The David Pakman Show - BONUS FREEBIE: FBI has missing Epstein minutes, American Eagle eugenics controversy

Episode Date: August 2, 2025

-- On the Bonus Show: FBI has Epstein recording missing minute, Hawley's stock trading ban upsets White House, American Eagle under fire over Sydney Sweeney ad, and much more... Become a Member: https://www.davidpakman.com/membership  Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com/  Buy David's book: https://davidpakman.com/book 

Hey, everybody, David here. What you're about to hear is an episode of The Bonus Show. We do a bonus show every day for our members and for a limited time. We will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays, exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up at join Pacman dot com. Here is that bonus show episode. shows. But the FBI has a complete version of the footage. This version has that one to three minutes that are, you know, I think we're supposed

to say missing, Pat, even though some forensic file analyses have determined it's not that they're missing. It's that they've been removed. And so I don't know. I don't know how ready I am to say that. But it certainly does seem that there were multiple edits done based on a forensic analysis. The idea here is that there is that one to three minutes of missing video is in the hands

of the FBI. We are, of course, completely left to speculate about what it might show. But we have a sort of it's like we've taken a bunch of different talking points related to Trump and conspiracies and accountability and institutions, thrown them into a blender. And we're just like mixing them together. And so you've got the institutional credibility question, which is we were told this was a raw video. Video experts quickly determined that it is not.

And so people are understandably skeptical that government agencies are giving us the full story. But you've got to blend that with the fact that the MAGA people said it's the Biden government that's not giving us the story. But the Trump administration will accept they're not. So this is causing a problem for MAGA. You've got the intramag a sort of civil war fighting that's going on. And you've also got the subject matter like what is in that missing 60 to 180 seconds

of the video, which we are just left to speculate about. Well, to me, this is just yet another example of the Trump administration being terrible at damage control. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. So he's not good at getting on the same page when it comes to his answers. Yeah. In the same vein, the Democrats are going to be implicated by this. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. So he's not good at getting on the same page when it comes to his answers. Yeah. In the same vein, the Democrats are going to be implicated by this.

And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files.

And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. And also there are no files. So he's not good at getting on the same page when it comes to his answers. Yeah. In the same vein, Pam Bondi said about the supposed missing minute weeks ago

that this was due to an automatic camera reset that took place every single night. But she hasn't given any supporting evidence for that. Like you would know what has mentioned that since, interestingly enough. Right. You should be able to show the footage from other nights that similarly show that one minute missing every time the camera supposedly resets. It also doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Like what?

The camera needs a whole minute to reset. And it does that. Also, I hate to say it. You could also just take footage from other days and remove a minute and go, look, it's the exact same thing. And then we're back in the same thing. Well, what is that, the raw or was that edited? Well, yeah, but the whole thing is here now that they're saying that they supposedly have

the missing minute or reporting suggests as much then all of a sudden, Pam Bonnie's previous explanation goes out the window. She was clearly lying if this turns out to be true. So it's just yet another example of them needing better crisis control if they're going to do a good job at covering this up, because this has been a terrible cover up job so far. And I do think like it's I don't know if I have to repeat this for our audience, but none of this proves anything specific about Trump. And so yesterday during my live with Tim Miller, I said the fact that Trump is clearly worried

about this and working to cover it up doesn't mean he was a client of Epstein's who was being sent 16 year old girls. It just doesn't mean that. And I wouldn't assert that until we had some evidence of that. We do now have Trump saying one particular underage girl, Virginia Jew free, was stolen from Trump's spa by Jeffrey Epstein. OK, so like we have it's it's all getting closer to Trump, at least new stuff. But you don't have to look at this and say this clearly means Trump did X to recognize that we can't have confidence that this administration is going to be a transparent arbiter of the story.

Do you see a connection between how Trump is handling the Epstein scandal to how he handled the Russia investigation? Because part of the reason why many people thought that there was more of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin was because of his non-answers, his evasiveness, his wanting to shut down the investigations to make sure that no one was allowed to criticize him on that specific issue. What it turned out to be wasn't a direct agreement between Trump and Putin that they were going to rig the election for them. But certainly they were both helping to achieve that end without doing any direct

contact. So we see that with the Russia scandal. Maybe Trump was just being overly paranoid. Maybe there's also a possibility that other things were factual about that case that the public never found out about it because he was doing so much obstruction of justice. But I think that episode to me shows us that, yes, Trump probably does have a reason to be worried about what's in the Epstein files. And maybe he is implicated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the worst case scenario for him. He may just be paranoid about these types of things in general. Yeah. And I think there's definitely overlap with how

Trump reacts to every single one of these things. And I think that one of the aspects that's important to understand is Trump initially, you know, when Trump was talking about, oh, I want to testify in my own trial or, you know, I'll be deposed, I'll do this and that. And his lawyers are like, no, please don't let him do it. Trump has the belief that he can outsmart anybody. And so I think very early on in these scandals, before it's clear just how much sort sort of life they're going to have, Trump thinks that by just making a quick statement, there's

nothing here. It's fake or it's a hoax or whatever that that's going to convince and satisfying that then it'll go away. And Trump always ends up or often ends up in the position of having to then change the story because it didn't go away. The thought it was the way he thought it was going to and just repeating that same thing didn't work. So he has to come up with something new.

And that's where he ends up in the conflict where there are no files and he's not in them and he is in them, but only because Hillary did something. Well, it seems like with previous scandals, he was trying to defend himself before the general public. Now it's gotten to a point where he doesn't care as himself before the general public. Now it's gotten to a point where he doesn't care as much what the general public believes, or he understands he's not going to be able to persuade those people, but he still has to care about what his base believes. So he's trying to do the exact same tricks that he used to do on his base, which is to just tell them not

to believe their lying eyes, but it's not working to the same degree anyway. Maybe there will be some attrition where as the weeks and months go on, they will fall back in line and this Epstein thing will just be a footnote for them. They won't focus on it as much, but it goes to show why his tactic isn't working because he's not just doing it in front of the general public anymore. He's doing it in front of his own base, which are supposed to be the supporters who are most loyal to him. Yeah. And he's having a problem with some of them, that's for sure. All right.

There's a kind of funny thing going on. I have to admit, I understand the humor in this. Senator Josh Hawley, who's a Republican, Republican, has a bill that would be it would ban members of the House. Sorry. Members of the House and Senate elected officials from trading stocks and it's called the Pelosi act, which stands for preventing elected leaders from owning securities and investments. I'm going to admit, Pat, that's actually pretty damn funny.

And Nancy Pelosi has been criticized for stock trades. And I listen for me, this is a nonpartisan issue. Either they should be allowed to trade stocks or they shouldn't. But coming up with an acronym that's the Pelosi Act, I find that actually pretty funny. It is. It is pretty good, I got to say, because sometimes these acronyms are forced like they probably shouldn't have gone with an acronym like they're trying too hard. But that actually does sound like it's a legitimate name for it, preventing elected leaders from

owning securities and investments. That's not a stretch at all. So here's what happened. Holly expanded the ban to apply to the president and the vice president. And all of a sudden the White House got into a panic here and they said, wait a second. What what are you talking about? That doesn't make sense. Now there the White House isn't saying we don't like that because Trump and Vance want

to trade stocks. They're saying we don't like that because we think it potentially violates article two of the Constitution Which governs executive powers and the house isn't allowed to or the house and Senate aren't allowed to pass such a bill Because it would attempt to supersede article two of the Constitution and you can't do that So the optics of course are the White House doesn't want Trump and Vance banned from trading stocks, but there's they're making a sort of constitutional supremacy argument here. So there's a couple of different things to talk about. Number one, it's Trump's populist optics are regularly undercut. They're regularly undercut by his high end golf trips.

They're regularly undercut by, you know, his highly profitable meme coins and shoes and whatever else it is that he's trying to sell people and the stuff they can't afford that he makes millions and millions of dollars off of. But it's also a question of executive power, which is something that has long been sort of a target of conservatives to the extent that they have any power. And now there's a question of is this actually more of a constitutional issue than anything about Trump's populism?

But very quickly, this has now become a problem for the White House. I think the Article two thing is mostly just a cover for them because they don't want Trump advance to be subjected to this. Like really, it's over the fact that they don't want to disclose the trades that they're making. That's my sense of it anyway, but they are able to take a look at some provision in the constitution that they can argue makes them immune from this type of legislation. So that's my sense of it. But what angers me the most about like Trump and his corruption is that it seems as though

his supporters believe he's immune from it. They'll claim that Nancy Pelosi is corrupt. They'll claim that so many Democrats are corrupt. They made so much money while they were in office despite making a six figure salary, but certainly nothing that would get them mega millions over years. And they point to the investments and the insider information that they have. But when you present to them the idea that Trump is corrupt, they say, no, he can't be corrupt. He was already rich before he got into politics or nothing could possibly bribe him. The $400 million jet from Qatar, that was not a bribe. That's not something that is going to influence him at all.

He can't be bought. So that's the most frustrating thing I think about it is that Trump is always seen as immune from corruption among his base. Yeah, I know. And I think that this is a story that has the potential to get more attention if there aren't 10 other scandals going on, because I do think that it is a tractable thing for a lot of people in the country who intuitively know that the safeguards to prevent elected officials from trading on information that is not yet public, which is of course strictly speaking against the law. But as we know, just some, you can point and say something's against the law, but unless you have a mechanism of proof and enforcement, what, what does it really mean?

I think a lot of the American people are very much connected to instances of proof and enforcement. What does it really mean? I think a lot of the American people are very much connected to instances of apparent and actual corruption. But a lot of it is sort of getting drowned by the authoritarian insanity of Trump. Do you think we're going to get to a point where a congressional stock trading ban can actually get approved because we've been speaking about it for years now. We've spoken about it when Democrats had control of Congress, when Republicans had control of Congress, Republicans and Democrats having control of the White House at different times. And it's never been able to pass. It always seems to narrowly to be defeated.

And I wonder if there's some other reason for that. All right. Let's talk a little bit about Sidney Sweeney. American Eagle has a new advertising campaign for jeans. I'm talking about denim pants, of course. And there is a new ad campaign in which the theme is great jeans and the images have Sydney Sweeney the is she even an actress, Pat? I don't know what she does.

She's an actress. OK. Sydney Sweeney has great jeans is the idea. And of course, jeans is a is a play on words referring to the denim. But also, Sydney Sweeney has great jeans because there's a lot of men who find her very attractive. And the unfortunate or maybe unfortunate, unfortunate and maybe reasonable critique is that this is sort of alluding to genetic traits and physical appearance. She's a white, blue eyed celebrity. She's sort of is representative of the Nazi Aryan look in some kind of broad general sense. They're talking

about genetics. It's sort of like getting into this nephrology type stuff of the Nazis. I don't know, Pat. what do you think? Well, I think I don't believe that American Eagle supports eugenics or believes that a certain type of look is a superior look or certain people have like superior genes. But I do think that this was a foreseeable controversy that they should have realized that some people would be upset about this and they would link it to eugenics and these controversial things. So the fact that they didn't play it safe to me is puzzling. Like maybe they deliberately knew that this would create some sort of firestorm. Also, there are people wondering whether American Eagle would have released an ad like this even five years ago when the conversation around like what's acceptable and cancel culture and all these

things were a little bit different. And maybe with Trump's resurgence, if brands like American Eagle feel more emboldened to do these edgy types of campaigns. So it's it's kind of a mixed opinion that I have on it. Yeah. And American Eagle, as far as I am seeing, has not really addressed the sort of like substance of it other than to say that we are there's a shift in tone here. We're going a little retro. We're going more traditional. And certainly it's it is a tradition. We can

talk about what traditional means, because a lot of times these right wingers talk about traditional and they mean something very specific. But a full what do they call it? A cowboy tuxedo, right? One of these images has Sydney Sweeney in a denim shirt and denim pants. And she has a historically traditional look of the sorts of people you would see in ad campaigns when there was more overt, I guess you would say, racism in the United States that there it's certainly a shift in tone.

And there are people who are saying, oh, this is much more than just a shift in tone. Speaker 2 My sense is that they were probably sitting on this jeans jeans pun for a long time and we're just trying to think of the best way to go about using it. And it makes me wonder if there's really a sensible way to do that in an ad campaign without it being controversial, without it being linked to the eugenics program. Like maybe they just thought it was great wordplay and they wanted to be able to use it at some point. But I suppose if it was going to stir up so much controversy, maybe it's better not to. Then again, there's that old adage about how like any publicity is good publicity. So maybe American Eagle is

totally fine with the uproar that it's created. Now, I don't know that this is necessarily a reaction to this or whether it's indicative that they are or aren't fine. But American Eagle two days ago posted on Instagram the great jeans thing with a different model who appears to be, you know, it's always weird to start talking about, oh, you look a certain race, but it's either a black or biracial woman. And instead of putting the name of the model and I don't know who this person is, I don't know that it's an actress.

It might just be a model who's who's not known. It just says American Eagle has great genes. And so a lot of the comments are, wait a second, it's Sidney Sweeney has great genes when it's a white woman with blue eyes. But it's American Eagle has great genes when it's a white woman with blue eyes, but it's American Eagle has great genes when it's a black or biracial model. I think we're probably reading a little too much into all these little things. Yeah, that's probably the case. I wonder if there would have been a controversy if the model that they had chosen for the

original ad was a person of color. Like maybe this wouldn't have risen to the level of news and it wouldn't have been so controversial of an ad. So the fact that they didn't think about that or make that decision to me, I think is a little puzzling. Like, wouldn't it have been a more obvious choice to avoid the controversy? But you would think so. You would think so.

Let me know what you think. What do you make of it? Is this a scandal or is it not? We'll be back tomorrow. New show, new bonus show.