this. Make sure you're subscribed to our YouTube channel. If you're watching there now, hit the subscribe button.

We're approaching 4 million subscribers. If you can believe it, we'll take a quick break. And then let's keep going. We are only starting the show today. If you were shopping for a new mattress, I would recommend you start by looking at Helix sleep, the mattress I've been sleeping on for years. The only one that I recommend because they custom. them tailor it to your needs. I took their sleep quiz. It took a minute or two. I said, oh, you know,

I like to sleep on my stomach. I tend to feel hotter in the middle of the night rather than colder. I like medium firm. And Helix just nailed it. Matched me with the perfect mattress. Most people don't even know where to start when you're looking for a mattress and Helix just makes it easy. There is really no substitute for the mattress that's right for you. Your body will thank you. Delivery was fast. Set up was easy. You do get 100 nights to try it out. They'll even take away your old mattress. Right now, Helix has a special offer only for my audience.

Get 27% off everything on their site when you go to Helix sleep.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Most scammers rely on information that's already public. Your name, address, phone number, family connections. A lot of that is online and available to be scraped and abused. Our sponsor Incogni reduces the risk by removing you from the internet wherever that personal data appears. It works across many types of websites, not just one category.

So scammers have fewer ways to piece things together about you. Incogni automatically submits removal requests to hundreds of sites on your behalf, but the standout feature is custom removals where you find your information on any website, even one not in their database. You paste the link and Incogni's team will get to work to remove it. I can tell you I've personally been getting way fewer scam and spam calls and messages. Ever since I started using Incogny, you can accomplish a lot quickly with Incogny. Protect yourself before your data is used against you.

Get 60% off when you go to incogny.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description. Caroline Leavitt is Donald Trump's White House press secretary. She has resurfaced for a press briefing for the first time since Donald Trump started another war, this one with Iran. And it really didn't go well. She finally admits that at the end of the day, it's just Trump's feelings more than it is facts.

And she flipped out on CNN reporter Caitlin Collins when Caitlin asked real questions, substantive questions from which she was hoping to glean information. Let's start with the Kafkaesque declaration from Caroline Levitt that Trump had a feeling. He had a feeling that it made sense to start a war with Iran. That it states, the Secretary of State, and now I am out here today to explain to you exactly what led the president to make the decision to launch Operation Epic Fury. And President Trump does not make these decisions in a vacuum. This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats

that Iran posed to the United States of America. And the president's feeling based on fact that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America based on the fact that they are the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. A feeling based on fact. Based on the fact that they were rapidly and aggressively building up their ballistic missile missile program to give themselves immunity within their country alongside their Navy so that inside their country, they could continue to create nuclear weapons

and nuclear bombs, which would of course pose a risk to Americans in the region. That's a lot of talking to say that Trump had a feeling based on fact, based on fact, but it was not an intelligence assessment. It was not a recommendation from experts and professionals. was not a consensus view, Trump had a feeling, a president attacking another country based on a feeling. You know, I'm reminded of back in the day when George W. Bush said, he prayed and God told me to invade Iraq.

And we said, well, that's no good. That stinks to high heaven. That's rotten. This is just as rotten. Trump had a feeling based on a fact, a feeling that really no one else with a connection to the facts actually shared. We then got to the question of you previously said, or you are now saying, rather, that the regime has been crushed.

But at the same time, the administration is going back and forth as to whether regime change is actually the goal. Caroline Levitt goes, well, we've made the goals clear. Except there's a little problem with that, which is they actually have. Danny. At the top, you said that the Iranian regime is being absolutely crushed. Can you explicitly say then whether or not regime change is a goal of President Trump's operation? The goals of this operation have been made very clear.

They have not. Danny, and the president has said them in his speech when he launched this operation and released that video in the middle of the night to all of you and to the world. Maybe she could reiterate those goals. The stated military objectives of Operation Episcuitary. Fury are as follows. Eliminate Iran's ballistic missile threat, destroy their naval capability, disrupt missile and drone production infrastructure, sever their pathway and end their pathway to nuclear weapons. And I can report, as you all saw from the Pentagon today, that thus far,

this operation has been remarkably successful. So have you done it or haven't you done it? And why can't you address the regime question? If the regime change is not on the list of goals, then why does it keep being cited as part of the evidence of success. And of course, has the regime really fallen if the, if the Ayat the Shah, if the Ayatollah already had a succession plan in place? Again, we're moving towards complete and total control of Iranian airspace. We have continuous 24-7 strike operations ongoing. We've had more than 2,000 targets that have been struck. Nearly 2,000 munitions have been employed. The first 24 hours of this campaign were described nearly as twice the scale. So she doesn't answer. I'll give you the the, the, the, uh, the, uh, the,

uh, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, caroline levitt was asked, are American boots on the ground on the table? And she says, they are on the table. Do Americans have any appetite for American boots on the ground in Iran? As gas prices spike, which will cause everything to get more expensive. Yeah, Caroline, I'm going to move some. Go ahead. Caroline, could you tell us about the president's current thinking about ground troops and whether they could be used if they were to be sent into Iran?

What would they be used for? What's the situation? Well, they're not part of the plan for this operation at this time, but I certainly will never take away military options on behalf of the President of the United States or the commander-in-chief. And he wisely does not do the same for himself. I know there's many leaders in the past who like to take options off of the table without having a full understanding of how things could develop. So again, it's not part of the current plan, but I'm not going to remove an option for the president.

That is not off the table. Do Americans want boots on the ground in Iran? If you are a MAGA watching this show, I want to hear from you. Do you want boots on the ground in Iran? Finally, this happens when Caroline Leavitt is up against the wall. She lashes out at Caitlin Collins and says, why aren't more people covering the successes here? There's too much discussion of troops being killed. You just mentioned that the president is going to attend the dignified transfer for these

families. Given what Secretary Higgs said this morning, is it the position of this administration that the press should not prominently cover the deaths of U.S. service members? No, it's the position of this administration that the president. press in this room and the press across the country should accurately report on the success of Operation Epic Fury and the damage it is doing to the rogue Iranian regime that has threatened the lives of every single American in this room. If the Iranian regime had their choice, they would kill every single person in this room. And so we can all be very grateful that we

have an administration and that we have men and women in our armed forces who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the rest of us in this room and for every American across the country and for every troop that is based in the Middle East. That's what these... The Secretary Hexap was complaining that it was front-page news about these six service members who were killed. That's not what the secretary said, Caitlin, and that's not what the secretary meant, and you know it.

You know you are being disingenuous. There is not... We've never had a Secretary of Defense. Who cares more? If you get through where tragic things happen, it's front-page news, I get it. The press only wants to make the President look bad. Because you know, we cover the debts of U.S. service members under every president.

The press does only want to make the President look bad. That's a... That's a fact. Especially you? No, listen to me. Especially you and especially CNN. Especially you. Caitlin, you've been especially bad.

And the Secretary of Defense cares deeply about our war fighters and our men and women in uniform. He travels all across this country to meet with them, to connect with them. And your network has hardly ever probably reported on that. You also have the chairman of the Joint Peace Chiefs, Chairman Kane, who's a brave patriot standing alongside the secretary at the Pentagon this morning, again expressing his condolences to these families. And I just told you that the president of the United States will be attending their dignified transfer. So please, so please making the president look bad. That's showcasing that.

We expect you to cover that as you should. We expect you to cover that as you should, Caitlin. But you and your network know that you take every single thing this administration says and tries to use it to make the president look bad. Disgusting. Disgusting. Think about how far we have fallen. When the White House press secretary is so obsessed with Trump's image that they admonish members of the media for talking too much about the fact that American troops are dying. I thought they were the party that supports the troops. Certainly doesn't seem like it. Caroline Levitt did not like being asked about Donald Trump's new rash. She did not have answers. She did not want to answer this question. And we are not getting any more transparency about what on earth is going on

Trump's neck. Now, you may have seen the photos already. We covered it earlier this week. There's this large patch of redness along the right side of Donald Trump's neck that suddenly showed up. We were told that he is using a common cream preventatively, which I think they mean preventively, although I go back and forth as to which of the two words it is, but that's not really the issue here. It's not really the issue. What is the cream if it's so common? What are they trying to prevent?

Is the rash the symptom or a side effect? Well, Caroline Levitt was asked about it and she is not exactly forthcoming. Take a look. On the rash that was on the president's neck. The White House physician said it was a preventative skin cream that he was using. But why is the president using this cream as what are they trying to prevent with this cream? To your second question, I don't have anything additional to add to the physician statement that we provided to all of you on those questions.

But I know the statement said that the redness on the neck will dissipate within the next couple of weeks to your. But is the redness the symptom or is this the redness because of the cream? So so far we have, what is it, the 10th strange symptom that Trump is experiencing? No explanation of what cream is in use. No explanation of what condition it is supposed to prevent or treat. But he's going to use the cream for a while and then the redness will go away. Now, to be clear, she's right.

The White House doctor did release a written statement, but it's worded really weirdly, right? Why do you call it a very common cream? Why not tell us whether this is, you know, is it hydrochortizone? Is it, um, is it an antibiotic cream? Is it a cream meant to treat pre-cancerous lesions? What is the cream? That is, what are we preventing here, ladies and gentlemen? They never tell us.

And if the redness is irritation from the cream, then the rash isn't really the underlying issue. It's just a side effect. It's a side effect of what's being treated. Well, what is being treated here? And this is not gossipy, tabloid curiosity about Donald Trump's health. This is the president of the United States. And we have now months and really years of lack of transparency about Trump's health.

The splotchy discolored hand covered in makeup or bandages. Oh, we shook too many hands. No one believes that. That's bullshit. Most people shake hands for a living. Many people shake hands for a living. They don't end up with that on their hands. Many older people do as well.

And now months later, we've got this separate issue with the neck rash. And it's a very common cream being used preventatively. or preventively, and the redness will be gone very soon. So there's a transparency issue here. Presidents normally disclose a lot of medical information. It doesn't have to be every detail. But of course, enough for there to be confidence that the public has a good grasp of the health of the president.

The president is the oldest president ever. He's months from being 80. He's making decisions about war. He could launch nuclear weapons, military deployments, global diplomacy. And if there's a simple explanation here, oh, yeah, here's the cream. he's on, here's why. It would end the speculation. You would only cover it up. We have to assume if the full story would be damaging. And we're getting these bizarre, strangely incomplete explanations. And every time Caroline Levitt has asked about it, she's almost indignant. I don't have any

information for you. How dare you ask? Implicit in that is why do you keep asking me about this? Well, we keep asking because we suspect that you're lying or certainly covering up the full story here. What do you think? A lot of people writing to me saying it's a treatment for pre-cancerous skin lesions, that it, that it is essentially a skin cancer concern. We don't know. We are left to speculate because they won't tell us. If you love having quality fresh breads and pastries at home with no hassle, our sponsor Wild Grain makes it easy. Wild grain is a bake from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, fresh pastas. Everything arrives frozen and bakes in 25 minutes or less.

No thawing required. Simple ingredients, slow fermentation process. It really improves the flavor and texture. I always keep wild grain sourdough bread and croissants on hand. Convenient. Tastes like something you'd get from the bakery. Straight from freezer to oven. No planning required.

The pasta's great too. I love having wild grain on the busy nights when I need something good, but without spending a bunch of time on it. And wild grain boxes are customizable. You can get the variety box. They've got gluten-free, vegan. They've got a protein box. Wild grain is offering $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com slash Pacman or use the promo code Pacman at checkout. The link is in the description. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy joins us now representing the state of Connecticut. Senator, this is really like Schroding, It's, it both is a war and isn't a war, depending on what's more convenient at the time

for the Trump administration. What is your assessment right now as to the legality of what's taking place in Iran? Well, I don't understand anything you just said, but it sounds really smart and thoughtful. It's a, yeah, I mean, this is a war. Obviously, it's a war. I mean, six Americans have died. They told us the other day that many more were likely to die over a- thousand people have died in Iran and the region. This is costing probably a billion dollars,

at least a day. This is the most significant military action in the Middle East since the Iraq war, and we're not going to debate it in Congress. We're not going to debate it in the public. The reason we're not is because if they did have a vote to authorize the war, it probably wouldn't pass. And, you know, President Trump doesn't want to be confronted with that. that reality. But this is potentially world-changing. This could be a mistake of epic proportions. And it's already having consequences here at home with gas prices going up, grocery prices soon to follow. So yes, we need to have a debate. We need to authorize this war or deny the president the ability to fight this war. And Republicans have got to do that soon. And Democrats,

frankly, should use all the leverage we have to force that debate to happen in the Senate. What leverage do you have? Yeah, I don't want to overhype the leverage that we have, but for instance, we could say we're not going to, you know, just go along with business as usual in the Senate. We're not going to proceed to other legislation so that you can pretend like you don't need Congress to authorize war. You know, this week we're debating a pretty benign housing bill that the president wants. I was one of only a handful of Democrats that voted against proceeding to debate that bill, because my position is pretty simple, for now at least. I'm just not going to vote to proceed to debate anything else until we do our constitutional duty

and debate war and peace. That's leverage we could use in the Senate. The other leverage is that they might need funding for this war, additional funding. And that will be an opportunity for Democrats to just draw a line in the sand and say, no, we're not going to approve an additional dime. we might be able to stop the war, not immediately, but down the line by denying them funding. Yeah, I saw that you put out a video saying that you would not be in favor of any any additional funding. It seems incredible to me that the congressional authorization for the operation

was completely skipped. But then now there's the idea of coming to members of the House and Senate and saying, well, now we want money for this thing. We never actually legally started in the first place. Yeah, I just can't imagine. how anybody that opposes this war would then vote to give them $50 billion. I mean, what we've seen thus far is gross incompetence. They had no plan to get Americans out of the region. They still have no viable plan. They seem to be rooting for civil war inside Iran. There's now news that the administration is encouraging Iraqi Kurds to invade Iran, setting off. will likely be a new bloody conflict. There's no plan for regime change. So all that's going to happen

at the end of this is that maybe more effective, more deadly hardline leadership is going to be in charge of Iran. None of this makes sense. And like, of course, anybody who opposes this war should right now come out and say, if you put a funding bill before Congress, you're not going to get my vote. I spoke to your colleague Senator Gallego yesterday. And we talked. a little bit about what might seem like a contrast in philosophy in this sense. If you're a progressive anti-authoritarian like I am, you can't look at a regime like the Iranian regime, the Ayatollah, theocracy, and say, that's good. That's the way I think places should be run.

But that at the same time, there are all of these other questions, including, of course, the legality which you've addressed a little bit. There's the human and also money cost, which you're talking about a little bit. But Senator Gallego also brought up is the United States doing this and doing it now, even in our best interests, given what we are led to believe about what's happening there. What we were told in June was that the nuclear capabilities were obliterated. And what Donald Trump said yesterday is that if they didn't do this within two weeks, they would have had a bomb.

How could both of those things possibly be true? Yeah, they're, they're not true. We don't know exactly which one isn't true. It's probably true that they did not obliterate the nuclear program, but it is also true that air power alone cannot obliterate their nuclear program. What Iran has been doing is burying it deeper underground in a way that air power cannot reach. The only way to really get rid of their nuclear program is a ground invasion of Iran, which is why the much better path is a diplomatic agreement,

an agreement that we had before Donald Trump threw it out. Yes, of course, the Ayatollah was an evil human being. Yes, of course, we don't want people in the Middle East or anywhere else to live under crippling repressive autocracies. But have we not learned one simple lesson from the last 20 years that American military power, especially in a place like the Middle East, where we have cultures that we simply don't understand at the Pentagon is feckless in trying to deliver participatory democracy. That's the lesson from Afghanistan, clearly. That is, I think, in large part, the lesson from Iraq and other places. We just don't have the power with our military to be able to dislodge dictatorships and punish regimes we don't like. And it just seems like Donald Trump,

after campaigning in a way that made it look like he had learned that lesson, has definitely not learned that lesson. The White House press secretary Caroline Levitt yesterday when she was asked about whether troops on the ground in Iran or ruled out, she said, oh, we're not taking anything off of the table. Now, she tried to couch it in the kind of generic language of I would never get ahead of the president done this and I would never take anything off the table because it gives our enemies information. But talk to me a little bit about that and whether do Democrats have left more?

leverage when it comes to boots on the ground? Or is it sort of the same kind of thing as if Trump is willing to do what he's done so far without authorization? He could do boots on the ground if that's what he decides. Well, I think the simple answer to that question is, yes, he could. I mean, if if the president and Republicans who run Congress have decided to shred the constitution, then the president can get away with whatever he wants until his money runs out. And obviously a ground invasion would be a trillion dollar effort. Bush was not able to conduct a ground invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq without supplemental appropriations from Congress. So at some point, if he does move troops onto the ground, and I think it is bone-chilling that they are publicly reserving the right to do that,

Congress can step in and deny him the money. But again, I just think it's important to realize there's two paths here. One, that this is just an air campaign. Two, this is a ground invasion. neither one of them will work. Because if it's just an air campaign, then the hardline regime stays in charge. But also, they will just move their drone-making capabilities and their missile capabilities underground. There is just a limit to what you can do with air power alone. If it's a ground invasion, then it's a military mistake of historic proportions. Then you were talking about not dozens or hundreds of Americans dying, as will likely be the case here.

You're talking about thousands of Americans dying. You're talking about a nation obsessed with a new war. Neither one of those options will effectuate the aims that they have identified, and they should just be honest about that. Last thing I want to ask you about, there has been anecdotally, although then they take it back, claims that Israel sort of forced our hand here. And the sort of storyline, as I understand it from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio is, that if Israel attacked Iran, which Rubio believes they were going to do, the retaliation

may have come to the United States. And so it's a, and the words he used are it's a proactively defensive involvement by proxy of sorts. What do you make of that? Well, there is zero legal case for the president to take action without authorization from Congress just because he suspects. that another country's military action overseas might involve risk to American forces. So that's bullshit.

But it does sort of speak to the fact that they know that other than that paper-thin argument, they have no justification for doing this without congressional consent. It is probably true that BB dragged us into this war. Yeah, there are a bunch of people around the president who are crazy and unhinged and probably think that war with Iran is a good thing. And there's a whole bunch of people at the military who just like shooting the stuff they have. And there's a whole bunch of military contractors that, you know, are in Trump's pocket who are telling him that it'd be great for America if we went to war and revved up the defense industrial

machine. All that's true. But it is probably more true that BB calls the shots here. And that we ended up following them in. to war. That's just a really, just a really amazing sign and signal of American weakness, if that's the truth. And it probably is some version of the truth.

It does seem that it probably approximates the truth in some in some general way. Senator Chris Murphy really appreciate your time. Thanks for talking to us today. Thanks, man. The David Packman Show is an audience supported program and the best most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up at join packman.com. Growing concerns as Donald Trump fell sleep again during a public

event, glitched badly, slurred, and could barely speak. When he was able to speak, the subject matter wasn't particularly more coherent than when he was sleeping or glitching or slurring. He just looks absolutely terrible. Many Americans are still concerned that the massive energy demand from AI data centers could drive up their electricity bills in the future. And we understand that. By 2035 energy demand is expected to more than triple. Can you believe it?

A lot of it is AI. And it's also all these big plants that are being built all over the country. They're coming in from Canada and Mexico, from Germany, from Japan, from South Korea. They're all coming here to build cars again. You know, we lost 54% of our car industry because we had presidents that honestly on trade and business. They didn't know what the hell they were doing. Of course, the subject matter, the claims from Trump are completely false, but he just

sounds terrible. Here is another turbo glitch on the word elect-she. Who hasn't ever had a nice frosty chocolate elect shake? Electric bills will actually come down. Elect shake it. Elect shake it. Elect shake. You see your electric bills.

There you go. And then just really bad, really, really bad. The grid, in addition to that, we're fixing the grid. Now, if we didn't do this, this was, I believe, I don't know, nobody's going to challenge you or don't challenge me. I think this was my idea. I said, wait a minute. No, we're going to shell a shoe a challenge me.

This was my idea. This was my idea. And then finally, before we get into the substance, Trump did fall asleep. And I know that the American people want to win. They want to win this just like you do. We want to be superior to our challengers like China. We want to have AI dominance because that helps give our military, our manufacturing, everybody. All right.

Trump was awake for part of it. the things he said while awake weren't so good, I have to admit. Here is Trump with the impossible logic pretzel where he says, if we didn't hit Iran, within two weeks, they would have had a nuclear weapon. And there's a little bonus that he adds on to it as well. If we didn't hit within two weeks, they would have had a nuclear weapon. If we didn't do the B2 attack a number of months ago. they would have a nuclear weapon.

And when crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen. So we're in very good shape now. I want to let you know that. And we will continue forward. But it's a great display of military strength. And I'm very proud to have with some of the people in the room, both senators and congressmen, we rebuilt and women. So think about this.

You obliterated their nuclear capabilities a few months ago. they were already back to two weeks away from a nuclear weapon. That doesn't really sound right. Now, earlier in the show, Senator Chris Murphy said he suspects that their nuclear capabilities weren't really obliterated over the summer because they are burying them deeper and deeper in the ground than in mountain sides. And therefore, it seems more likely that we didn't really get it. But Trump's claim was that we did. And of course, we don't have evidence that they were close to a nuclear weapon again. The IAEA says that that's not true.

The United Nations says that that's not true. The US intelligence community has no data or evidence to back up the claim that they were again two weeks away from a nuclear weapon. Israeli intelligence has no data or information to claim effectively that they were two weeks away from a nuclear weapon. So this is quickly becoming the Iraq has weapons of mass destruction trope that was significantly responsible for getting the United States. into war with Iraq or at least for justifying that case.

It seems George W. Bush was determined to get us in one way or the other. And then fascinatingly, Trump says, hey, I'm going to have to end this event soon because I've got to go back and look at the war, which is funny because I thought it wasn't a war if he needed congressional approval. I have to go back and look at the war. You know, have a lot of things happening. Thank you, Bernie. Thank you very much, everybody.

I've got to go back and look at the war. He's like a little kid's. I'm missing my cartoons. They've got a whole room set up for me back there where I can look at the war. So I guess it is a war. It seems. He certainly seems to keep calling it one. And in fact, he even said we're doing really well on the war front.

But don't you need congressional approval for a war? Well, it's not a war. It really is Schrodinger's war. These are exciting times. I think you probably want to speak about. war rather than this, but this is very important. This is very important. And we're doing very well on on the war front. It's not a war, but you probably want to talk about war. And we're doing really well on the war front. But it's certainly not a war. To put it mildly, I would say,

somebody said, on a scale of 10, where would you rate it? I said about a 15. And we're going to continue to do well, we have the greatest military in the world by far. And, uh, we're going to continue. And, uh, That was a tremendous threat test for many years. 47 years, they've been killing our people and killing people from all over the world. And I think we have great support. And I think if we didn't do it first, they would have done it to Israel and give us a shot if that was possible. For Trump's emotional calibration, he's almost giddy.

We're doing so well. It's a 15 out of 10. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Right. I've got to go back and look at the war. This man is not well. This man can barely stay awake.

He's slurring and glitching. And at the end of the day, he just wants to play war in the back room of the White House. We are in serious, serious trouble. Everyone is talking about the strange rash on Donald Trump's neck, the unexplained but very common cream that he is reportedly using. But there's something visible in the same pictures that almost nobody is talking about. And I want to talk about it today. If you look closely at recent images of Donald Trump's ear, you can clearly see what appears to be Frank's sign.

Now, you might be saying, what is Frank sign? Is that like a sign that someone named Frank is holding up? No. Frank sign is a diagonal crease that runs across the earlobe. Now, it's called Frank sign because back in 1973. A doctor, Sanders, Frank, described it. He noticed, I've got a lot of patients with coronary artery disease and they have this diagonal crease in their earlobe.

And since 1973, that's like, what, 150 years now or something, the, there have been multiple studies looking at the correlation, not necessarily causative, but a correlation between that ear crease called Franksine and cardiovascular disease. There is research that has found that people with the crease are significantly more likely to be suffering from atheroslerosis. The theory is small blood vessel damage may be notable in earlobe tissue, causes the sign, and correlates with coronary artery disease. Now, we're not doing, you know, exaggerated claims that we can't substantiate.

Frank sign is not a diagnosis of heart disease. Plenty of healthy people have the crease and they don't have cardiovascular problems. Many people with heart disease don't have the ear crease. So it is not in either direction. It is not a dispositive confirmation of any particular disease. But it's one of these kind of old school physical exam clues that doctors would notice and they would consider. Now, Trump is also almost 80 years old.

He's going to be 80 in three months. increases in folds would be expected and normal. Doesn't really prove anything. And then you can also have situations where lighting and camera angles, they might make Frank's mark more notable. But that diagonal crease visible in photos is very similar to what doctors look at and say, oh, that should make us really look at a theroselorosis coronary artery disease. Now, I think it's important to mention Trump has a number of other things going on that

that would make us wonder about that. Trump is obese. Obesity is a significant risk factor for heart disease, coronary artery disease, atheroslosis. Trump doesn't really exercise. Trump eats a terrible diet. He has chronic venous insufficiency. There's all of these these other things that would say, well, of course, he's a candidate for heart disease.

Look at the guy. Now, meanwhile, almost all of the conversation has been focused on the neck rash. The rash itself, as we talked about earlier, can come from a lot of different things. It could be irritation from sweating and then, you know, a very starched shirt rubbing up against it. It could be, I don't think Trump's shaving the back of his neck, but it could be from shaving. It could be eczema. It could also be a treatment for skin cancer or a pre-cancer.

or a pre-cancerous section of skin. We just don't know, but I think that the earlobe is more medically interesting in some way. It proves nothing, but it is a curious physical detail. Now, one thing I also want to mention, many of you wrote to me when I talked about Trump's neck rash earlier this week, and I'm sure we'll write to me today, and you'll say, David, what about the fact that Trump was supposedly shot in the ear and there is zero indication of any kind whatsoever that Trump was shot in the ear. I see that. I really, there's almost no way to talk about that without starting to go down a very

conspiratorial path. And there are people in my audience who believe Trump wasn't really hit by a, by a bullet. There are people in my audience who think that it was a setup. There are people in my audience who think all sorts of different things. I have no idea. I find it strange that within two weeks of getting shot, shot in the ear, it didn't look like Trump had gotten shot in the ear. And I don't have an explanation for that. Does the ear heal so well? You know, this part of the ear up here has relatively little

blood flow. And so you wouldn't necessarily expect it to heal so quickly and so perfectly and so well, especially in a guy who's almost 80 years old. He must have been what, 78 at the time, 77, 78. I don't know. So I'm sort of acknowledging. I'm naming that many of you are writing and saying how on earth put the rash aside for a second, put Frank's mark aside for a second, how does that, how is that the ear of a guy who was shot in the ear not that long ago? I don't have an answer for you. And I would be glad for a physician to write in and weigh in. On the bonus show today, we will talk about the legislation to halt the Iran war in the Senate.

Senator Chris Murphy talked to us about this a little bit earlier. earlier today. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pushing medical schools to teach more about nutrition. I like that, but what does he want them to teach? That's the question. And we will talk about how a feud led to the demise of Congressman Dan Crenshaw, which I'm glad about, but the guy who beat him in the primary is even wackier. So it's like, are we better off or not?

I don't know. All of those stories and much more on today's bonus show. up at join packman.com. You can instantly get access to the bonus show. Remember that there are endless free ways to support the work that we do. Follow the podcast on Apple Podcasts, leave a rating. Follow the podcast on Spotify, leave a rating. You can also pick up gear at store.davidpacman.com, including the Make Truth Great Again hat, which I have just heroically and passionately and triumphantly put on my head. A whole bunch of great stuff available at store. David Pakman.com. What a week.