The David Pakman Show - Republican melts down at debate as White House dodges $5000 question

Episode Date: October 16, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Republican Congressman Andy Harris gets laughed at by debate audience members and gets confrontational with reporters afterwards -- Joe Rogan expresses regret over Donald Trump's campaign promises regarding foreign conflict and immigration enforcement -- Deputy White House Press Secretary Taylor Rogers expresses uncertainty regarding Donald Trump's promised $5,000 voter payments -- Steve Bannon and Mike Johnson warn supporters that a Democratic House victory will trigger widespread administration investigations -- House Speaker Mike Johnson characterizes potential Democratic committee oversight as a nightmare scenario for Republicans -- The upcoming midterm elections present a potential shift in congressional balance of power and presidential oversight -- British foreign policy commentary calls Donald Trump's trade deal for Russian diesel a major strategic mistake -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Trump mocks a man killed by a tiger, Dave McCormick says Trump was courageous to start the Iran war, Megyn Kelly admits Trump is corrupt, and much more... 😴 Lagoon Sleep: Get 15% off with code PAKMAN at https://lagoonsleep.com/pakman 🥐 Wildgrain: Use code PAKMAN40 for $40 off & free croissants for life at https://wildgrain.com/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep mattresses: Get up to 27% OFF at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 👂 MDHearing: Use code PAKMAN to get a pair for just $247 at https://shopmdhearing.com/ 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Book: https://bit.ly/m/attention -- Send David a text: [phone] -- 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 (01:07) Republican congressman laughed at during debate (09:30) Joe Rogan criticizes Trump over Iran war and ICE (15:54) White House press official hedges on $5,000 checks (23:48) Steve Bannon warns of Democratic impeachment plans (30:55) Mike Johnson warns against congressional oversight (40:20) Midterm election stakes threaten Trump authority (47:14) The Telegraph criticizes Trump's Russian diesel deal (55:27) Friday Feedback segment Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Unlock unlimited free grocery delivery with PC Express Pass. Shop online and get the same low No Frills prices delivered. Get your first year of PC Express Pass for just $2.50 a month. Learn more at no frills.ca. Hold music. Not exactly what you want to hear when a pipe just burst in your basement is flooding. And your vinyl collection is getting soaked. And your cat just floated by on a sofa cushion?

That's why intact insurance answers 2 million claim calls. per year within 20 seconds. It's their way of going the extra mile to help. So instead of hearing this lovely track over and over and over, you'll hear this in seconds. Hello, intact insurance. Now that's music to your ears. My rec league goalie says he plays for the love of the game. You gave up six goals last week, Steve. Maybe play to win, huh? Like with Bet365, I get paid the second my team goes up big with early payout and can cash out at any time before the game ends. Steve, Bet365, the home of winning early. Must be 19 and older, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you were someone you know is concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario. CA or call 1866 5 through 1,2,600. Terms and conditions apply. Coming up today, Joe Rogan openly admitting that Trump's biggest campaign promises weren't real, including his promise to keep the US out of new wars. And remember that Rogan helped get him elected. Meanwhile, Trump's own White House spokesperson is asked about those.

$5,000 checks that everybody was promised if Republicans win. Her answer is basically, yeah, we'll see about that, which is, of course, not reassuring because nobody's getting those checks. And Republicans are increasingly sounding the alarm about what happens if Democrats take control of Congress. Steve Bannon is warning about impeachment, subpoenas, investigations, and apparently he thinks that's going to scare people. Don't promise me a good time, dude. We also have a Republican congressman having two meltdowns in one night. And the remarkable choice. by Trump to help Vladimir Putin. Wait a second.

What are we doing here? All of that and more today plus some of your emails, your YouTube comments, your text messages, and more. Let's do it today. Hey, I've got good news to start with today. There are some people out there thinking for themselves and that's a pretty good start when the bars have been set so low. Here's a Republican Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland who managed to have two absolutely

ridiculous meltdowns in the span of a single debate event. And I have to tell her or town hall, maybe we would call it. And the second one is extra weird because Harris is an actual member of Congress, but apparently doesn't understand how the law works when people record video in public. Now, this all happened after an event with, I guess, I guess it's a debate with this Democratic challenger Dan Schwartz. And I want to start with what happened during the debate. This is going to give you an idea of where Harris's head was at before things got even worse. Harris was trying to blame Democrats for everything. High prices are because of Democrats.

And all the, remember, Republicans control the White House, Republicans control the House, Republicans control the Senate, Trump's president. And what Harris tried to do is stand there and tell voters, Democrats are responsible for what you're paying at the pump. And the audience just wasn't buying it. People started laughing and he didn't like it. He said, you are so rude. The facts are that diesel prices have gone up.

There's no question about it. Why has it gone up? the Democrats, environmental regulations have not, ma'am, I got to tell you that this is the, this is the problem. You all say you believe there's a First Amendment, but only if you agree with you. Laughing violates the First Amendment now. You should let me finish the sentence, ma'am. You are rude. Oh boy. Now imagine being an elected member of Congress showing up to debate. your opponent making an argument that the audience finds ridiculous and then they laugh and you go, what about the First Amendment?

First of all, the First Amendment applies to the government. But this is just called politics. People can disagree. People can laugh. They can think your argument makes no sense because your argument makes absolutely no sense. And if your response is to scold the audience for being rude, you're not winning undecided voters, sir. But that was only the beginning.

Now here's the really good part. Okay. After the debate, Harris was, I don't even know that I want to do. use the word confronted, but a reporter spoke to Harris. And it gets even more embarrassing because, of course, everybody's recording. It's a public forum. Every reporter has a phone out and is recording. Harris decided the one particular reporter he doesn't likes recording is illegal. And he even started saying, you are breaking the law. Uh, oops, let's take a look at this. You do not have my permission to record. If you record, we record, we, we're going to.

We will refer you to the prosecutor. Everyone in here is reporting. But we will refer you to the prosecutor. She points out everyone's recording. You are not allowed to. We are in a two party state. You are not allowed to report. Now that's critical.

We're going to get back to that. Harris says this is a two party consent state. Some states require recordings where some states require only one of the two parties in the conversation to know that it's being recorded. Some states require all parties, both people, if it's two or three, to know that there is a record. recording going on. He is arguing that because he doesn't consent to the recording, it is illegal. We're going to get back to that. All allowed to. What's, excuse me?

Why am I not allowed to? Because I refuse to, I'll give you permission to do. If everyone else in this room, it doesn't make it. Can you please hold my phone? Do you know the law? What's your question? With do you respect? This is a public forum.

This is a. All right. Then other people can hold my phone and record. And then someone says, sir, this is a public forum. This is, do you know the law? I'm not a lawyer. Are you a, you're a legislator. Yeah, I actually like that.

You're a doctor. Do you know the law? Actually know the law well because we have to prosecute. You said that you wanted the, you wanted the war in Iran. You said that it could have gone smoother and it could have gone better. What did you mean by that? Take her camera. You're going to take her camera.

She is violating the law. In fact, take her camera. She's violating the law. Oh boy. Get an officer in here. She's violating the law on two party, two party recording. The officer. Me and an officer.

I thought that- You're not going to respect me. Excuse me. Isn't that just for telephone communication? I don't know the law. It's recording. Video and audio and video have to have two-party approval in Maryland. If you're jumping out of your seat because you're like, David, everything he's saying is wrong, we're going to analyze the substance of what he's claiming. Don't worry.

Now, they may not have to have it in Washington, D.C. They have to have it in Maryland. She needs my approval to record. That's why when she- We're in public. It makes no difference whatsoever. It makes all the difference. We are not in a public.

We are not the government facility. Congressman, you said that you supported the First Amendment. What does they say about that? All right, guys. Congressman Harris, she's ruining all your chances to get an answer about anything. See y'all. Yeah. All right.

All right. I mean, I don't know that I've ever seen a snowflake as triggered as this. Here's the deal. Maryland has what's called two party consent. It's really all party consent, which is in situations covered by that state. statute, everyone involved in a private conversation generally has to consent to audio recording. Now, there are about four different things. Andy Harris seems not to understand.

Number one, the law doesn't ban recording public officials at public events. Why? There is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In that environment, it's a public event. The public is invited. There's cameras. There's 10 reporters all recording everything. You can't go, well, I'm not part.

party to all party consent with your phone, it doesn't work that way. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The important distinction is are the conversations private? If you're a member of Congress, having an exchange with reporters in a public setting, you're surrounded by other people, you can't just declare that recording is illegal because I don't consent. It doesn't work that way. Now, of course, the circumstances of the recording can make a difference, but there's zero basis for the blanket claim that recording these exchanges without him specifically approving it is a crime. What is so remarkable about this is that as he says, I'm a lawmaker. That's right. He's a sitting member of Congress. He's making law and he's trying to use a misunderstanding of state law to intimidate a

reporter who is simply doing her job. Think about that sequence. He's mad because someone laughed at his answer. And then the debate is over. And he's, you're very, I'm curious because a reporter is recording him. So apparently the public isn't supposed to laugh at him. The press isn't supposed to record him in a public setting, but he's saying other people don't respect the First Amendment? What are people allowed to do? You can only sit and nod and applaud.

There's a bigger issue here, okay? We've seen this pattern with Republican politicians in the Trump era. They become used to friendly media environments and care. carefully managed appearances and audiences that cheer for everything they say. Some of them seem shocked when they encounter people who just don't agree. A voter laughs and it's an outrage and a reporter records an exchange and it's illegal. And everything's an attack. Everything's unfair. Everybody's behaving wrongly. And meanwhile, he can't handle the most basic elements of being a public official. Just answer some questions.

You're going to get questions. People are going to disagree. Somebody will laugh. journalists will try to document what you say. That's democracy. And the irony is that him flipping out has brought way more attention to this than it would have gotten otherwise. So I don't know that he's really a strong supporter of the First Amendment. It doesn't seem to seem like it. If I were running a congressional campaign, I wouldn't be trying to get involved in this sort of stuff because these videos circulating are going to lead people to say, if he can't handle a woman laughing and a reporter recording him. How can he handle actually being a member of Congress? How can he stand up to Trump? Well, he has no, no plan to stand up to Trump. This guy's pathetic.

And he really showed it. Joe Rogan is now openly acknowledging some of the things Trump promised in 2024 during the campaign aren't happening. They weren't true. And what's interesting about this is Rogan was one of the most influential single people who helped Trump win that election. Rogan interviewed Trump just before the election for three hours, gave him access to a huge audience, and then said, I do endorse, I'm voting for Trump. And now Rogan's looking around and realizing, damn, all that stuff I was promised we didn't get. Take a listen to this first clip. What Trump stood for, some of it turned out to not be real. Like one of them was the no wars. Well, look, we're at a war with Iran. So that wasn't real. The other thing was closing the border.

That is real. But then with that, then you have the, you know, Tim Dillon had a great description of ice. He said former backyard carnival wrestlers who took like a seven-week course. It's nuts to just get someone a $50,000 signing bonus. You train them for seven weeks and then give them guns and you have a militarized force running through the fucking city streets. And put a mask on your face.

And put a mask on your face. Look, I can understand why they have to put a mask on their face because they get targeted. But it's also, it's like we're setting a weird precedent if you allow a militarized force to just go through the cities with no identification. They don't have to have identification. So I understand that you're trying to get out violent criminals. And I support that. I get that.

But when you have a, you're setting a precedent. If you allow a militarized police force with no identification with masks on to enter into cities, of course, people are going to say this is an overstep. Yeah. It's a pretty remarkable announcement. I mean, he's like he's basically right. And he's bringing up a lot of these different issues of how ICE is operating and pointing out this is this is completely Fubar. He also brings up the war with Iran and says we're now at war with Iran and it's bad. It's not what we were promised. I do not like this Iran war in any way of shape of form. It doesn't make any sense for us.

It seems like it's getting really out of hand. They would trying to get every single president, including Trump, in his first term, to do this. Yeah. And now we've done it, and it's very clear, it's a giant quagmire, it's very clear there's no easy way out. Not good. No. But there's still a lot of people that insist that it had to happen, that Iran was the greatest funder of state terrorism in the world, and that what they were doing was, you know, funding and arming these forces and having them do these, commit these terrorist attacks. And I'm sure a lot of that's true.

I do not. So listen, Rogan's analyses in these two minutes of video are basically right. And the feedback that I would have if he ever had me back on his show was Joe, these are not obscure policy disagreements that nobody could have predicted. And the reason we know they were predictable is a ton of us were predicting them. Trump's immigration rhetoric was super aggressive during the campaign. Why wouldn't he be doing what he's doing now? Because he said he was going to do it. And his plans for mass deportations weren't a secret.

None of these things were secrets. And the idea that Trump was this anti-war president was always bullshit. His record didn't reflect that. And Trump was merely using that to try to get ahead of the election because he perceived there was an appetite for anti-war. And maybe most importantly, Joe, you were not a passive observer of all of this. He sold Trump to millions of people. And now he's like, I sold them a product that didn't match the advertising.

kind of did match the advertising. Maybe they weren't paying attention. The other issue on on Iran war, where he says the war doesn't really make sense for the United States. Other presidents were pressured to do it, but Trump has done it. It's a quagmire. Those are serious criticisms. They're worth taking seriously. But they raised the obvious question of like, what did Rogan think was going to happen? Trump was never someone whose political commitments were consistent. He says what works for the audience he's talking to that day and makes whatever promises he thinks he needs to. And the next day, different audience, someone got to him and was like, don't say that, say this.

The promises are gone. And we'll get in the next segment to some of the promises that he's been making. And this is why evaluating a presidential candidate requires more than deciding whether you like how he sounds on a podcast. And if you're entertaining and charismatic and you tell people what they want to hear, you are not necessarily someone with a coherent governing philosophy. And to Rogan's credit, listen, I'm glad he's at least criticizing Trump now rather than pretending everything's going perfectly.

That's preferable to defending all of these insane decisions Trump is making. But there is a difference between recognizing a problem after the fact and recognizing the warning signs before, which we were all talking about and ignoring them and putting someone in power. So I think Rogan's endorsement really mattered, even if we can't measure exactly how many votes it changed. He had this massive platform. He used the platform to support Trump. And now he's telling the same audience that some of the promises weren't real. The bigger question is, will this change how Rogan evaluates candidates going forward? Is J.D. Vance going to go on Rogan's show in 28 if he's the nominee and tell the same completely unbelievable lies and make promises we know he can't

keep? And is Rogan going to fall forward again? So you've got to learn to distinguish campaign promises from incredible policy commitments, but also don't dismiss campaign promises as bluster. You have to be able to evaluate. Okay. When Trump says we're going to have 6% GDP growth, I doubt it. And I don't think Trump can control that. That's a promise that I don't think he's going to keep. We're going to reduce gas prices 50%. Yeah, presidents can't really control that. And for gas prices to go down 50% from where they were at the end of Biden's term would require pretty significant economic cratering. I don't think Trump's going to deliver that. We're going to have the super aggressive deportation force and deport as many people as possible as violently as possible.

Trump said they were going to do that. And he does have the ability to put that in place. And he did it. So how is anybody surprised? Now, when it comes to promises, what about the five grand? I want to talk about that next. Something very interesting just happened with one of Donald Trump's promises about sending everybody five grand if Republicans win.

And someone is raising doubts about that's actually, whether that's actually going to happen. And it is not a Democrat who is doing it. It's not someone on MS now. It is not a Trump critic. Trump's own deputy White House press secretary, Taylor Rogers, was asked about those payments on Fox on Fox News on Newsmax. And she, I am interpreting her as saying it's never going to happen. Now, she says it a little bit differently.

Take a listen to how she says it. So the president is always looking for ways to put money back in the pockets of Americans' wallets. And, you know, we'll see if that's a promise he delivers on hopefully in November. We'll see if that's a promise he delivers on, hopefully in November. Hmm. In other words, it's never going to happen. You are the deputy White House press secretary. And your job is to communicate the administration's plans and explain what is Trump doing. And when somebody goes, what about the $5,000 checks? You go, well, we'll see if that's something he delivers on. Now, to be clear, Rogers didn't say the checks are canceled.

Rogers didn't say nobody's going to receive the checks. And you know what? They're not going to win the House and Senate. That's really going to stop anybody from getting checks because the requirements were, if Republicans hold the House and Senate, everybody gets five grand. And they're going to lose the House. But she also didn't offer any kind of timetable, an indication that the payments are guaranteed. This is not, you know, Trump said I guarantee everybody gets the five grand.

And we didn't believe it then. Rogers is saying we'll see if that's something he delivers on. Nobody's getting it. And it would be a big deal. Listen, with prices the way they are, we're talking about rent, groceries, car repairs, paying down credit card debt. Trump's saying we're going to do it. It is reasonable for Americans to know, is this a real thing?

Where's the money coming from? Who qualifies? Are the checks automatic? Do I have to sign up? Does Congress have to approve them? By the way, the answer is yes, Congress does have to approve. them. When would we get the money?

We are not asking complicated questions. These are basic questions and they should have been answered before everybody started counting on payments. I think there's a distinction between announcing a policy and implementing a policy. Presidents can propose sending money to people. He can mention it in interviews. He can generate headlines. But you need a mechanism to do it.

You need a funding source. You need eligibility rules. You need legal authority, which Trump doesn't have. of that stuff's been established and a proposal is not a check. And that is why she is so revealing. She could have explained, well, right now, we have identified where the money will come from. We are working with Congress on a framework for how they would authorize the payments.

And I, you know, we'll see. We'll see if that's something that Trump delivers on. It's running into a wall of reality. Five grand sounds great in the abstract. When people go, well, how much will it cost? How will it work? Who will get it? It's a much more specific question. And the administrator has to explain, is this something we are actually

prepared to deliver? Are we going to actually get the checks out? These are very different outcomes. So I think it's a good thing that we are seeing such hesitation from anybody other than Trump himself to say, oh, definitely people are going to get these checks because we're all smart enough to realize nobody is getting these checks. Now, their get out of jail free card is going to be that the checks were only going out if Democrats lose the House and Senate. If, if Republicans hold the House and Senate. Every indication is that Democrats are going to win the House and Senate. And in fact, if I look right now, generic ballot House 2026, the generic congressional vote is an average

of plus eight for Democrats right now. Even if that's off by half, Democrats still take the House. So you're not getting the checks, but there's many reasons why you're not getting those checks. Many of us put more thought into our coffee than the pillow we sleep on every night. If sleep is part of how you recover and feel ready for the day, your pillow needs a little bit of attention. Now, our sponsor Lagoon treats pillows like recovery gear. They have options designed for different bodies and different sleeping positions. And their 60 second sleep quiz will match you with a pillow instead of assuming one design

works for everybody. you get it, you can add or remove fill to customize the height and support. I took the quiz. I got matched with the polar bear pillow. I couldn't have told you before this what kind of pillow would suit me. So it was interesting to get a recommendation. It has worked out great. It's my favorite pillow. There's also a 100-night trial. So you have time to figure out what works for you in your own bed. Visit lagoon's sleep.com slash Pacman. use code Pacman for 15% off your first purchase, the link is in the description. There's something about this time of year that makes fresh baked food even better.

Could be a warm breakfast on a chilly morning or something sweet with your afternoon coffee. This is the season for it. And our sponsor, Wild Grain, makes it really easy to get bakery quality food in your home. They deliver sourdough bread, seasonal pastries, and French butter, all made by small independent bakeries with simple, recognizable ingredients. It all arrives frozen, ready to bake whenever you want in 25 minutes or less. You can customize your box with classic gluten-free vegan or protein options. You can skip or cancel any time. I love the apple cider donuts. This is like, you know, I grew up in New England. This is just perfect for this time of year made with real apple cider,

cinnamon nutmeg, soft center and that crisp cinnamon sugar coating. They take five, to eight minutes in the oven. If you want to enjoy some fresh baked treats at home, I recommend wild grain. And for carbs giving, Wild grain's biggest sale of the year, you can get $40 off your first box, plus free croissants for life. Go to wildgrain.com slash Pacman 40 or use Pacman 40 at checkout. The link is in the description. Tuesday is the big day. It's not election day. That's a couple more Tuesdays, but Tuesday we are doing our final one day membership drive. This is primarily an audience funded program. We have employees.

We have expenses. I try to do right by everybody and do healthcare and all of that stuff. And that is not without cost. That's the reality. And we are going to be discounting our memberships, both annual and monthly memberships, down to quite literally pennies a day. And I would love for you to become a new member of the show on Tuesday. If you would like to be notified about this dangerous, very dangerous membership discount, we want to set a one day record for new members. Get on my texting list. Text me 646-531-4333.

Or get on my substack list, substack.davidpackman.com. It's that easy. And then Tuesday, you will wait up and at the stroke of dawn, actually, it'll probably be later than that. It will be, in fact, you'll get an email and it'll say, hey, here's a discount code. Take advantage of this as I'm having a really weird problem with my hair today. Substack.davidpac.com 646-5314333. Let's do it. Trump propagandist Steve Bannon has laid out what he believes is going to happen if Republicans lose control of the House in November. And I have to tell you, I don't think it's having the effect that he intended because Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe Rogan and Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon is describing what he believes is a nightmare scenario.

And it is a nightmare scenario for Donald Trump. But that sounds like a really good scenario for most of the country and most of the world. We have a world. Here is Ted Cople, a very distinguished looking Ted Cople interviewing Bannon. Listen to this. House, you're in deep trouble. I think if we lose the house, we're in trouble because I think I've always been an advocate. The House, like the founders, set it up as the House of Commons. All revenue, all spending, the investigative apparatus. I think it just boggs down everything President Trump's going to do.

And they're not going to be able to, as much as they try to convince people, they're going to be able to control, they're more radical elements. They're just not. It's going to be like when Pelosi won in 18. She, because I fell over because she ran on. we're going to impeach Trump. Yeah. But then she then she took her time.

I think you'll see Bobby Kennedy impeach. I think you see Pete Hagesteth impeached. I think you see subpoenas flying every day. They will look to destroy President Trump and will be bogged down for two years. Sounds beautiful. I mean, like he's talking about this like, hey, be careful. This might happen. And I'm like, wow, don't threaten me with a good time.

Wow. Wow. Bobby Kennedy impeached, Pete Hegseth impeached subpoenas flying every day. Two years of investigations into Trump. That sounds great. It sounds like I hope that that's a promise and not a threat. Now, what's so interesting about this is that Bannon isn't the first prominent Republican to sound this alarm.

We covered Mike Johnson previously warning about this. In a moment, we're going to look at Mike Johnson's latest warning about this. What would Democrats do if they take the House? They would impeach Trump. They would do all this stuff. Mike Johnson said it's a guarantee first or second day. I think that this is all phenomenal. Now, Bannon is going further and he's going, it won't be Trump.

It'll be Kennedy. It won't be just Trump. It'll be all of these other people too. And they are describing this as if it's a bad thing, as if it's a national catastrophe, as if it's something that, you know, we should mourn. But let's examine what they're actually afraid of. When Bannon says subpoenas will be flying every day, the natural question is subpoenas for what? Documents about Trump's financial dealings. That seems perfectly normal and expected and necessary. subpoenas for communications between administration officials about all of the various atrocities that they are involved in. That sounds good.

Subpoenas about decisions made at the Pentagon and the handling of the Epstein files, immigration enforcement, how these sweetheart government contracts were doled out. Congress is supposed to do that. They act like, oh my goodness, if they take control of the house, Congress is going to do all this stuff. Damn right. Congress is supposed to do all that stuff. Congress is supposed to investigate. Congress is supposed to evaluate a president's actions and say, is it impeachment worthy? And if it is, they are supposed to impeach. It's that simple. And remember that this is not hypothetical in the sense that nobody has thought about it. Democrats are preparing

investigations. Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia and others have been saying, here is what congressional oversight would look like with a Democratic majority. Here's what we would do. Here's how we would do it. Pete Hegseth has already faced impeachment efforts over his handling of the Pentagon and the Iran war. Democrats are rightly raising questions about RFK Jr. and his leadership, although I use that term very loosely, of the Department of Health and Human Services. And Trump has already been impeached twice. A third impeachment would be historic. No president has ever been impeached three times. Now, quick reminder because sometimes people get confused. Impeachment is not removal. Every time I talk about this without explaining some people write in and they go, David,

what do you mean he'll be impeached? We're not, we won't necessarily have the Senate and if we do, it won't be with two thirds. That's right. The House impeaches and the House impeaches with a simple majority to remove someone requires to be can requires being convicted by two thirds of the Senate. So you don't need the Senate to impeach the Senate with a simple, the House with a simple majority could impeach Trump and impeach Hegseth and Kennedy, whoever, without necessarily being able to remove them. But I don't think that the impeachment is the most interesting part of this. The really important part would be what happens before the impeachment, the investigations

and the hearings and the putting people under oath and getting them to testify, documents that they don't want to turn over and questions that Republican committee chairs have no interest in asking. For almost two years, Trump has had a Republican Congress that largely has protected him for many real scrutiny. And Bannon is telling us they are going to be scrutinizing us if they take the House. Damn right. We are going to be bogged down for two years. Yes, you will. Steve, if you're worried that, you know, answering questions about what this administration's been up to is going to consume the final two years of Trump's presidency? Yes, it will.

But the problem isn't the questions. It's what the answers might reveal. And to be clear, winning the House doesn't automatically mean Dems can do whatever they want. The administration can fight subpoenas. They can get courts involved. Trump would still have massive executive authority. larger, by the way, than Republicans used to argue president should have. But it would change the balance of power in Washington.

And Bannon knows that. This is not about whether Democrats immediately impeach Trump or whether they start with Hegseth or Kennedy or whatever. It's about will the people running the administration keep operating with impunity and the up till now correct assumption that Congress isn't going to hold them accountable? Or is that going to change? Now, Bannon is trying to scare people with the prospect of investigations and impeachment and subpoenas. What he's admitting is congressional oversight could fundamentally change the final two years of Trump's presidency.

And the fact that he considers it a nightmare tells you how they view accountability. Consequences are a nightmare to them. Accountability is a nightmare. It cannot happen. It must not be allowed to happen. Well, it's going to happen. And it is not only Steve Bannon who is realizing this, you should see the level of panic for the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Let's talk about that next. House Speaker Mike Johnson is warning Republicans about what he calls a nightmare scenario if Democrats take control of Congress.

And what is this nightmare? It is that Democrats might investigate Donald Trump. They might investigate members of Trump's administration. They might investigate his family. They might even investigate the donors that are fueling this political operation with a nonstop flow of money. In other words, Congress might do its damn job. Now I'm not exaggerating.

Here is Mike Johnson describing this terrifying possibility. It's a nightmare scenario. Give me a break, dude. What's going to count? And I tell you, the nightmare scenario is one that we're warning people on the trail, because is if this group of insurgent left Democrats, they are Marxists in their ideology. They're telling you what they're for. They really aren't Marxists. They are to your left, but they are not Marxists. Abolish the borders, abolish prisons, defund police, defund the Department of War, but they also

want to go after. They want to do lawfare on steroids. There's like what, one or two serious Democratic candidates who want any of that stuff. Defund the police and the department of the defense. No, maybe one or two people are running. on that, they may not even win. That stuff is really not in the Democratic Party at a federal level. Right. So if this group took over, heaven forbid, Dana, they would turn every committee of Congress into an investigative body. They'd spend every day investigating the president, the first family, the cabinet, you know, donors to the party, leaders in business and industry. It would royal the markets and it would empower our enemies around the world at the worst possible time.

We just sample it can't. It wouldn't empower our enemies. Forget about that. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. They talk about these things like they're a nightmare. This is the oath that members of the House swear. When our friend Dan Coe, Baroque Hashem, right? I mean, we still have, we've got, we've got a vote, but it's looking very good for Dan because in his race, the primary is basically the election. Okay. The day that Dan Coe flies to DC and he brings his lunchbox and his backpack and he's there and he's ready to get started. Okay. I am, uh, um, uh, uh, so inspired by knowing that Dan is going to go there to do his job. And one of the central jobs of the House is to keep the executive branch accountable.

That is called checks and balances. Congress doesn't exist just to pass legislation that the president wants. It is supposed to do oversight. Committees hold hearings and they request documents, and they issue subpoenas and they have the power to investigate potential misconduct. That's how the country was set up. And Mike Johnson is acting as though the checks and balance is put in place by the framers of the Constitution themselves are a nightmare. It's the Constitution. Now, not every congressional investigation is legitimate just because it's done. We've seen partisan investigations. We saw eight hearings into Benghazi for Hillary, as they were talking about her, at the time. And a bunch of this crap is designed to generate headlines and they don't really uncover

anything meaningful. But the idea that Congress investigating a president and the president's family, if the president's family is involved in what the president does, which is the case with Trump, the idea that that's inherently outrageous or wrong or a problem, it is ridiculous. And there's something special about hearing this from Republicans. Remember what happened when Republicans controlled the house during Biden's presidency? They investigated Hunter Biden. They investigated the Biden family. They were talking about Ashley Biden's diary. They launched an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

They held hearings and they demanded documents and they issued subpoenas and they did all of this stuff. And what did Republicans call it? They said, we're doing oversight. It's for accountability. It's our constitutional duty. They were misusing it, but it was. But now when Mike Johnson imagines Democrats exercising the very same powers against Trump,

oh, it's a nightmare. How that works. Now, one other detail that I think is revealing. Johnson could show up and just go, they're going to impeach Trump and that's a nightmare. But Trump's pretty damn unpopular right now. And Johnson suspects it won't stop there. So he says the first family, cabinet members, donors. Why would that automatically be inappropriate?

Because if there are legitimate questions about conflicts of interest and government contracts and donations and using a public office to line your pockets, that's the way. That's what Congress is supposed to do. You're not automatically guilty because we have probable cause to start an investigation, but it means, hey, we have questions and public officials must explain their conduct. Johnson has even gone further before. He has said that they are running a protection program for Republicans. In order to protect Republicans from investigations, they must win.

That's the House Speaker. Now, Republicans will argue these investigations would be politically motivated. They would just be designed to inconvenience Trump. There's nothing real there. I think you have to evaluate the merits of every investigation individually. Oversight isn't illegitimate because your political adversaries are in control. You've got to evaluate every investigation and we will do that. Now, one final distinction. Investigating someone and impeaching them are two different things. The House can conduct investigations. It can vote on impeachment, but to remove a president, you need two-thirds of the vote in the Senate. Democrats taking the

House doesn't mean a single person is removed from office. What it does mean, though, is we take control of the committees away from Republicans and we take control of which questions are asked away from Republicans. That's what this is about. And so when Mike Johnson wants to pretend the sky is falling because the house might finally do its job. That is how the system was designed. And the possibility of oversight is terrifying to them. We should be asking why. That's the real question. They know this guy Trump is corrupt all the way down. They know his family is involved. They know the cronies are involved. They understand that. And so to them, much the same way that a level playing field feels like oppression to the people who are used to having things tilted their way, the congressional

duty of oversight seems like a problem because they on some level suspect they've done a lot of stuff wrong. Their time is coming. They will be investigated. A good mattress is one of those things I don't think much about when it's doing its job. It's sort of like you don't notice the refs in a sporting event when they're doing a good job. And what I notice is I wake up comfortable I don't feel like my bed is getting in the way of sleeping well. And with my Helix mattress, what I really like is the feel. It's supportive but not too firm and comfortable but not too soft. And that's because Helix matched me with the mattress suited for me based on their sleep quiz.

Helix has more than 20 mattress models. So there are options depending on how you sleep, what kind of feel you prefer. They offer cooling upgrades if you tend to sleep hot. You get free shipping in the U.S. 120-night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty. And with the happy with Helix guarantee, returns and exchanges are designed to be straightforward if the mattress isn't the right fit. For listeners of this show, Helix is offering 27% off sitewide exclusively at helix sleep.com

slash Pacman. Make sure you enter the David Packman show after checkout so they know we sent you. The link is in the description. Hearing aids have gotten shockingly expensive, paying thousands of dollars for basic hearing aids does not add up. That is what our sponsor MD Hearing is here to fix. MD Hearing offers rechargeable digital hearing aids for less than 10% of what you'd pay at a traditional hearing clinic.

MD hearing's new Neo model fits inside the ear. It's nearly invisible. The NeoXS is their smallest hearing aid ever, no bulky hardware, no learning curve. learning curve. Family friend of mine has used MD hearing for years now. She loves the affordability. She thinks the virtual appointments are so convenient with MD hearings team of audiologists to help with the device from home. MD hearing has sold over 2 million hearing aids with customers consistently saying they outperform devices that cost up to 10 times more. Every purchase comes with a 60 day trial and a 100% money back guarantee.

For a limited time, MD Hearing is giving my audience a pair of hearing aids for just $247. Plus, you'll get a free extra charging case, a $100 value. Go to shopmdhearing.com. Use my promo code, Pacman. The link is in the description. We may be watching the final days of Donald Trump. Now, I want to be careful. I'm not saying the final days of his presidency.

not the final days of Trump being in the White House, but potentially the final days of the version of Trump we've been dealing with for almost two years, which is the Trump who does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and he has an entire political party making sure there are zero consequences. Now, I believe we looked at Bannon's view in the last segment. We looked at Mike Johnson's view in the last segment. I think Trump understands something very significant could be coming. We are now weeks, really days away from the midterms. And the stakes for Trump are massive. If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, even if Republicans keep the Senate,

the entire dynamic of Trump's presidency is going to change. And here's why. For almost two years, Trump is operated with a Republican Congress, House and Senate, which has basically been a big, fat, rubber stamp. It's been an extension of the White House. Mike Johnson is not an independent speaker who says, I need to be a check on presidential power. He's the guy who acts like Trump's defense attorney. Whatever Trump does, there's an excuse.

Whatever scandal, there's an explanation. Whatever investigation, Republicans find a reason not to investigate even if it should be investigated. But imagine now January of 2027. Trump wakes up, you know, 4 a.m. or whatever. He's still the president. He's still posting wacky adjut trash to troth central, right? Whatever he wants to post. But suddenly, the House of Representatives is controlled by Democrats.

And now there are subpoenas and their hearings and all the stuff we talked about earlier today. And the demands start to come in about Trump's businesses and his family and his administration and his financial relationships and all of the decisions that have been made behind closed doors. And people who wrongly spent two years assuming no one is ever going to do. to ask questions about this stuff are going to have to answer them. And Trump isn't going to be able to call Mike Johnson into the Oval Office and say, make it go away because they will be in the minority. That is a totally different presidency. I know that then there's also impeachment. Now, earlier, we heard from Steve Bannon who said they're all getting impeached. We heard from Mike Johnson

who has said a third Trump impeachment is essentially guaranteed. I don't know if Democrats are planning to impeach. I don't know if they're going to move that quick. There are some Democratic leaders who say, well, we have other investigations we would prioritize. But the point is, it's a real possibility. Impeachment wouldn't mean removal. In fact, it's almost certain that he would not be removed because no matter what, Democrats are not going to have two-thirds of the Senate. But Trump could become the first president in history to be impeached three times and

still finish his term. And what I think is even more important is that every single person in Trump's orbit is going to have to think differently. Every cabinet secretary, every political appointee, every person who's been asked to do something questionable because Trump wanted it done. Right now, they can all count on Republicans in Congress to protect them. But what happens when the protection is gone? And the next questionable decision means, oh, I might have to testify under oath.

I might have to turn over my communications. I might have to lawyer up. I might have to explain who authorized me doing this. That will change how they all calculate it. Now, I don't want to overstate this. Trump will still be president. He will have enormous executive power. He can still issue executive orders, make decisions on foreign policy and all of that stuff.

But it would mean that one of the most important checks on presidential power isn't controlled by Trump anymore. That's number one. Number two, Trump would be heading into the final two years of his presidency with no third term available under the Constitution. And with a political world that will be increasingly focused on what happens after Trump, Republicans are not only going to be more skeptical of doing Trump's bidding because they will be thinking what happens to me, but they will also be thinking post Trump about their careers.

What are the relationships that I will need when Trump is gone? How much are they going to be willing to sacrifice for a president whose political power is rapidly diminishing. So these are the most important midterms I've ever covered, not because we can get rid of Trump on November 3rd. We can't. Any newly elected Congress wouldn't even take power until January. But this could be the beginning of the end of Trump's ability to govern with almost no meaningful resistance from Congress. So we could call them the final days of an unchecked Trump. And for a guy who thinks no one should ever be able to tell him no, that will completely change the dynamics of the next two years.

The other factor that is going to be big is that a beleaguered Trump, a diminished Trump, a sort of limited Trump is not going to play the role he would like to play in the 2028 midterm. And so I don't believe that Republicans, this whole idea of Republicans, this whole idea of Republicans going back. They're not going back. It's been too long. They're going back to a McCain-style nominee. No, no. They're going back to a Romney. They'll go forward. They might moderate. They might get away from this big executive power authoritarianism and go back to what they used to call small government conservatism. They might do that. But they aren't going back. They have to go forward. There's no way to undo that they will have had if Trump survives till January of 29. 14 years of Trump is a political figure in the

States. But if Trump has no power or limited power to influence who does take the power of the Democratic, of the Republican Party, he is not going to be able to force or push a sort of more MAGA direction for the Republican Party. Now, I know some people in my audience think MAGA as a direction for 28 would be good because they're more likely to lose. We want them to put up the wackiest possible candidate. The counter is, if you screw up an election against the wackiest possible candidate, you get somebody really nuts in power. So the point is, we want a diminished Trump. We want a Trump who is subject to oversight. We want all of those things. And we may be budding up against the final days of Trump as someone that is still powerful in the Republican Party. That's the idea here.

And I believe that Trump has made a catastrophic miscalculation. And I want to talk about that next. There's a really interesting article in the British newspaper, The Telegraph, written by Khan Coughlin. He's their executive defense and foreign affairs director. And the headline is Trump has made a catastrophic miscalculation. And what is extra interesting here is that this is not a left-wing American publication. This is a conservative British newspaper and they are looking at what Trump has done with Putin

and saying this is a disaster. And Trump may not even get the political benefit that he's hoping for. So this is what's going on. Trump made this deal to bring Russian diesel onto the global market. And supposedly it was to bring down energy prices thinking lower energy prices would help Republicans in these midterms. The initial agreement is about 300,000 tons of diesel, another 1.5 million tons potentially, did I say 300 million tons of diesel? I meant 300,000 tons of diesel and 1.5 million more maybe by the end of the year. Now think about what this would mean. For years, the United States and its allies have been trying to isolate Russia economically because Putin invaded Ukraine. And the idea is make the war really

expensive for Putin, limit his ability to get money to fund the war. Hopefully eventually it'll pressure Russia into ending this farce. Now, Trump comes along and he goes, hey, you know, You know what? Let's do more business with Putin. Let's give Russia another source of revenue. Let's do it right when the Russian economy is under massive pressure. And it is an extraordinary decision. Now, Trump has made a calculation and I believe he has calculated incorrectly.

Remember in middle school with the TI 83 calculators and you get a parentheses wrong and all of a sudden you're screwed up the, you've screwed up the calculation. I think Trump is miscalculating here. is doing this because energy prices have been going up and Americans are angry and Republicans are maybe going to be devastated in these midterms. And so Trump wants to be able to say, look, I did something to bring down energy. But there's a problem with this strategy. The telegraph article points out the primary driver of the current energy spike in prices is Trump's war against Iran. It's not Ukraine. It's not Zelensky. It's Trump's war. So, Trump's war.

Trump has created an energy crisis and he's going to Putin to try to solve the crisis he created. Somehow in Trump's telling, the person responsible is Zelensky. Trump's been attacking Zelensky more and more and saying they've got to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure and they need a new deal, a new leader who can make a deal and all of that. Now think about the absurdity here. Russia invades Ukraine. Ukraine fights back, including targeting infrastructure that is.

financing Russia's war, energy. And Trump's response is to go after Zelensky and to financially reward Putin. Now, of course, there's a personal element to this. Trump's hostility to Zelensky goes all the way back to the first term when Zelensky wouldn't give Trump that investigation into Biden that he wanted. Remember that whole Trump was impeached over this. It led to Trump's first impeachment. And years later, Trump is still not capable. of separating personal grievance from American foreign policy. Now, the other part of this that I think is fascinating is the political calculation. We are days from the midterms, even assuming that the Russian diesel shipments happen.

How much can they really lower energy prices by November 3rd? Not very much. Energy markets are huge and, you know, prices depend on supply chains and refining capacity and transportation and geopolitical circumstances. You can't really announce a diesel deal and see dramatically lower prices. They'll, they might tick down. But remember that it is a process that needs to work its way sort of through a number of stops.

So Trump may simultaneously alienate European allies, undermine sanctions against Russia, strengthen Putin's ability to continue carrying out this war, damage America's credibility, and it probably won't even really lower the prices Americans are paying very much. at all, certainly not by election date. So it's a tragic, disastrous miscalculation. Trump thinks he can do quick deal with Putin, declare victory. I get rewarded. Republicans win. I don't think so. Voters don't care about announcing a diesel deal with Russia. They care about what am I paying at the pump? What am I paying for groceries? Is life more or less affordable? And if prices stay high, they're going to blame Trump and his party. They're not going to blame Zelensky.

They're not going to blame Ukraine. They will blame Trump. So once again, we are watching Trump sort of confusing, making an announcement with solving a problem. He did this earlier this week. He announced there's a ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine. And both Russia and Ukraine said, what deal? We don't know anything about it.

This time, though, it's going to be more than just embarrassing. Trump is trying desperately to rescue Republicans in order to save himself. But he's trying to rescue them from his own terrible decisions. And Putin may win. Putin may win this thing by getting a new or larger source of revenue. We at some point, and I don't know when it's going to happen, we need to have a reckoning, a national reckoning for having failed this national IQ test twice and put Trump in the Oval office.

I don't know when we're going to be ready for it to happen. I don't know if it will be November 4th if these Republicans get absolutely crushed. I don't know if it'll be November of 2028 after we elect the next president, hopefully not whoever Trump picks. I don't know if it'll be January of 29 when that next president is sworn in. I really don't know. But at some point, and I'm getting so agitated by all of this that I hit my microphone and I apologize for that. At some point, we really need an accounting of this. And when you're trying to get people out of a cult, the first thing is get them out, welcome them out, encourage them. You're doing so great thinking for yourself now. I love that.

Once they're out, we need to figure out what the hell happened to begin with. And to some degree, is it that Trump identified correctly some grievances that people had? Yeah, that that's part of it. Is it that Trump is a sort of charismatic figure in his own weird way of charisma? Yeah, that's part of it. But it's also a media literacy disaster in this country, a general knowledge disaster in this country, a gullibility problem in this country. It is all of those things.

And Trump is really revealing that here. it in stark relief with this totally misguided Putin diesel deal idea. Am I missing something? Is this this deal actually a good idea? Let me know in the comments. Send me an email info at David Pakman.com. Send me a text to 646. 531-34333. I'd love to hear from you. Most underwear really hasn't changed very much. You got your boxers. You got your briefs. Basically everything down there is thrown into the same space. But our sponsor, She. takes a different approach sheath boxer briefs have this unique dual pouch system and it keeps everything separated and supported instead of mash together that might sound like a small change

but when you wear them you will understand why it makes such a difference less sticking less rubbing less readjusting I especially notice the difference when working out but they're super comfortable in any setting they are soft stretchy and moisture wicking. Options include bamboo and mesh. If the pouch system isn't your thing, you just don't use it. They are still insanely comfortable underwear. The design might sound unusual. When you try sheath, it will make sense. Go to sheath underwear.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 20% off. The link is in the description. Matt wrote to me and he said, yo, yo, Yo, thanks for listening to the David Pitchman show.

All the ads that are fit to print. How are the book pre-sales? You know, pay attention. You want to listen or read. You're going to pay. I would be very curious to hear from Matt how he funds all of the expenses of his show with his multiple full-time employees. I would be really interested in hearing that. And I guess Matt doesn't like that there are ads on the show or, you know, that I wrote a book, which incredibly thanks to you became a New York Times bestseller or I don't know what to tell you, Matt. You know, it's that there's this thing where it's like we give the show away for free at the point of listening. If you want a membership to get the show commercial free, cool, but we give the show away.

And we have ads and I wrote a book, which I hoped that people would buy in the lead up to its release. And that's bad too. Like, I don't even really understand the point. Should this just be a volunteer operation? And then I go and get myself a full-time job in addition to the more than full-time job of doing the show. Like, I kind of don't know what people want. But what I can tell you is if you don't like the show, you don't have to listen to it or watch it. You could just go, hey, I'm out for whatever reason.

Is it because you don't like my jacket or you don't like the, the distance between my eyes as some have written in or what? Like, listen, nobody is here under duress. There's many shows available. We're all doing the best job we can with the show and balancing, putting out a good product with the need to pay people's salaries and connectivity and health insurance and all of that stuff. So we're doing the best we can is the way that I would leave it.

All right. Lynn Lesser writes about Trump's proposal. Remember, Trump's proposal is vote for Republicans first and then if we all win, we'll give you five grand. Lynn suggests how about we counter offer with if you pay us five grand, then we'll vote for you. And you know, Lynn is actually completely correct because the source. of the money, supposedly is all the money that has come in under the Trump administration already,

thanks to tariffs and the money that came in on the belly of a plane, trillions from the Middle East and all imaginary stuff to be sure. So you've got the money now. Why not give money to people now? Well, he goes, because if the Democrats win, we won't have any money. Right. So you've got the money now, pay people with it. No, no, no, no, no, no. We can't do that. The entire thing, is a scam. We never got the Doge checks. We never got the tariff checks. We haven't gotten any of it.

And we're not getting the five grand. And what is fascinating is that so many people either don't care or aren't falling for it. There are a lot of people who are saying, I don't believe Trump is going to give me five grand. So I'm not going to change my vote. And then there are people saying, I don't believe there's any way that Republicans win everything. So I'm not getting the five grand regardless. I might as well vote for who I want to vote for. And maybe maybe the absolute most important thing.

It doesn't seem that Trump just can send everybody five grand. It appears as though you need congressional action. So the five grand isn't coming. Vote for who you really want to see win. Crilly lives, wrote an interesting post on our subreddit about the creator space and the forthcoming 28 elections and says the following. David brought this up in the most recent daily show, and it worries me. Not that new media is going to take a bigger place in politics, that's kind of obvious,

but the personalities that we're potentially talking about really do concern me. Some of these folks are very capable of riling up an audience to vote and participate. No argument there. But have we considered what the post game might look like or what the most contentious parts of the political arena might look like with people like this heading political communications? Unfortunately, writes Crilly, some of these folks are so toxic have such toxic edges to their fan bases that I can see them tanking the entire election out of spite for one another if things start to go one way or the other.

One of the sick things about Trump is his inability to just admit defeat gracefully. Are these debate bro guys capable of that? Is the post-Trump political landscape going to mirror his style? In other words, the loudest and most belligerent demagogues shouting over one another and then going nuclear if they lose. This is bringing up some good points. I don't have an exact answer to this, but here's a couple things I want to tell you. I recently went to a creator dinner.

And one of the goals of the dinner was an organization that wanted to get information about sort of how to get the left independent media all on the same page. And when the idea was brought up, everybody started kind of arguing. with each other and bickering. And the sentiment, as I perceived it, was we are not all going to get onto the same page because we all care about different issues. Things affect us differently. The stakes are different for different creators, depending on whether you're financially comfortable or not, blah, blah, et cetera. And it was a realization to me that I don't think we are going to be like the rights unified message paradigm because there isn't a desire for that. You know,

this whole thing of like the left's Joe Rogan. The left doesn't want a singular figure. Now, you could go, that's what's great about the left or that's what's bad about the left. Different people can have different perspectives, but the left is not just going to get in line and say, here is the message. Now, you could argue maybe the left and Democrats would win more elections if they did that. Maybe so. Maybe not. I don't know. But it doesn't seem like there is really much of a desire for that from the left. As far as the primary of 2028 is concerned, I am very worried that it is going to get so internally nasty as candidates start to declare and as people start to say, how could you support X? Only Y is the real true progressive or whatever.

We need a big, robust, strong primary. But we do need to ask ourselves, are we going to. ultimately support whoever is the best candidate. And, you know, if you like AOC, but the nominee ends up being Kamala Harris. Is Kamala Harris better than J.D. Vance? I think so. Then who are you going to vote for? Well, in that scenario, I would vote for Kamala Harris, even if she's not my preferred pick or different perspective. If you really, really like Pete Buttigieg, and the nominee he ends up being Gavin Newsome. If it's Newsome versus Rubio, to me, it's obvious that Newsom's better. So I would vote Newsom in that scenario. Are you going to say, let's vote for the better option?

Or are we going to do like these stay home vote third party games? I to be to be clear, people should do whatever they want. This was my position last time. If you are morally comfortable when the stakes are this high, for example, as it was, Harry, Trump. If you're comfortable telling people they both suck stay home and dealing with the potential consequences of that, do it. I'm not here to shame anybody. Everybody's moral compass is different. There are people who are more accelerationist. And it's like, if I don't get who I really want, then I don't give a damn. All right. I mean, listen, that's to a degree why Hillary lost to Trump. And there were consequences to that. People should really do what they are comfortable doing.

But I expect it is going to get very ugly, very ugly in the creator space. All right, 1K RAM, 4K ROM wrote in and said all Trump knows about AI and data centers is that his family are all heavily invested in it. Yeah, this is at the end of the day, do you think Trump has real moral feelings about crypto, AI, data center? No, it's like, do I understand it? Probably not. Can I make money from it?

If the answer is yes, it's good. It is that simple with Trump. And I think that this message gets that across very accurately for sure. Okay. David Wayne Rosen wrote in with a beautiful message. I must say I am a big fan of your show. The way you articulate things makes it very easy to understand and absorb all the useful information. But I must say, I think you do your shows early on.

It's like so many things and news events have happened and your shows are always a day old. Listen, we've talked about this before. I film once a day. Okay. It's just the reality is I have kids. So I can't film in the morning and the afternoon and at night and constantly be. I film once a day as many shows do. Because of that, something will always be a day behind.

And sometimes people go, you know, if you filmed at three instead of at 10 a.m. Then you would be right. But then something else would be a day. No matter what, there would always be something that is, quote, a day behind. It's not a breaking news show. There are breaking news shows for sure. This is an analysis show. And I don't think it's the worst thing to sometimes have more information before I give my take.

But it's we film once a day. That is true. And we film it all at once. So I can't. Guilty is charged. Sometimes by the time we do the next show, it's been 23 hours since some piece of news broke. Charles Hacker writes about my book. I pre-ordered the Kindle version.

It arrived this morning. I haven't even had time to glance at it, but I will dive into it soon. I am happy to support your work, David. You help me stay just over the right side of the line of utter despair at what has happened to our country and indeed the entire world. I sincerely hope we can pull out of this fatal inverted dive at nearly the speed of sound. If we can do that and restore some order, we will then face the great work of setting things to rights.

This is so well said. I don't have a lot to say about it other than. That last line is critical. I think there are people out there who believe that in January of 2029, when Trump goes, things will get sort of back to normal. And there is no such normal. There is no going back. We've been doing 11 years of this Trumpian insanity.

And so it is going to take longer. If we even win in 2028, it is going to take longer to get things back on track. It's just a reality. A word of caution from Gavin Ray about the Texas polling. Tala Rico 47.6 and Paxton 44.7 is a win for Paxton, my friend. I wish it wasn't so. But we all know that most of the missing 7.7 hate the hate Paxton and will. still vote for him over a blue-blooded Democratic socialist Marxist pizza eater.

The Texan loyalty to party is strong. Your viewers in Texas desperately need to exercise the right to vote for all of our sake this time. Yeah, you know, it is absolutely the case that I expect the undecided or the I'm unsure if I'm voting group to break for Paxton. in Texas because it is Texas. But at the end of the day, if they break for him, but the lead for Tala Rico is big enough, it won't matter. Now, it is absolute. I'm looking at polling right now. The latest two polls have it Tala Rico 48 to 44. That's only 92% of the vote. That means there's another eight, which could decide the election that's not in there. The Trafalgar group poll, the second latest one, it's 47 to 44. That's only 91% of the vote. That leaves nine

percent elsewhere. I think the reason for concern is absolutely right. We've got to make sure that we keep the pressure up in Texas. Tony Young on Trump giving a bonus to Natalie Harp of $45,000. He says, 45,000 for Natalie is a lot less than 150K for hush money. Yeah, the implication being she probably knows things for which you would need to give her hush money of the style that. Donald Trump gave to Stormy Daniels. And 45,000 as an official bonus isn't that big of a price to pay rather than hush money. I think you are absolutely right. Absolutely right. We have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. Sign up at join packman.com and get instant access. I will see you that. Unlock unlimited free grocery delivery with PC Express Pass. Shop online and get the same low,

no frills prices delivered. Get your first. First year of PC Express Pass for just $2.50 a month. Learn more at no-frills.ca. Hold music. Not exactly what you want to hear when a pipe just burst and your basement is flooding. And your vinyl collection is getting soaked. And your cat just floated by on a sofa cushion?

That's why intact insurance answers 2 million claim calls per year within 20 seconds. It's their way of going the extra mile to help. So instead of hearing this lovely track, over and over and over. You'll hear this in seconds. Hello, intact insurance. Now that's music to your ears. My teammate says he plays pickup basketball, quote,

for the cardio. Well, there's more to it than that, Sean. Like with Bet365, I get paid the second my team goes at big with early payout and can cash out at any time before the game ends. Sean's getting his steps, but I'm getting paid. Bet365, the home of winning early, Must be 19 and older, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you were someone you know is concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca or call 1-8665 through 1,2,600. Terms and conditions apply.