The David Pakman Show - BONUS FREEBIE: Judge's house burned down, AOC mocks Stephen Miller, Trump plans birthday UFC event

Episode Date: October 11, 2025

-- On the Bonus Show: A judge who ruled against Trump has her house burn down, AOC tells supporters to “laugh at” Stephen Miller’s “insecure masculinity,” Trump announces a White House UFC event on his birthday, 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 packman.com. Here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to The Bonus Show. This is a really weird story and I'll tell you up front that we don't really know the full scope of it right now. Police are investigating a fire that burned down the house of Diane Goodstein. Now, who is Diane Goodstein? She's a judge. She's a South Carolina circuit court judge. And she reportedly had been receiving death threats for weeks related

to her work. Why was she receiving death threats? Well, because of her opposition to the Trump administration, she was part of the temporary blocking of the state's election commission from releasing voter files to the DOJ. The DOJ, Trump's DOJ, wanted those files, and she participated in blocking the release of those files. Therefore, she is now in opposition in some loose general sense to the Trump administration. The Trump administration wants that stuff. And she said, no, I don't believe that it is justified to do that. And there have been a number of different doxing attempts. Judge Goodstein was part of the list of judges that the sort of MAGA adjacent space was trying to dox. Now, the timing of it, Pat, obviously leads us to say, was this arson, was her house

burnt down for political reasons? Investigators right now are saying they have no evidence that that's the case. Is it possible that this is just a coincidence? Yeah, it is. I mean, again, we do not have evidence right now that she was targeted for political reasons and that this arson was from people adjacent to Trump angry with her blocking these files. But at the same time, we are not immune to pattern recognition. And the timing is very much suspicious. It is suspicious.

It may have just been a coincidence because there are a lot of people who are getting death threats around the country right now, whether they be pro-Trump or anti-Trump and on occasion, people's houses burned down. So you could have just had a situation where you had a judge who was adversarial to Trump who happened to have this happen to her. And it's a tragic story no matter what. But of course, we want to find out whether there was foul play because this could be an example of political violence. And I'm not suggesting that like anyone's dragging their feet on this, but we don't know at this point if there was foul play. And we may not find out if there was foul play until weeks from now, at which point people will have moved on from the

story. Maybe there will be some attention paid to it, but the headlines will long have passed. So it could be one of those situations where when there's an example of a right winger being the victim of political violence, people are able to pounce on it right away, say this was definitely political. This is the fault of the left. Whereas if there's an example of someone who is anti-Trump getting becoming the victim in some situation, you may not find that out until later that it was politically motivated. And so Trump supporters are going to be less likely to be labeled with that like they're violence, they're attacking people sort of rhetoric that we're hearing on the left. Not to mention at that point is the story going to have the same impact when it is

distanced in time from from the moment that it happened. But I think that this concept of when you suspect that you're going to get an answer you don't like, you can choose not to ask questions. And that is sort of, I think, the idea that some are putting forward, which is well, Well, investigators are saying there's no evidence that this was politically motivated and in response to the doxing documents that appeared and all of the stuff. But at the same time, how hard are they looking and might someone have suggested to them not to investigate something? Sometimes you find that out due to emails or communications that are released, but sometimes you just don't, right? The absence of an investigation is much harder to definitively sort of describe qualitatively than an investigation that takes. place and is a poor investigation. And so, honestly, I'm not that optimistic we'll ever really

know the truth, although I hope that we do. Well, I would argue that even if they did definitively find out that this was someone who was angry with the judge over politics, that this wouldn't be all that damaging for the Trump administration because there have already been plenty of examples of political violence against people on the left and people who are anti-Trump. And these Trump supporters don't seem to care all that much. They don't think it's that big of a threat. Like we had, of course, the attack on Nancy Pelosi's home that led to Paul Pelosi getting severely injured. We had the attack on the governor's mansion in Pennsylvania a few months back. It's not like Trump supporters are changing their tune and having this conversation about

how we have to tone down the rhetoric and political violence is running rampant. No, they only reserve those talking points for when it's a member of their own who is the victim. So if we find out 100% that this was political violence, they would just shrug it off. They would think it was no big deal. And this was just some South Carolina judge anyway. It wasn't like a Charlie Kirk figure. So they wouldn't pay that much attention to it without a doubt. Even if this was political violence, it would never get the attention of the Charlie Kirk assassination.

That's for sure. So we'll, I mean, we'll see if there's ever a final and formal determination on that. We don't have one at this point in time. Alexandria Acacio Cortez is suggesting something that we've kind of talked about before that really gets to sort of like the insecurities of the maga space with regard to masculinity. She told her supporters during a live stream. She does these live streams. And I don't, I never have watched one live, but I've seen clips from them.

And she seems to speak pretty frankly and honestly in them. She suggested that supporters straight up laugh at people like Stephen Miller that rather than, you know, being angry and breaking down at a core level, his authoritarian policy ideas and so on and so forth. She suggested, you just got to clown this guy. He's tiny. He's like four feet 10 inches tall, which isn't true, but she says he's like four feet 10 inches tall.

He's angry about the fact that he's four feet 10 inches tall. He's taking his anger about being short out on other people. He represents this insecure masculinity and we should just laugh at it. And she argued, and I believe convincingly, this is a quote, that one of the most powerful cultural things you can do to a political movement predicated on the puffery of insecure masculinity is to make fun of them by make them even more insecure, take advantage of their insecurities. I think that there is a lot to this, Pat. And we've even talked about it in the context of our discussion about the whole alpha beta male thing. And we've pointed out. And in fact,

we did a piece about the alpha males that aren't really alpha males. We included Stephen Miller in that piece. We also included Trump and others. I do think there is something to this. These are not really political arguments. These are really psychological arguments about identifying people's insecurities and making fun of them, which is sort of what bullies do. And in the abstract, I wouldn't support it. But in this specific case, they are bullying other people all the time, both about mutable and immutable characteristics. And I don't think it's the end of the world to say we're going to fight fire with fire a little bit here. We're not lying. We're not committing crimes, but we are going to make fun of them about something that they are really insecure about.

Right. There's this old adage in politics about how you should actually attack your opponents based on the things that make them look strong, not the things that make them look weak. So for Trump, for example, he likes to project this image of being this alpha male. And a lot of people think, oh, yeah, he's just like in a very aggressive, masculine leader. But the truth is, of course, that we know he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He never had to work a day in his life. He doesn't exercise. He dyes his hair, dies his skin.

He's really the opposite of a masculine man in a lot of ways. So to attack him on that, I think is politically advantageous because it makes a fool out of him, right? And I think it undercuts the main argument that people have when it comes to Trump, that he's this no bullshit leader who is tough and is willing to stand up to people. I think you can easily extend that to Stephen Miller and try to ridicule him. But what do you think about the argument that she uses, which is that you should attack him over, like, his height, for example, because he's, like, short and insecure about it, supposedly. That kind of rubs me the wrong way because there are also people on our side who have insecurities or are short or whatever the case may be. So attacking Stephen Miller over his height, are we also sort of in kind attacking our own who are short or not things that they're insecure about?

Here's the thing. My problem isn't with height specifically because here, once you open the door to ridiculing someone's masculinity, almost any characteristic might also apply to people you don't want to make fun of, right? I mean, so, so like, let me put it a different way. What are the characteristics other than height about Miller that we could make fun of that relate to masculinity that wouldn't in some way present the same qualm? you have with the one about height?

Like, what else is there? Is it that he doesn't have big muscles? Is it that he's bald? I mean, all this stuff could apply to anybody, right? Yeah, I mean, all this stuff could apply to like any masculine feature, right? I suppose the hypocrisy angle is like the best way to go about doing it, that these right wingers claim that they are examples of these alpha males, but they don't live up to their own standards.

Like, that's the safest way. The way I would do it is I would go, listen, in my world, I don't value people based on physical appearance. I don't value people based on strength. I don't value people based on height. There is a political movement MAGA, which makes fun of disabled people. It makes fun of obese people. It makes fun of bald people. It makes fun of all these different things. If they are really serious about this, why haven't they kicked Stephen Miller out yet? Because he is bald and he is scrawny and he is short. And you know, so like I think there's a way to make it like these These are not our values.

But if we hold them to their values, these people are pathetic and MAGA should go, we reject it, right? I think that's the language in some way. Yeah, but maybe they just say, well, just because we value these things, just because we value the alpha males, that doesn't mean that we all are that's our type of masculinity. And we admire those people who have those qualities, but we're not necessarily saying that we ourselves are those alpha figures. They could always use that approach, but I don't know if that's all that convincing either.

I don't I think we I don't think it's that convincing. Yeah. I mean, exactly. I think I think that if you're going to do this, I think it has to be done in a certain way. And if they if they say, well, not everybody's required to meet all the required those requirements to be in the club. Then we go, oh, you guys just sound kind of stupid. You know, that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. Um, you think it's smart of AOC to be encouraging this aside from whether it's a good idea. Um, well, you know, AOC likes to speak candidly to her audience when she does these live streams. It's not a bad idea, I think, to hit Stephen Miller where it hurts. I do worry about those like immutable characteristics going out after those things because I think people

could get the wrong intentions. But certainly there's a lot of different ways you can make fun of Stephen Miller. Just take a look at what he says when he does these media appearances and respond to him. I mean, you can just look at that if you want to criticize something about him. All right. We're getting closer to the supposed UFC fight on the White House. lawn that the Trump administration is orchestrating. It was initially going to be in 2026, then it was going to be July. I guess now it's going to be, uh-oh, not again, on Donald Trump's birthday. The day that Trump turns 80, you might remember for his last birthday, he threw a military

parade where there were squeaky tanks. The next birthday is going to be a UFC fight. I have to tell you, I think this is so unbecoming of the of the White House. And I know that there are people who love this shit and they go, UFC's awesome. It's great to, to, you know, make the White House more accessible to the people. And this is really cool and what a I think that this is idiotic. Trump and Dana White, the president of UFC, I know are friends. The White House is going to need, you know, after the event, it's going to destroy all the grass.

UFC said they'd spend like $700,000 to replace all the White House grass. It's going to do a bunch of damage. I just fundamentally, I'm not big. on like the sacredness of stuff. I really it's not about that. This just strikes me as unbecoming of the office of the presidency, which is how I see Trump as well. I it just to me is is just it's not the way this was all designed to go. And you think that's because it's specifically UFC because it's fighting like if they no, no, I would I don't think there should be a basketball game on the White House lawn. I don't they I mean it just there are certain things where it's

Like, I'm sort of figuring it out as I, as I talk it through with you. Here's what I think my problem is. Under MAGA and under Trumpism, we have seen institutions sort of diminished and belittled. And, you know, even the idea that you put Benny Johnson in the White House press room, like, everything is being devalued in every way. And I think a sporting event at the White House is part of that devaluing. And it's not about, oh, the White House is sacred, but it's about, you know, when you look at the distrust and expertise and the diminishment of institutions and the idea that anything can just like not really be as valuable or important as we thought, I think throwing a UFC fight on the White House lawn just kind of points in the same direction. All right. Yeah. I don't have anything in principle against like having a UFC fight or certainly like a basketball game or a baseball game. I can see how USC would be like a stretch too far.

people because of the violent nature of it. But like if we just had America's pastime baseball on the front lawn of the White House and the MLB set up the game and they promised to like cover the costs if grass was destroyed. Like I don't think I would have a major issue with it. Okay. My issue, however, is that Trump is so buddy, buddy with Dana White and that whole UFC sphere and it's the one environment he can go to that's a sports environment and he won't get booed out of the arena.

He'll actually get cheered. So it's just the latest example of him trying to give out. goodies to his friends and they in kind, of course, will support him for his 80th birthday. That's the thing about this that rubs me the wrong way. And in addition, I think it's probably not a good look to have such a violent sport at the White House. And I'm not against the UFC, but I don't think that it's a good mixing of imagery. You know what's so funny. Of course it's also corrupt and cronyistic. It's so funny because like almost everything Trump does is the Trump shoes and the Trump, uh, NFT and the crypto and it's so funny where it's like we're, we're so used to that

that like, of course Pat is correct. Dana White is his friend and this is going to be a big, he's basically handing, I don't know how much they'll make off of this, but presumably millions of dollars to Dana White. And it's corrupt and cronyistic and nepotistic. But like like almost everything Trump does, it has that characteristic. It's crazy that we've gotten so used to that where if it were Biden giving some friend who owns, you know, imagine. Oh, I have a friend who owns like a car racing league.

We're going to have a car race on the White House long. Everybody would go, this is, it's corruption. And of course, it is. There's always another layer when it comes to these Trump controversies. Often that extra layer has to do with hypocrisy. Sometimes it has to do with corruption. Sometimes it has to do with racism. Like, for example, last week we covered the story about Trump posting to truth social,

that fake video of Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer and Jeffries had the sombrero and the mustache. There were a lot of people, of course, who were talking about how that was a racist post. We didn't even get to that on our analysis of the story. We just talked about AI because with Trump, there's often a layer of racism underneath it. So when it comes to these different things, we just often can't get to everything because there are these other side stories that seem to always be there when it comes to Trump. Without a doubt. So anyway, let us know.

Do you like the idea of a UFC fight on the White House lawn? Send me an email. If the audience on the bonus show really loves it, I will mention it on a follow-up show. We'll see everybody tomorrow, new show, new bonus show.