The David Pakman Show - Trump rally turns violent as Talarico conspiracy collapses

Episode Date: October 13, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Alex Gibney and Ronan Farrow raise concerns over Elon Musk and DOGE staffers obtaining super-administrator access to federal data -- Conservative influencers and Elon Musk spread a fabricated conspiracy that Texas Senate candidate James Talarico was in a Ohio mental facility -- The Detroit Free Press publishes an editor's note declining to print letters favoring Mike Rogers due to racial slurs against Abdul El-Sayed -- During an Ohio campaign rally, Donald Trump stumbles over words and embraces crowd chants for an unconstitutional third presidential term -- Donald Trump mocks a female protester and calls for greater aggression after she is physically struck in the face by rally attendees -- Donald Trump uses derogatory language against Somali immigrants and revives debunked claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio -- Donald Trump falsely accuses Ukraine of violating a ceasefire deal that neither foreign government has actually agreed to sign -- Katie Zacharia struggles through an abrupt 14-minute debut press briefing, calling on only three reporters before leaving -- On the Bonus Show: A judge is furious Trump chopped down 430 trees, Ilhan Omar's home is searched by Trump's FBI, Kimberly Guilfoyle resigns as ambassador to Greece, and much more... 💳 PDS Debt: Get your free assessment & find the best option for you at https://pdsdebt.com/pakman 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 💻 Sponsored by Private Internet Access: 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.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 (01:19) Elon Musk could be Trump's election suprise (08:56) Far-right Talarico mental health rumor collapses (20:59) Newspaper rejects pro-Rogers letters containing slurs (28:03) Donald Trump holds a wacky campaign rally in Ohio (38:44) Woman attacked at Trump campaign rally (46:47) Trump attacks Somali and Haitian immigrants (55:33) Trump confronted over nonexistent Ukraine ceasefire (1:02:47) Katie Zacharia struggles during press briefing debut Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coming up today, a woman is beaten at a Trump rally. And Trump's response is to call her a fat man and call for more aggression. And that's not even the only disturbing thing that happened at this Godforsaken rally. Trump on a bizarre rant about examining another man's ass, mangling his words, telling a cheering crowd he would love to do four more years. Now, meanwhile, very serious. Elon Musk and Maga influencers are spreading. an outrageous conspiracy theory about Democratic Senate candidate James Tolariko, who supposedly

had a mental breakdown and was it a psych ward? It all collapsed. It was all fake. And we have new questions speaking of Elon Musk. What is he doing with Americans' private government data? And Trump was confronted over a Ukraine ceasefire that both sides say, we don't know what he's talking about. Plus, Steve Bannon is warning.

Trump's administration could face a wave of impeachments. If Democrats win in November, it wouldn't just be Trump getting impeached. It could be Hegg Seth. It could be RFK Jr. It could be a bloodbath. All of that and more today. Well, there is a really disturbing theory circulating about Trump and Elon Musk and these upcoming midterms.

And there's a new documentary about Elon Musk that is raising even more questions. I think this deserves some attention. Now, I want to sort of remind you or set some context. Elon Musk did help Trump get elected in 2024, but that's not all that he did because he then went into the federal government with Doge and they were going to find waste, fraud, and abuse. And once his people got inside, according to filmmaker Alex Gibney, who has this new documentary Musk, what the Doge staffers did, first of all, they didn't know a damn thing about the agencies

they were supposedly reforming. But they knew how to access data. And what the film argues is that within days of getting access, some of these young Doge staffers obtained what's called super administrator access to government systems. So that means they have access to super sensitive information about Americans, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, all sorts of information. And then it starts to get interesting. Ronan Farrow is an executive producer of the documentary. And what Ronan said to Huff Post is that there are some serious unanswered questions about what the hell happened to that information.

Because what we believe happened is that the data was harvested. It was transferred. It was provided to third parties. And we don't have a clear accounting of all of the places that our data ended up. And then we get to the electoral implications of that. Think about what somebody could do with all of that information. You could combine government records with commercial databases, identify individual voters, and use AI to develop really sophisticated political targeting to those individuals.

So we have to distinguish between changing votes and influencing elections. When we talk about election interference, it doesn't mean you've hacked voting machines, something that the Trump people have accused Democrats of doing for many election cycles now. Election interference could mean we got information about people improperly or illegally, and we're using that information we obtained improperly or illegally to target voters with misinformation or to impersonate a trusted institution to trick people or to discourage certain people from voting at all. And Elon Musk happens to own X, one of the largest social media platforms, by the way, along with XAI, which is the company that owns the chatbot

GROC. So what we have is someone with huge tech resources, access to major communications infrastructure, and this relationship with Donald Trump and sort of an eagerness and an interest in pleasing Trump. So that's already bad enough. Now add to it another really strange piece of the story. The documentary Musk from Alex Gibney includes text messages that Ashley St. Clair, who's been a guest on this show, she's one of the, you know, I don't know if this term is inappropriate. She's called one of Elon's baby mamas. Some others call her one of the breeders. Anyway, she has a bunch of text messages that she says Elon center just days before the 2024 election. And Elon Musk reportedly told her he's optimistic about the election

because they are about to unleash the anomaly in the matrix or the anomaly. Both pronunciations are appropriate, interestingly enough. And when Ashley St. Clair said to Elon, what do you mean? He said, oh, we've got thousands of lasers in space. And according to additional reporting about those messages, Musk also said on election night, we have the best real time data. So the implication, the suggestion here is maybe Elon Musk was referring to. unusually early access to election reporting info, not changing or manipulating votes, but it raises some interesting questions about the kind of information that Elon Musk believed that he had access to. And that brings us to the midterms that are now just three weeks away, right? Yeah, two or three

weeks away. Three weeks away. A viewer on the David Pakman show subreddit, in fact, raised a question that connects all of these stories. Trump's been talking about the elections and a surprise. There's speculation about whether Trump expects some kind of Republican success that would run counter to the polling. Could the confidence that Trump has have anything to do with the information that was obtained through Doge and whatever Elon Musk is planning to do? Could the data gathered from federal agencies be used to build a really sophisticated electoral

targeting operation? And could AI make that operation so much more powerful than anything we have previously seen? These are the questions that we are trying to investigate. And we have limited ability to investigate that. Now, I think the most important part of all of this is that the government data issue exists regardless of the secret election plan. Like even if the data isn't going to be used for some secret election manipulation plan, we have an administration that gave politically connected outsiders, often with no business,

no business or experience being involved in this stuff, insane levels of access to sensitive federal systems. And so we now have documentary filmmakers and journalists and content creators, influencers saying, hey, where did that information go? What is being done with that information? And then on the other side of it, we have a billionaire, Elon, who controls major technology, major communications companies, is deeply involved now in repulsive. Republican politics.

And so the immediate question isn't, has someone already manipulated the 2026 election results? It's who has this information? What are they doing with it? What safeguards are in place? Clearly not enough to prevent all of that data that Doge extracted from the federal government from being turned into a political weapon. Because if data collected by the government for legitimate purposes, if you believe they were

legitimate, ends up being exploited. for partisan electoral advantage, that would be an insane abuse of public trust. And with the midterms at this point days away, we don't have answers to those questions, but we need the answers now, not after the votes have been counted. All of the talk about Trump declaring an emergency, which we figured out doesn't really mean anything. States run their elections. All of this talk about Trump sending ice to the polling place.

Well, that could very much intimidate, but that's on a totally different level that that's like the old technology. The new technology is all of the data that Doge has extracted combined potentially with AI tools that could micro target voters with disinformation campaigns. And we simply do not know what are they going to do with the data? What capacity do they have? Terrifying. And we are three weeks from this election. And it makes sense to figure this stuff out now, not later. We just witnessed over the long weekend one of the most embarrassing conspiracy theory collapses of this whole election cycle.

It involves James Talarico. It involves Elon Musk and Stephen Miller and Ken Paxton and a completely fabricated story about a supposed mental breakdown. But the best part, there is a good story. There's something that should be refreshing here, which is it all fell apart in a matter of hours. So let me explain what was what this was all about. Texas has a Senate race.

In that race, James Talleyco is the Democratic nominee and Ken Paxton is the incompetent, disgusting, dilapidated Republican Senate candidate who has been endorsed by Donald Trump. Now, Tala Rico recently was off the campaign trail for about nine days. Why? Despite speculation, the answer is he had the flu. That's it. He was sick. He stayed home. We have video surveillance evidence that was reviewed by the New York Times. He was homesick. That's all that was going on. And he recovered and he's now back on the campaign trail. But that isn't good enough for MAGA's universe. And they need something because they are terrified of losing this race. There must be something sinister they can do with this. There must be something scandalous or something they can use to destroy

James Talleyco's campaign. So they took the opportunity and they started making things up. And so first, it started with Ken Paxton asking, where is James Tala Rico? And he let a chant about it at a Trump rally. And then Paxton set up a tip line. So if you believed you had information about the supposed whereabouts of James Talarico, you could contact the tip line. Now remember, This is a guy who had the flu. Then things got completely insane because right wing influencers started claiming, oh, Tala Rico's been secretly admitted for psychiatric treatment in Ohio, not in Texas where he lives. He was, he, he went to a psych ward, one of Trump's as he likes to call them in Ohio.

And some of these Republican influencers said, hey, we have proof. We have a phone recording from the Lindner Center of Hope, which is a mental health facility in Ohio, where someone on the phone confirmed a James Talarico was just discharged and all of MAGA lost its collective mind. And you had Elon Musk amplifying the story and Stephen Miller amplifying it and Laura Lumer got involved and Republican lawmakers started spreading this. Millions of views for this stuff and they thought they finally had. them except there was only one little problem. It's completely made up. The Lindner Center of Hope

actually put out a public statement. They put out and we used to call them tweets on Twitter. Now that it's X, we call them excretions. And they put out a nasty excretion saying, quote, Representative James Tallerico has never received treatment from Lindner Center of Hope. Imagine how ridiculous and pathetic and flaccid your conspiracy theory has to be for an actual mental health facility to come out and say this person was was never here. It's made up. Now, it gets even better because James Talariko has already gone back to public events in Texas. He was at Austin City Limits on Friday.

And he attended another event on Saturday. And he was photographed with Casey Musgraves, which I have to admit, I have no clue who that is. but I gather that she's well known. And it was triggering all of these Magapetamians. And meanwhile, the internet detectives were trying to convince everybody he was secretly hospitalized in a psych ward in Ohio. Now, as I mentioned earlier, the New York Times was given time stamped security camera images. They were given them on the condition that they not published them because that would compromise James Talarico security. But the New York Times reviewed. security camera footage and they said, yeah, the period during which Republicans were saying he was in

an Ohio psych ward, he was at home. And we then are left with no evidence, zero evidence for this extraordinary conspiracy theory that a Senate candidate left the campaign trail to secretly receive mental health treatment out of state. Now, there is all sorts of speculative, of non-evidence that they've talked about, this audio recording, a private jet flight, which they said, this is the plane, Tala RICO went on. There's no connection between this plane and Tala Rico. And a bunch of people really wanted the story to be true, but it's not. And what I think is so revealing about this is one conservative influencer, Grant Cardone, said to the guy who spread this story, whether it's true or not, people deserve to see the potential of the,

this. There it is. Whether it's true or not. Remember the entire they're reading the cats. They're eating the dogs after they were called out time and again and again during the 2024 campaign about this. J.D. Vance during an interview. I'm paraphrasing here, but you can find the exact quote. He said something like, listen, whether that specific story is true or not, we feel justified in creating these storylines. And this is basically the same thing here. It doesn't matter whether the allegation against James Talleyco is true. It doesn't matter whether there's evidence. Get it out there. Get people talking, hope that it does some damage. And it's being done not by random internet accounts. We're talking about people with huge platforms, including the guy who owns X, spreading a completely

unsubstantiated allegation about someone's mental health. And remember that there would be nothing shameful about someone saying, hey, I need help. I need treatment. The scandal isn't that maybe he got treatment. It's it was manufactured and spread with no evidence merely to damage a political opponent because by the way, their guy is one of the worst candidates I've ever seen for any any national level race. Now, Tala Rico had a pretty good response. He said, you know, Paxton is asking for proof of life. We want proof of spine from Ken Paxton because Tala Rico's been challenging Paxton to a debate. And Paxton is instead saying, oh, we think Tala Rico's in a psych ward.

This entire episode is a reminder that instead of debating healthcare or the economy or corruption or affordability or anything that Texas voters give a damn about, they manufactured a mystery about a guy who had the flu, the flu. You know what I'm hearing? He didn't even take Tamiflu. He took children's blood in order to recover more quick. I just made it up. There's nothing that the facility with which they make this stuff up.

And we have no grand revelation and no hidden scandal and no smoking gun. So it's just an embarrassing reminder that millions of views don't make it true. The theorists were wrong. James Talariko was sick, but the reason they're doing all of this is they are terrified he's going to defeat them. Now, as I've said before, I think this is going to be tougher than the polling suggests. Let's, by the way, take a look at where the polling is today. James Talariko still leading every poll. I believe this is going to be more difficult and closer than the polling suggests, but the Republicans know they might lose a Texas Senate seat for the first time in decades. And so what do they have? They don't have, well, you know, our candidate is going to show up and debate him and show that he has the right ideas. No, because that would be impossible.

Paxton would lose that debate and Paxton has terrible ideas. So instead, it's Talarico took a private jet to a secret psych ward in Ohio, even though there is video evidence that he was simply at home with the flu. We've got to do something about this, folks. We cannot let these people get an ounce of power. And that is part of, by the way, one week from today, October 20th, we are doing our one-day membership drive. This is the final membership drive before these elections. We need to be well positioned as independent media to get everything we can out of these lamest of lame duck two years that are probably forthcoming for Donald Trump. So if you've been thinking about supporting this program, or maybe you didn't know that this is an audience supported program, I would love it. I would love love it if you got a membership on Tuesday. Two ways to be notified of the discount that will be live in a week. One, send me a text message 646-5331-4-333 or just get on my substack

newsletter at substack.davidpackman.com. Debt has a way of turning ordinary months into math problems that never seem to get solved. You pay what you can. You sort of like move money around, you keep up with different due dates, and the balances are sitting there and they cost more every day. Our sponsor, PDS debt, might be able to help you. What PDS debt does is work with people struggling with credit card personal loans, collections, medical bills. They review your situation. They'll build a customized debt relief plan with options designed to reduce what you owe and move from juggling multiple payments to one low. monthly payment. They'll go beyond the numbers. They'll personalize the solution to your specific

financial situation, not some generic formula. There's no minimum credit score required. Savings can start right when you complete the free 30 second assessment. PDS debt is the top rated company in the industry, thousands of five star reviews, a plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. Lots of people in my audience use PDS debt and we looked at the numbers for people coming just from my show. It turns out the average David Pacman show viewer who uses PDS debt saves an average of $24,994. Get your free 30-second personalized assessment today at PDSdebt.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. 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, Sheath, 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. 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 sheathunderware.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 20% off. The link is in the description. Something extremely disturbing happened in Michigan.

And the most important part of the story was almost completely buried in a newspaper editor's note. Let me explain this one. This is crazy. We had all these debates last week. And one of the debates we had was in Michigan for the Senate between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed. And afterwards, the local paper, the Detroit Free Press, said, hey, we're going to publish some letters from readers reacting to the debate.

Totally normal, not controversial, just like, hey, there was a debate. People are going to write in. Except there was something extraordinary in the editor's note at the top of the article. And the newspaper explained that most of the letters that it received either said the debate was a tie or El-Syad won. And so the newspaper felt the need to explain why aren't there any letters from people who thought Mike Rogers won. And they did receive two letters from people who thought that Mike Rogers won.

But those letters were so riddled with racial slurs that the newspaper said, hey, we can't publish this shit. Take a look at this. They, the note says the following. Quote, editor's note in letters sent after the October 8 U.S. Senate debate between Abdul El-Sahed and Mike Rogers, most writers either viewed the debate as a wash or believed El-Said was the winner. We strive to present a fair reflection of reader's sentiment when publishing letters to the editor,

but the two letters from readers who considered Rogers the winner contained racial and ethnic slurs as well as demonstrably false claims about El-Sahed, and thus did not meet our standards for publication. about that. The newspaper wanted a fair representation of reader sentiment. They said, we want letters from people who think it was a tie, from people who think El-Said one, and from people who think Mike Rogers won. But the two letters they got from the Mike Rogers one side were riddled with racial and ethnic slurs and lies. Now, obviously, we don't know what those letters said because they didn't publish them. We shouldn't pretend that two letters represent every Republican

voter in Michigan. But this is an extraordinary detail, a especially when you look at what happened during that debate. Most of the debate, Mike Rogers spent trying to associate Abdul El-Said, who is Muslim, with Islamic terror. And according to the published letters, Rogers repeatedly brought up Hamas, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, El-Said's family. And one reader wrote, you know, Rogers is trying to frighten voters by talking about El-Syad's Muslim identity endlessly.

Another said, you know, Rogers spent the whole debate going after El Syed's ethnicity and didn't provide any answers on cost of living issues. Another said Rogers essentially is accusing his opponent of being a terrorist. And then after all of that, the newspaper goes, well, let's publish some stuff from people who say Rogers won. And those letters had racial and ethnic slurs. So look at the connection. The politician normalizes the idea that El Syed's.

religion or his ethnic background is a matter of suspicion and debate. And he doesn't have to say to any of his followers, hey, write racist letters. He just spent a bunch of time doing that during the debate. And then the letters that were sent into the Detroit free press from the people who agree with Mike Rogers that his ideas are better in that he won contained racial and ethnic slurs. Now, of course, Mike Rogers, as far as we know, didn't write the letters. it was people who like Mike Rogers, people who think Mike Rogers won. So there is an obvious question here about the political environment that these attacks are encouraging. And of course, there's a much bigger context.

Trump has spent years turning immigrants and Muslims and Latinos and racial minorities into targets. And he in a sense has won with that. He has shown that making people angry about resentful of and afraid of certain groups of people can be pretty damn effective electorally. And so now we have a far less charismatic Republican Senate candidate in Michigan who isn't really debating health care. He's not really debating housing or tariffs or affordability. He's just insinuating things on the basis of Al-Sayed's religion and ethnicity. Meanwhile, the supporters of El-Sahed are writing letters about health care and economic inequality and the cost of living. So this is not a scientific survey. It's just the people who wrote

to the Detroit Free Press. It's not proof that every single Roger's supporter thinks this stuff. But it is a very revealing snapshot about the ugliness, just rank ugliness of this campaign. And what is particularly interesting is the newspaper could have made this the headline. They could have said all letters from Rogers supporters are racist. It wasn't really what they wanted the story to be about. You could have these editors notes are like you skip by it, but it's the most important detail in the article because it raises this question that goes so far beyond Michigan,

when Republicans make a candidate's ethnicity or religion, a central part of their political attack, are they persuading voters on policy at all? Or are they just persuading voters based on prejudice? I'm prejudiced against these identities. You should be as well, vote with me. When the resulting political commentary from a debate is so offensive that a newspaper can't publish it. Maybe you should reexamine what kind of a campaign your guy is running there. That is really the big story. Honestly, who won the debate? Like Mike Rogers was a disaster in the debate.

Debates don't really move polling very much unless someone makes an insane mistake. Debates are basically adjudications of who's more prepared, more articulate or better at debating. But when the response to the debate from one side is it's two two letters, but it's unanimously racist, you have to be wondering what on earth is happening to your political party. And we know what's happening to their political party. It has been taken over by exactly this sort of stuff. Now, can you win with that as a strategy? Yeah, you can win. I mean, listen, Trump has won with it before. Is Mike Rogers going to win? I think probably not. And I, you know, it's sort of a weird thing to say, but Trump is more charismatic in his scapegoating of religious and ethnic

ethnic groups. Mike Rogers isn't very charismatic. And so it's rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. And that may be the difference maker. So an incredible, they really, they really buried the lead the Detroit Free Press did in that editor's note, which is remarkable in how disgusting it truly is. Donald Trump went to Ohio hours ago and a bloodthirsty authoritarian crowd sucked Trump. They just were, he was spoon feeding them.

He glitched badly and he also examined the ass of another candidate. I, folks, I'm, this is what happened. Now Donald Trump was supposedly in Ohio last night to promote Republican candidates. The Republican candidates in Ohio are terrible. There's some of the worst candidates. The Vake Ramoswamy, John Houston, Max Miller, just terrible, terrible candidates. Instead, Trump told us a story of examining another man's body. Take a listen to this.

He's speaking, by the way, about John Houston, one of the Republicans he's there to support. And I don't do this with men very often. I started examining his body because I didn't know he was a great and I looked and I watched up and down and I looked at his ass and I looked at all. Trump doesn't usually do this with other men, but with John Houston he did. an exam he did an ass examination. I don't do this with men often is a remarkable way to start a sentence. Now, what does this have to do with anything? Imagine quite literally any other president ever telling a story. Imagine George W. Bush. I don't do this with men often, but I examined his

ass. And then Trump moving this is remarkable. The glitches were fast and furious. You know, How Trump has already screwed up the word mutilation? He says it mutilization. He's created a word. And I guess nobody has the gall to go up to Trump and go, sir. The word is mutilation, not mutilization. Trump glitches here on a word that already doesn't exist. Trump trying to say mutilization, which is already a glitch and he does one of his famous jerks as he struggles to say mutilization, which is already a glitch, and he does one of his famous jerks as he struggles to, to even get the word wrong. We got critical race theory and transgender insanity and mutilization. Do you see that?

Mutilization. Mutilization. I'll play it for you again. Those are those physical glitches that happen when Trump's brain short circuits. We've spoken to experts about it. Utilization. There it is. Mutilatization.

The underlying rhetoric is inflammatory enough. transgender mutilation. Trump can't even get through his own talking points without glitching now. Now, nobody around him, you might notice, seems particularly bothered. This, this, it is so routine that the audience barely reacts to Trump's brain turning to rancid mayonnaise before our very eyes. Here is Trump trying to say recycled and he glitches badly. Swing and a miss and the audience doesn't give a damn. This guy in the blue shirt and the white hat over Trump's right shoulder, He could not care less. I mean, now it's much more than that.

That was only as of 15 months. But the only caveat on the Trump dividend is that you have to spend the money in the United States of America, if you don't mind. It's recycled. Gets recycled. Gets recycled and recycled actually. So that's a glitch where Trump tries to cover it acting like that's what he meant to say. The confidence makes these moments so strange. He doesn't correct himself.

He doubles down. Now, imagine the nonstop coverage if Joe Biden had delivered the same remarks. And if he had said, I'm looking at transgender mutilation. And then he said, it's recycled and recycled. Recircircled and recycled. We would have days of analysis about what was going on. Fox News would have four fake doctors on there going well, what I believe is happening. The crowd chanting four more years, four more years, four more years, four more years. And Donald Trump saying he would love to do it. Thank you. I would love to do that, I'll be able to look at polls. Oh, I love those polls. Technically, I know it's like who cares about technically. Technically, Trump cannot do four more years because the 22nd Amendment prohibits Trump from being elected president again. Not exactly an obscure technicality.

But if Trump is serious, you know, I think we have an answer to that. Obama. I think we have Obama. on standby if Donald Trump is going to try to serve another term. Now, I know we've gone back and forth on this. Is Trump joking? Is he fantasizing? Is he deliberately testing the audience?

The interesting thing is the crowd is cheering for something that is unconstitutional. They are cheering and cheering and cheering. And then maybe the most revealing moment of this entire disastrous speech was Trump saying he could be the last Republican president in the history of our country, as he calls it. And there is an underlying theme here that I want to call your attention to. And that's what they want to do. And if they get in, they will do that. They'll be able to do that.

You know, if they get in and you have a bad presidential election in the next, because we have some very good people. But if you had a bad presidential where one of these lunatics got in, you will look at me right now and you will say he's going to be the last, Republican president in the history of our country. I will be. I will be. I will be the last Republican president. This is a fascinating thing to say while you are supposedly campaigning for other Republicans. Now, I've talked about this before. Trump, I don't think wants anyone else to succeed as a Republican president while he is alive. Because Trump wants to be able to make the case.

I was special. I was unique. I was the best. I was the only one that could do it. You think Trump wants another Republican JD, for example, to succeed and become a popular Republican president to show Trump wasn't unique. Trump had 30% approval, but here's another Republican who has high approval. No, he wants to be the center of everything. And the party's success only matters to him insofar as it is his success. And so Trump doesn't want to go off to Mara Lago and to sit there while someone else has 52% approval as a Republican. Trump wants them to fail so that he can go, I told you guys, I was the only one. I told you guys you should have given me four more years. That is not the Trump, or that is the Trump, rather, that we know. It is not a gracious guy who is going to go to Mara Lago

and say, I'm so glad that the guy who succeeded me is doing so well. That is not Trump. All right, finally, Trump clearly misunderstanding the entire issue of gender in sports. I don't know what the F he's talking about here. This place is by the way. Now, think of it. Or, or allowing men to play in women's sports. Can you imagine a 15 years ago? I say, we will not allow men to play in women's sports. You'd say, this guy's crazy. What a stupid thing to say. But that's part of our thing. I'll tell you, we have a problem, John.

We have men to put, we want men to allow women to take their place an offensive tackle in the end of. Notice that he's getting confused here. This is actually not the, this is not the thing he normally fearmongers about. He's disoriented folks. Well, I don't know. I'm not sure how that's going to work out. It's not going to work out well. No, but could you imagine having to say it.

If I said it 15, 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago about men playing in women's sport, and we will defend women. We are defending. All right. Nobody's proposing that women be required to replace male offensive linemen in the NFL. He's arguing against the scenario he just invented. But the picture of these rallies, are these helping any of these candidates, bizarre personal stories? Glitch, glitch, mingled words, confused statements, changed.

for unconstitutional third terms and completely imaginary sports controversies. These are the people telling us everything is going well and it's going well thanks to us. And we're supposed to vote them back in. Give me a break. Guys. The most appropriate consequence. The most just deserts to all of this would be that all of these clowns lose and are scent packing. I hope that we do that. If you Google yourself, you are probably going to find things you would rather not have there like your addresses, past and present, phone numbers, relatives, jobs you've had, maybe a profile on some site you've never heard of. And the problem is that that can become the public version of you that an employer sees,

a colleague or a client, your landlord, your neighbor, maybe somebody you're dating. Our sponsor Incogni will help you scrub your digital. footprint because incogni removes your personal information from all of the most notorious databases, the people search sites, the directories, the commercial data broker lists, and incogni will automatically send removal requests to hundreds of these sites, and they'll just keep following up if your data comes back, they'll get it removed again. Now, my favorite feature is custom removals with the unlimited plan. If you find your information anywhere online, even in sites not already in the, you're

their database, you paste the link into Incogni, they will work to get that taken down. You control what people find when they look you up instead of letting these random databases and outdated listings and search results introduce you first. Get 60% off an annual plan at incogny.com slash Pacman with the code Pacman. The link is in the description. They beat a woman at Trump's rally. And what did Trump do? Did he tell people stop the violence? Did he say, hey, security, make sure nobody gets hurt? No. Trump called the woman a fat guy and said that the woman, who he believes is a guy, needs to lose weight. The sequence here is absolutely outrageous. This happened just hours ago at Donald Trump's rally in Ohio. I should tell you, protesters are

descending on these rallies and disrupting them, which I think is absolutely. phenomenal. Donald Trump interrupted by protesters numerous times. Here's just one of those times, just to give you a sense of what's happening at these rallies. Almost destroyed our nation. She was, she was very quiet. What flag was that was at the Palestinian flag? You know the one I like the best? I shouldn't say this. Should I? The one I like the best is gays for Palestine. Gays for Palestine. You know what they do if you happen to be gay? They throw you off the top of a building. That's the one I like the best gaze for Palestine.

They throw you. They bring you to the top of the top. All right. So protesters interrupting Trump's speech numerous times. But take a look at this. What you really shouldn't be able to do is physically attack someone because you don't like what they're saying. Watch what happens in this second video.

A woman is punched in the face. There's a physical confrontation. And then Trump starts talking about the woman as a fat guy. And he urges a more aggressive response. They're just beating women at Trump rallies, guys. Take a look at this. And I know the video is chaotic. We'll do our best to interpret it.

Columbus should not be in Columbus, Ohio. Here we go. Paid protest. The woman's getting beaten now, hair pulled, bashed in the back of the head. Chal, folks, this is, a woman is getting, and people going, USA, USA, and then what just smashed in the back of the head. And it actually looks like that, does this police officer kicker? Look at this guy flying in.

Let's watch him. In comes from the right. No, I guess the guy tripped. In this moment, the police officer did not kick the protester in the head. I take that back. Now listen to Trump. He's a paid protest, so they're all paid. It's a woman.

They get paid by the lefties in order to destroy our country. They're scum. But he's going back home to mom. He's going back home to mom. Look at him. Look at it. Terrible. Don't we love law enforcement?

Oh, he's got to go on a diet. He's a fat guy. Wow. Got to go on a diet fast. We all do. You know, they're paid protesters. That's a very low class protester. What he doesn't know is that his mother and father voted for me. So Trump calling the protester a fat guy urging a more aggressive response. A woman is being physically attacked and Trump is like, rough him up. What would

satisfy Trump? Now, according to reporting, the woman was wearing a shirt that said, released the Epstein files. We're talking about an individual demanding transparency about an issue which Trump has been very opaque about and getting punched at a rally while Trump is insulting her and calling for more aggression. And we're supposed to treat this as normal. Now imagine for a second that this happened at a Democratic president's rally. Imagine a woman started protesting Joe Biden and then got punched in the head by someone in the crowd. And Biden were to make fun of the person's appearance and say, be more aggressive. That would be a major scandal and rightly so. But it's Trump. And this hasn't even really gotten coverage in corporate media. It's like, oh, it's a Trump rally.

It's Trump. It is not an acceptable standard. Now, there's a lot of history here because remember that Donald Trump has said, oh, he'd like to punch a protester in the face. And he's told supporters knock the crap out of people. And I'll pay your legal fees. And so we now have a decade where these are not isolated rhetorical accidents anymore. They they are, it is a documented pattern of Trump using this language about protesters, rough them up. And what is so revealing about the incident is that the protester is treated as the problem, not the fact that there's someone punching the protester, the person expressing dissent about an issue of significant public importance the Epstein files. And Trump goes, he's a paid agitator, presents no evidence, mocks the person

for their weight, encourages a more brutal response. And the one punching and pulling their hair is praised, is cheer. And there's a USA, USA. What is the American? I thought the American part was free speech and being heard. But apparently the American part is repressing speech with beatings. Now, I don't know if everybody at the rally supports violence against protesters or against women. I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm talking about what we can see in these videos and you don't need to exaggerate it for it to be disturbing. A woman gets punched. Trump mocks the woman as a fat guy, calls for more aggression, and the crowd cheers as the woman is beaten. Where I want to end is keep protesting peacefully and lawfully without threatening anybody. We cannot allow the answer to intimidation

to be that we shut our mouths. If someone interrupts a rally, security can escort them out. But if somebody commits an assault on the protester, they should face legal consequences. Americans shouldn't be worried that criticizing a president peacefully means someone gets to punch you in the face and pull your hair and face no consequences whatsoever. And of course, like, we're way beyond. We shouldn't be encouraging greater aggression. Like, that should be the easiest standard to agree on. Let's not encourage more aggression here. But women are being beaten at Trump rallies. And USA. USA. And Trump and Trump grunting in pleasure. Ha. Right. Right. Uh. Okay. Uh, if you thought,

this was bad. Wait until Trump got into the dumb blacks portion of the speech. I'm not kidding, folks. I'm not kidding. We're going to talk about that next. Donald Trump ranted about low IQ people from Somalia. David, why are you pronouncing it that way? I don't know. Trump said it that way. It's like tsunami, Somalia. Trump goes full dumb blacks and the crowd loves it. A woman was beaten at this rally by a Trump supporter and the crowd cheered USA, USA. And then Trump unleashes a bizarre rant about immigrants that is particularly ugly. This is not we have a difference of opinion as to the top tax rate. We are not talking about what legal number of immigrants should be allowed in.

No, we are talking about the president of the United States standing in front of a cheering crowd and talking about an entire group of people as intellectually inferior. Listen to what Trump says about Somali immigrants and the low IQ thing, he slips in at the very end. In I call it Somalia land, not Somaliland, because actually it's a totally different country. Some people like Somali land that has nothing to do. You know, there's nothing to do. I said, you've got to be kidding.

I think they should change your name immediately. But they like to, they think they're in Somalia where they don't have pants to wear. They come here, they go and BMWs and Mercedes. And they like that. Somalia, they love Mercedes. They come in, they have nothing. And they're the number one buyers of Mercedes-Benz and BMWs in the state of Minnesota. The whole thing is crazy.

It's crazy. Low IQ people. Low IQ people. You know, I'm getting the sense. that Trump might be a little bit insecure about his intelligence. He is really obsessed with this kind of thing. There is like a racist desperation, low IQ people. And notice the distinction where Trump isn't criticizing any particular policy.

He's not presenting evidence about an individual. He's just going low IQ. And the obsession with intelligence is something we've tracked with Trump for a long time. It's always who's smart, who's stupid, who's who's. who's low IQ, who's got the biggest a brain. And somehow the low IQ people tend to be non-white American female lawmakers, non-white candidates, immigrants from countries that are predominantly black. And when you combine his fixation on immigrants from certain countries, particularly those with mostly black populations, when you put it all together, there is a very obvious

racial dimension to the rhetoric. I don't think that we should go around going racism, racism when it's not there. We shouldn't exaggerate. We shouldn't use that as a cudgel. But this just seems racist. What he keeps returning to it. There's a difference between we must enforce immigration law, which is a completely legitimate policy position. You can argue about what that law should be, but totally legitimate versus low IQ Somalis on the basis of simply. They are from Somalia. Now, Trump wasn't done because he came back to one of the most notorious moments from 2024. Remember, they're reading the cats.

They're eating the dogs. Here is Trump going, I was right about that. Which part were you right about, sir? He doesn't say. In Ohio, where they dropped about 35,000 patients in, I believe it's called Springfield. Oh, and they're almost going to be down. I were giving problems, a beautiful place to live. 32,000 people, never a problem.

Beautiful, a little idelic place. All of a sudden, they dropped 35,000 people in from Haiti and it didn't work out too well. Remember during the debate and I said some of the things they were doing, I was right. I was going to walk into these out. Remember that? I was right.

What exactly was he right about? Trump claimed Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were eating the dogs and cats of other people. It's one of the most absurd, absurd absurd. I sound like, I sound like Jordan Peterson now. It's absurd. One of the most absurd moments of the entire presidential campaign. And there was no evidence supporting it. Local officials said we have no credible reports of people abducting and eating cats and dogs.

And Trump is standing and they're going, remember that completely insane thing I said? I was right about that. No evidence, no explanation of what supposedly vindicates the claim. Just I was right. And we see this all the time with Trump. Claim gets debunked rather than acknowledging it. He just repeats it later with more confidence. And the audience hears it and goes, oh, I guess Trump was right about that back in

2024. Now, there's another part of this that I think deserves a lot of attention. Trump talks about immigrants, these specific Somali immigrants, as though they were dumped into an American town and are more like cargo than human beings. And these are people with families. These are people who came here in many cases legally looking for work and to improve their lives. And Trump is celebrating their removal just absent of any of the facts. And what's revealing is he doesn't seem satisfied just going, hey, we have some immigration

policies that are wrong. He likes to portray the immigrants themselves as stupid, dangerous or incompatible with the United States. And the groups he keeps singling out are black immigrants from Haiti. black immigrants from Somalia. And so we have to just call it what it is. And this is what I mean when I talk about the desperation in Trump's rhetoric because he goes back to the same stereotypes and discredited stories even years later. And it's happening at a rally where the whole point of it was help Republican candidates. He has an opportunity to talk about health care, the economy,

housing, wages, whatever. He can claim accomplishments, but he has none. And so instead he goes, People from Somalia have a low IQ. And I was right about cats and dogs being eaten by Haitians in 2024. And we have to also consider why does he believe this is what his audience wants to hear? Why does he believe this is what will help Republicans? Now, I think he's wrong, but maybe if he's right, it's almost worse. Like, whatever your position is on immigration, when you call an entire population low IQ and then you repeat a debunked story. You're not being serious in any way. You're appealing to what you perceive are the preferences and instincts of your supporters. And if he's right about that, that speaks really poorly of them. Most VPNs just don't give you the tools you need.

If you care how your VPN connection works, our sponsor private internet access gives you control. Private internet access lets you do things like choose between wire guard and open VPN, customize your DNS, use port forwarding. You can also adjust encryption and connection settings instead of being locked into the defaults. So it's perfect for people who want a VPN that you can custom configure. If you're not tech savvy, no problem. Private internet access is perfect for you too because by default, you can turn it on in one click and stay protected. No special. knowledge required just works out of the box. The biggest reason I trust private internet access with my data is their apps are open source and they have a no log policy that's been tested in court

many times where they simply don't have user activity logs to provide because they don't keep them. They're one of the few VPNs that can say that. One account works on unlimited devices, phone, laptop, tablet, router. You don't pay for separate accounts. My audience gets 83% off. So it's 203 a month plus four extra months for free. Go to PIA vpn.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Donald Trump had an extraordinarily revealing exchange with reporters about the Russia-Ukraine war. You may recall the Russia-Ukraine war would end within an hour of Donald Trump being elected in 2024, within a day of being sworn in in January of 25, within a month, within three months, and then they kind of forgot about it. And this exchange perfectly sums up the entire Trump sort of approach,

quite frankly, to foreign policy. Trump seems to believe that if you announce a deal, that means there is a deal. And if Trump says two countries have agreed to something, then they've agreed to it. And if reality conflicts, that's reality's problem. That's not Trump's problem. And now he's being confronted with the very inconvenient fact that Russia and Ukraine both said, we haven't agreed to the ceasefire that you said we agreed to. But before we even get to that, listen to how Trump tries to assign blame here. The fact that Russia violated the ceasefire tonight. Well, I'd have to look at it and see because there's been violations on both sides.

That's how he's setting it up, right? Both sides. If it, I don't know what happened, but if something did, both sides made violations. The real question is what ceasefire? Where is the agreement? Where are the terms? When were they accepted? What is Ukraine violating?

Trump has this idea, much like, I mean, listen, he's, this isn't only a Trump thing. announcing that a company is going to build a factory is the only thing that matters. If they ever build it is irrelevant. And similarly, announcing that two countries have agreed to stop fighting and then announcing that one has broken the agreement without establishing whether there is an agreement and what violations took place is a whole other world for Donald Trump. And notice who Trump goes after here. He goes after Ukraine.

He goes after the country that was invaded by Russia. He goes after the country that is fighting a defensive war. Now, you can be fighting a defensive war and do things that are wrong. Of course. You're not automatically right about everything because you're the one who was invaded rather than the one doing the invading. But it does mean we should ask for some evidence. Take a listen.

You said Russia and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire, but both sides say they have not agreed to that. Well, they agreed. You know why? Because I said you agree. That's why they agreed. because I said they agree. And that thing has to get settled. That war is a disease. Little Donnie, why won't you eat your carrots? Because I said so. I said, you agree. That's the explanation. And the reporter is saying to Trump, neither of the parties involved agreed. And Trump's answers,

I told them they agree. The legendary dealmaker Trump, who has spent years telling us nobody negotiates like him. Nobody understands deals like him. Nobody can bring work. world leaders together like him. And the secret technique is I told them they agree. Now imagine trying this in any other negotiation. You're buying a house. The seller says, I haven't accepted an offer. You say, well, I said you agree. And you go to a lawyer. And the lawyer goes, where is the signed offer? And you go, there is no signed offer. I told them. They agree. Well, then there's no deal. And the stakes are much higher here than, you know, buying a house. We are talking about a war in which massive numbers of people have been killed or injured.

We've seen cities devastated and millions displaced. But Trump said you agree. Now, listen to what happens when Trump is asked a perfectly reasonable question about how will you get Putin to comply? How will you do it? Take a listen. And I do think this, Zelensky has to focus on making a deal, not talking about that. How are you going to make Putin abide by the seafire?

I think what's happening is he wants to make a deal, and we have to get Zelensky to want to make a deal. Where are you from? How is he showing? You know, your president, you could send him. You know, I endorsed him, and he won, you know. I know that. I endure. The reporter's exhausted.

He's like, I know, I know, you endorse him. But how, how, how. So it can't be too bad. I mean, do you see his willingness to make a deal when he's striking Ukraine, like he said. I think they're going to make a deal. I think actually Putin wants to make a deal more than Zelensky. But what do you do?

Putin wants peace. Zelensky not so much. Zelensky doesn't want peace as badly as Putin. Based on what Putin invaded, the reporters asking about Russian attacks on Ukraine and Trump goes, but Zelensky doesn't want, want peace as much as Putin does. extraordinary inversion of responsibility. Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia keeps attacking Ukraine. And Trump goes, Putin really wants peace. It's just like Zelensky doesn't want it quite as badly. Now, there's another piece of this, I think, that makes it much more remarkable, which is that Trump

is defending a deal or he had just been defending a deal, which would allow diesel, Russian diesel, back into the international market. And Democrats, don't like this. Republicans don't like it because they have put sanctions in place and that deal would violate or it would undermine the sanctions. So on the one hand, you've got Trump giving Putin the economic breathing room he wants on the diesel market. On the other hand, he's going, listen, Putin wants peace. It's it's Zelensky who may be not really. And also the the the imaginary ceasefire is over because Ukraine violated it. How? Oh, he doesn't know. Reporters asked for specifics. He's got nothing. He doesn't have the terms. He doesn't say when it was signed, who signed it,

Nothing. It's just they agreed. I said that they agreed. This is the difference between announcing a deal and negotiating one with a with a car reservation, right? Anyone can just take reservations. You have to have the car. That's the key part of it, right? From Seinfeld. Anybody can just announce deals, but you have to get a real deal signed. And the thing that is revealing here is that Trump is way more interested in just being recognized as the person who ended the war than in proving that the fighting has actually stopped, which of course, it hasn't. Very easy to make announcements. How do you get Russia to stop attacking Ukraine?

And right now, it seems as though when the reality doesn't match the announcement, Trump just ignores the announcement and he goes, it's Ukraine's fault. So we've got no peace agreement. We have a press conference. We have a propaganda document. And if you're living in Ukraine under Russian bombardment, you can't pretend the war is over. Trump can pretend the war is over, I guess, as embarrassing as it is. But if you are being hit by Russia, you can't pretend the war is over and we know that it is not.

Donald Trump's new press secretary held a press briefing today. It's been so long since we had transparent, substantive, productive briefings from this administration. And it lasted 14 minutes and she only called on three reporters and it's pathetic. Her name is Katie Zachariah and she, uh, I mean, listen, Breitbart Fox News and the Daily Mail got to ask questions. Start with the opening. She's reading from prepared remarks. She struggles to read the prepared remarks. We are so far it all fits if the glove fits, right? Good morning. I am so honored to work for President Trump and the American people as the new White House press secretary.

I want to thank President Trump for his trust that he has placed in me. I have wanted to work for him for a very long time. Right. I'm looking forward to working with each of you as well, especially as we are in the middle of the mid-term. term blitz with energy and excitement, never seen before in the history of midterms, thanks to President Trump. You can see that this is going to be a tough one for her. And there's a sort of like SNL cold, open vibe to this where you wouldn't be, I wouldn't

call you crazy if you thought this was a skit. officially be part of this incredible journey together. And with that, I will take your questions here in our new media seat. There you go. Really just extraordinarily dynamic in every way. And I mean, it's just like, this is going to be a very long two years. He had a historic one-day war. And now we have a booming economy and a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a great relationship with Venezuela. She's not good at this. Now, could she grow into this job? Maybe, maybe, but instinctively, I don't think she's particularly good at this. Now, when there were

sort of softball substantive questions from reporters, she didn't have any information. Has the United States stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine? She doesn't know. I want to ask a policy question. Has the U.S. stopped sharing intel with Ukraine? I'll have to get back to you on that. There you go. There's another controversy. I wouldn't say it has rocked the White House, but it's certainly been an issue, which is that the ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Gilfoyle, also the former fiancé of Don Jr. I guess they, I guess they didn't ever get married.

former fiance of Don Juniors, she, I guess, was caught on text messages asking a donor to pay off her $100,000 Amex bill. And Katie Zachariah indicates they have asked Kimberly Guilfoyle to resign. And I have two questions for you. Yes. First of all, on Kimberly Gilfoyle, the Daily Mail has been reporting on her since last year. The president said yesterday to reporters that he is considering firing her. Do you know a timeline for that and also potentially who could be on the short list to replace her if he does?

We have asked Ambassador Guilfoyle to resign. Ambassador. She has been a wonderful asset to the team and we wish her well. There you go. Really powerful declaration from the new press secretary, Katie Zachariah. She did at one point refer to her husband. as my president, which is interesting because with Natalie Harp, it's sort of the opposite. It's she's obsessed with Trump as a sort of stand in for either a romantic partner or a father figure. It's kind of hard to tell with Natalie Harp. And Zachariah also having sort of like husband,

president confusion here. The idea of not spending evenings with my kid is kids are is completely unacceptable. So my president, excuse me, my husband, that's a good one. My husband. That's a good one. Good Freudian slip. Is out here. Is.

Oh boy. Is in her family. The video went black. We are very, very protective of celebrating birthdays as a family. So he brought the entire crew out here. Bless him. It's a lot. And we will be moving out here.

And yeah, there you go. So if any of you were worried that we wouldn't, that her whole family, wouldn't be with her in DC, they will be. And then finally, after 14 minutes of questions, I guess, she wraps up the, she's got to go. In my work, though my work will be demanding, they will always be a priority. And I, President Trump is the most family friendly president we've ever had. He has hired more women with families and the fact that he knew I had four kids and he knew that this job would be demanding and still places trust in me shows that I know I'm capable of being able to step up to that.

So thank you for that question. In fact, I am going to end it because President Trump is heading out to Marine One for our historic trip to Alaska. Right. And we can ask him all of the questions out there. So thank you so much. Did the president speak with Ambassador Gilmoyle? To the question on the president will be back on Thursday.

And that's what I will answer. I'll leave it there. He will answer those questions out and marry. A remarkable display of transparency from the administration. Folks, we have to hold them accountable. This is not acceptable. This is a completely incompetent individual who has zero intention of communicating anything of substance or importance to the American people.

We have to get these people. so marginalized politically that they are the lamest of lame ducks. This is why Tuesday, next Tuesday, we are doing a one-day membership special. I hope you will join the ranks of membership on that day. Get notified through my newsletter at substack.davidpack.com or by texting me at 646-531-433. We have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. We will talk about a tree situation. We will talk about the raid of Ilhan Omar's residence. And we will indeed speak about the resignation of Kimberly Gilfoyle as ambassador to Greece. All of that and much more on today's bonus show.

I'll see you then.