They just took another major loss

They just lost again and this one could determine who controls Congress. We've had this major redistricting fight. And it has flipped in favor of Democrats thanks to Virginians voting. And what was going to potentially be a six to five split in Virginia congressional districts now may give Democrats a 10 to one advantage. Republicans aren't handling it well. They're saying it's rigged. Trump spiraled all night. And the strategy they thought would help them is now backfiring and being used against them. Now, meanwhile. the FBI director, Kash Patel, is in full meltdown mode, snapping at reporters, refusing to answer basic questions about his alleged drinking problem, and of course, threatening and actually filing lawsuits. Meanwhile, Karoline Leavitt is going on TV and making no sense whatsoever. And the guy who used to chase cameras nonstop, Donald Trump, has been missing for three days from on-camera interviews. Plus. Trump tries to read Bible verses and struggles and Tucker Carlson suddenly says he regrets helping Trump win. He is to blame and he feels very bad about it. All of that and more today.

Well, they lost again and Trump spent the entire night spiraling out of control. This is a very big deal. This could end up deciding who controls Congress after the midterm elections of just a few months from now. Here's what happened. Virginia voters turned out and approved a plan by a very narrow margin that allows Democrats to redraw the state's congressional map for the rest of the decade. Right now, the delegation is split six to five. Under the new map, Democrats could realistically win 10 out of 11 seats in Virginia. This is a major deal. The results, the yes vote passing the initiative got 51.6% of the vote. The no got 48.4% of the vote. Very close, but this is Virginia, not a foregone conclusion for Democrats. Now, there's a bunch of really important details here to consider. Number one, this is completely self-inflicted as a problem for Republicans. Republicans said, hey, you know what? Here's an idea. In Texas, we're going to redraw the congressional maps to help Republicans. All right. We're not going to do it democratically, they said. We're just going to do it. This triggered other states, including California through Gavin Newsom's Prop 50, Virginia and others to say, hey, you know what? Let's do the same thing, but let's put it to a vote. Let's do it democratically. Let's go to the people and say, do you want to redraw the maps, big, beautiful maps. And as voters said, yes, we do want to do that. A court found that the way Texas did it is not legal. And so they got the worst of all worlds. Now, they decided to push all of this, Trump and Republicans, because they believed this will help us lock in power before the midterms. That's been the strategy. Use state level control to tilt the playing field and help themselves. And what happened in Virginia, much like what happened in California, not that long ago, is Democrats saying, okay, if you want to play that game, we can play it as well. And this is a major, major win. Now, there's another layer to this. I've been talking now for several months about how an anti-corruption platform might be one of the best things Democrats could do for themselves. I've pointed out that, you know, you can argue with people about tax rates. You can argue with people about abortion. You can do all of that. But what might unify the electorate and bring MAGA people and independence over to the left is to say, hey. We all see blatant corruption and cronyism. We see a party, the Republican Party, trying to win elections, not by convincing voters that their policies are what are best for them, but by trying to mess with the election system. That's corrupt. Let's not do that.

And these results, including this narrow victory in the purple state of Virginia, really suggests that the anti-corruption idea has a lot of power. And Democrats should be looking at it very closely for 26. But importantly, also for 28. Now, if you're looking at these results, 51 to 48, not even, almost 52 to 49, and saying, well, that wasn't really a landslide. It was close. That's right. Tens of millions of dollars were spent. Legal challenges were being prepared. This will be fought in courts. This is going to continue in the media. But it was a narrow victory with a very simple reality. If the map holds, Democrats have a much clearer path to flipping the House. When you zoom out, the broader national pattern is that redistricting battles are being won by Democrats. Special elections since Trump 1 and 24 are being won by Democrats. Democrats are flipping seats at the federal and state level. And Republicans aren't doing anything. Republicans are potentially on track with Trump's 32% approval rating now to absolutely destroy Republicans in November. If, if, if, if we actually get out and vote. Now, the reaction to this for Maga World has been what you would expect. claims that it's rigged, claims that it's unconstitutional, some blaming Democrats, some quietly blaming Trump for pushing a strategy that's now backfiring. Trump, for his part, spent the entire night spiraling on truth social post after post after post of all of this nonsense, posting memes. posting conspiracy theorists posting clips from the news and screenshots of tweets and videos of himself from 40 something years ago i'm scrolling this is all trump overnight scrolling scrolling scrolling not a good night for donald trump now we want to think about forward looking winning to get power I don't think that the long term of Democrats getting and keeping power is redrawing districts. This is not about any one state. This is not about any one vote or one initiative. The important thing here is that a strategy that Republicans thought would help them is backfiring as voters go, wait a second. We don't like what Republicans are doing without coming to voters and saying, what do you want? They normalized a tactic.

But they are wanting to control who gets to use it. And we are saying you don't just get to do it in Texas. We can put it on the ballot in California. We can put it on the ballot in Virginia. And with that, Trump's desire to reshape the map to lock in power is being supplanted by Democrats saying, we'll take the playbook, but we'll do it democratically. And we will use it to defeat you. And so if you're looking ahead now to November, this is the kind of story where it's like, all right. you know, April victory in Virginia by 1.4% or whatever the case is doesn't feel huge. But then in November, if Democrats flip 20 seats and take the House, 40 seats and take the House, some people are talking about 60 seats, we would then look back and go, wow, you know what? When California voted yes on Prop 50, when Virginia voted yes on their redistricting initiative, those were important moments. Those were key points. Those were inflection points. The strategy they were determined to use to defeat us is now being used against them. And I think that that is just awesome. Kash Patel is the FBI director, at least for now, although increasingly it looks like he's going to be fired. And he completely and totally crashed out, crashed out after a bombshell report that he's regularly so wasted that he can't even be woken up. that officials considered using a battering ram to break down a door because he was unresponsive and that he is just drinking all the time and missing for long periods of time. Now, the press conference was fascinating, not so much for what Kash Patel did say, but for what he didn't say. So we're going to listen and I'm realizing I don't even have my, my headphone on. I was so excited. to start recording today that i didn't even put my headphones on i wouldn't be able to hear these clips now i'm ready you will hear him ask questions that he answers without really answering them and i'm going to give you examples of this first question can you truly say You've never been intoxicated or absent while you've been FBI director. Listen closely to what he says and what he doesn't say. We are today. I do want to give you an opportunity to respond directly to the allegations in the Atlantic article that your unexplained absences created a national security risk. And beyond that, can you say definitively that you have not been intoxicated or absent during your tenure as FBI director? I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia. And as well, okay, so first and foremost, his initial answer, not denying that he's been intoxicated or absent. Okay, let's continue. And they get louder, it just means I'm doing my job. This FBI director has been on the job twice as many days as every director before me. What that means is I've taken half as many days off as those before me. What that means is I've taken a third.

less vacation than those before me. What that means is that this FBI with this Department of Justice has dropped the murder rate 20 points. What that means is this FBI with this Department of Justice has captured eight of the top 10 most wanted fugitives in the world, twice as many as the Biden administration did in its entire four years. What that means is this FBI has seized enough fentany off the streets to kill 178 million Americans, a 31% increase. What that means is this FBI and this deal... Notice that none of this is an answer to the... question of whether he's drunk. Jay has arrested 43% more spies in 14 months than the entirety of the Biden administration. What that means is this FBI has seen a reduction in opiate overdose. That's up to 20% alone. What that means is that we have found 6,300 child victims, 6,300 families have their kids back. That is a 22% increase. Okay. He doesn't answer the question. Were you drunk or absent at all as FBI director? He doesn't answer the question. So then we get to the same question once again. And you will see that he actually does issue sort of a denial, but it is very carefully worded. And it doesn't take a genius. It doesn't take a linguistic pro. to read between the lines here. I'm on the job. I'm the first one in. I'm the last one out. I'm like an everyday American who loves his country, loves his sport of hockey, and champions my friends when they raise a gold medal and invite me in to celebrate. I've never been intoxicated on the job. Did you catch that? I've never been intoxicated on the job. I'm going to come back to that in a moment. Let's listen again. Invite me in to celebrate. I've never been intoxicated on the job. And that is why we file a $250 million defamation lawsuit. And anyone of you that wants to participate, bring it on. I'll see you in court. The use of I've never been intoxicated on the job is critical here. You're the FBI director. You're always on the job. As FBI director, as has been reported by the Atlantic, at any time of day, you might need to sign off on initiatives, on decisions, on paperwork that requires you to not be drunk. And so the denial I've never been intoxicated on the job. is an answer to a different question. The question is, have you been intoxicated beyond belief as described in the Atlantic since you became FBI director? And he says, I've never been intoxicated on the job. If you're the FBI director, you're always on the job. It's just the way it is. It's a 24-7 job. You don't like it. Don't take the job. It's like being president of the United States. Same thing applies. And so he is very carefully threading the needle. But any of us who can read between the lines and understand what he's saying and what he's not saying know that he is not denying being drunk since being sworn in his FBI director. And that's a national security threat. I'm not saying he can't have a beer. Depending on his tolerance, I don't know. Maybe he can have a couple beers. But we're talking about reporting that he's been drunk to the point of being unresponsive where FBI officials started to say, do we need to break down the door with a battering ram to get access to this guy?

And so that is the answer to me. He's saying, yes, I have been drunk. Now, there was another part of this report from the Atlantic that at one point he tried to log into the computer system and couldn't and thought maybe he had been fired by Trump but didn't know it. He's asked about that. And the answers are not particularly inspiring. The computer login issue, just explain the computer login issue. You were not able to log into the, your lawsuit contends that you were not able to log into the system. What did you think? after you were unable to log into the system let's have a survey how many of you people believe that's true hang on did you communicate you asked the question let me answer it no no no did you communicate with anyone that you thought you were fired after you were unable to log into the problem with you and your report don't come me off you ask the question straightforward question the problem with you and your baseless reporting is that is an absolute lie it was never said it never happened And I will serve in this administration as long as the president and the Attorney General want me to do so. And every time you guys report false lies, every time you guys raise baseless questions, when we are here to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center's $3 million decade-long scheme to fraudulently fleece Americans, you are off topic. It's a simple, straightforward question. If you talk to anybody about whether you thought you were a dire. The simple answer to your question is, You are lying. And every time you do so, I've answered your question. It's simply as follows. I was never locked out of my systems. Anybody who says anyone that says the opposite is lying. Once again, the specific language. Kash Patel claims I was never locked out of the system. What the reporting asserts is that he was unable to log in. Now, was he unable to log in because he was locked out of the FBI system? Or was he unable to log in because he was so drunk he couldn't remember his access credentials? Those are two different scenarios. And once again, he is answering a question that wasn't asked. I don't know how anyone can look at this performance and not see it as confirming the allegations in the Atlantic report. This is very bad for Kash Patel. and it increasingly looks like he will indeed be fired. It's an embarrassment, a complete and total embarrassment to the United States and a national security risk. A lot of clothing brands today talk about sustainability, but our Fair Harbor sponsor actually builds it into how their products are made. Fair Harbor was founded with a specific goal, reduce plastic waste by turning recycled plastic bottles into durable, comfortable fabrics. Instead of treating sustainability as an add-on, make it the core of the company and make it- the core of how Fair Harbor clothing is designed to be worn and reused over time. I've been wearing some Fair Harbor pieces and what stands out is the environmental factor doesn't come at the expense of comfort or practicality. The clothes feel soft, broken in, easy to wear day in and day out. They're not stiff. They're not over engineered.

They're designed to actually be used, which really matters if sustainability is going to mean anything at all. So if you're looking for swimwear, shirts, hoodies, or other casual clothing that works for every day wear and travel, head to fair harbor clothing.com slash David and use code David for 20% off your full price order now through May 15th. The link is in the description. A lot of people. fall into the same pattern every year for Mother's Day. Flowers, maybe brunch, maybe a gift card. It's nice. It doesn't last very long. This is why I love Aura frames as a different kind of gift. Our sponsor, Aura, makes digital picture frames that display your photos and videos in a way that looks like a real print. It's so easy. You can preload photos before the frame arrives. You can add a personal message. It shows up ready to go. I have two of these. I've given them to my mom. I've given them to my dad. And then when we travel like we are right now, I add pictures of the girls from my phone and they show up on all of the frames or only some of the frames if that's what you want. Instead of giving a gift that disappears after a few days, give something that will keep the memories alive. Aura is giving my audience $25 off their best selling Carver mat frame. Go to auraframes.com. Use the code Pacman. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description. We're now at the point where it is not even attempted to communicate in a rational and serious manner with the press. That applies to a bunch of people in this administration, but it really applies to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, a professional propagandist, an official obfuscator of reality. I don't remember the quote exactly, but there's something about... George Orwell and Aldous Huxley about the fear isn't the Orwellian fear. that lies will be told, but it is more the Huxleyan fear that it won't really matter what is true and what is a lie because people won't care about it anymore or something along those lines. We'll look at Karoline Leavitt speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox News where she makes claims that are not just slightly off. They're not mild exaggerations. They're not political speak when you're trying to put a positive spin on things. They are straight up unbelievable lies. Exhibit A is the following claim. But the facts are the facts. President Trump has been the steady leader our country needs throughout this entire endeavor. A steady leader. He started a war that was completely unnecessary, which sent the economy into a tailspin, further raised prices for everyday Americans, and has zero connection to what we're actually seeing.

The contradictory statements all the time. What's steady about that? Walking stuff back. Confusion. Disorientation. None of that is steady. And she's describing a version of Trump that does not exist in reality. Now, if you are struggling. to connect reality with your job's duties, which are to defend the president at any cost, you just throw out political speak and you go full-blown propaganda. Up is down, black is white, cold is hot. And when the facts don't cooperate as they don't right now, you just pull stuff up like the president's steady leadership is exactly what we've needed. What steady leadership? Karoline Leavitt even said, why are Americans skeptical of Donald Trump's promises? He delivers on his promises all the time. Well, I guess if you ignore every single broken promise, you might come to that conclusion. And again, thanks to the success of the military operation and his hardline negotiating style, we're on the brink of a deal. And if not, the president as commander in chief still has a number of options at his disposal that he's unafraid to use. And President Trump has proven before he does not bluff. When he makes a promise, he follows through on it. And I'm not sure why after 10 years of covering this president. The American media still cannot understand when President Trump says he's going to do something, he's going to do it. People are skeptical because he has a long track record of not delivering. First term, Jared will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. Didn't happen. We will pay off the national debt with a surplus. Didn't happen. Mexico will build. We will build a wall that Mexico will pay for it and it will traverse the entire U.S. Mexico border. Didn't happen. Second term, I am the anti-war president. Didn't work out. We will end the Iran, the Ukraine-Russia war within a day of becoming president-elect, within a day of being sworn in, within a month of being sworn in, within a hundred days. Didn't happen, didn't happen, didn't happen. We will bring the price level down right away. Didn't happen. I could go on. You don't ignore years of broken promises. by asking people to simply take your word that Trump does everything he says that he is going to do. It is gaslighting. I am not like one of the, you know, there are people who love saying everything is gaslighting. Everything is not gaslighting. But this is, this is asking Americans to suspend what the facts point to.

in terms of their belief as to what is happening in this country and to accept a version that is fantasy. It does not exist. Voters are not confused. Voters are responding to what they've seen. This is why Trump's approval rating is 32%. This is why a lot of Trump voters are saying this is betrayal. I want nothing to do with this anymore. Karoline Leavitt tries to go even further. And she says, you know, last year, there were people doubting that Trump was going to be able to do a deal in Gaza. And it was proven wrong. Let's take a little. He's the negotiator in chief. And to all the critics in the media, the Democrats, the panicans out there, you doubted he would win in 2016 and you were proven wrong. You doubted he would return to the Oval Office in 2024. You were proven wrong. I remember last year fighting with journalists from the podium about the president's ability to strike a deal to end the war in Gaza and bring home all the hostages. And again, they were proven wrong. I suspect this time is going to be no different shot. The journalists were not proven wrong. I don't know how many people have been paying attention, but there is no resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Things are not going perfectly in Gaza. We still have right-wing buffoon, Benjamin Netanyahu, in a number of misguided, absurd, counterproductive. bombing and violence campaigns and Trump is being read led around like a dog by Benjamin Netanyahu So to say that everyone was proven wrong on Gaza is laughable. Now, when she says, I suspect this time will be no different, I kind of agree. I think this time Trump is also not going to come out with the successes that he's predicting and claiming he's going to have. This is how they try to build credibility. Declare victory after the fact, even when there is no victory, reuse it and say, look at all our past victories. You should expect more in the future. If the prior claims were true. They'd be pointing to specifics and they're not. She just goes, they were proven wrong on Gaza. Proven wrong. How? In what way? It's still a fiasco there. What on earth is Karoline Leavitt talking about? And all of this, one of the things about propaganda regimes which seek success and power. not by accomplishing good things for the people they represent, but by propagandizing and lying and using force and intimidation. One of the things about it is that they won't stop propagandizing.

if and until someone puts a stop to it. And what I mean by that is if voters or some voters or Trump supporters accept these claims from Karoline Leavitt. Yeah, Trump, you know, Trump proved them wrong on Gaza. Trump always delivers on his promises. He's always a steady leader. If they accept that, Caroline is only going to do more of it. The only way is to say very clearly, we do not believe you. And part of the way that that's being said right now. is by saying I don't approve of the job Trump is doing. 32% approval. We'll talk about that later or maybe tomorrow, a new bottom total bottom out. And only by telling them we don't believe we, we know you were lying to us. Are we going to be able to push back against this propaganda? Well, where is Donald Trump anyway? Donald Trump has been in hiding for days. He has done some phone interviews, but he has been missing from camera again for days. Now, think about how that differs from what Trump used to do. Trump would be looking for cameras all day, chasing cameras, any opportunity to be on camera Donald Trump would take. And now he's still talking constantly, but we can't see him. And this is leading to renewed speculation that something is wrong. Remember how we've talked before about how press briefings have slowed down dramatically under this administration and even disappeared for long stretches of many weeks where Karoline Leavitt simply would not hold a press briefing. I went through the numbers at the time. And there were serious gaps, fewer appearances. It wasn't just it feels like we're not seeing Karoline Leavitt. We were not seeing Karoline Leavitt. And now something similar is happening with Donald Trump. And in a way, it's even stranger because this is not a normal president. Trump has always prioritized performance. The presidency is like a reality show for him. And he used to do multiple events a day. Sometimes you would see him on camera morning, afternoon, evening. He'd be in the Oval Office. And then he'd be talking to reporters. He'd be in the press briefing room and speaking to people on Air Force One over and over every single day. And I used to call it Trump is playing president. And the point was he loves being on camera. He loves being seen constantly. That's the baseline for Trump. That's normal for Trump. And so what we're seeing right now really stands out. Last week, there were very few public appearances. And that is not what we're used to seeing from him. This week, he's been close to missing entirely when it comes to being on camera. He went three days without being seen publicly at all. He called into CNBC. He called into some other show. I don't even remember. We covered it on Monday. But he's not on camera. And where it gets even more interesting is that he has come close to ceasing communication altogether. He's posting constantly. Oh, he spent all night posting to truth social, just firing off unhinged delusional posts online. But the interviews are just his voice. And a lot of these are notably, Trump sounds notably low energy. Now, we do have one video of Trump that I'm going to play for you later. It's highly produced in the Oval Office, which you can do with multiple takes. It is not Trump just out there talking. So what we are missing right now.

is the body language, the back and forth in front of cameras where things can go sideways and you can see what is happening with Donald Trump. So the obvious question is for a guy who loves being on camera the way that Donald Trump loves to be. Why is he pulling back from being physically visible? Why would someone who chases being on camera most of the time avoid them even when he's still speaking publicly over the phone? Now, there are a few possible explanations. You don't have to jump to anything particularly extreme to think through them. Could be fatigue. He's almost 80. He's the oldest president ever. It's a pace that is difficult to keep up. That I mean, that that wouldn't be a anything to laugh at. It's just the reality. It could be that Trump's staffers are limiting exposure to reduce the risk of these confused, disoriented moments. It would make sense. Trump doesn't really listen to staffers, though. So there's kind of a question mark around that one. It could be strategy where there's a desire to control the message more tightly and avoid situations that produce bad clips. But Trump's never really been worried about that. So maybe it's a mix of all of these. Maybe it's none of them. But what is happening all the time is that Donald Trump over the last few weeks since he went into Iran. Eight weeks ago, by the way, we're on week eight of a three week war, which is interesting. Since Trump went into Iran, he is regularly saying things that aren't going on. JD Vance is not negotiating. Well, actually, he is. JD Vance is over in Pakistan right now. Actually, he's in the White House. And they're constantly having to try to clean up these messes. So maybe there's a strategy here to get Trump off camera to try to prevent as many of these problems. I don't know. But Donald Trump is a guy. who really has a TV producer mindset, showing up matters, being on camera matters, taking questions matters. That's how he asserts control. That's how he feels good about what he is doing. And the most attention seeking president that we have ever had is now been missing for three days. A guy who built his brand on visibility. And the visibility has shrunk by nearly 100% over the last three to four days. So none of this proves anything on its own, but something has changed and it's worth watching. Now, let me give you another possibility. And in a sense, maybe this is the most likely one. Trump seems to know.

that things are going sideways for MAGA and for Republicans. Trump has acknowledged on camera and during phone interviews, even as recently as a few days ago during a phone interview, that if last night's redistricting vote in Virginia didn't go his way, that could be it for Republicans in the House in November. And last night's vote in Virginia did not go his way. The yes vote to redistrict in favor of Democrats won by a little bit. Trump knows that it is looking really bad in November and he may just be depressed about it. What we have predicted will be an acutely lame duck Trump seems to be weighing on him and depressing him and worrying him. And it may be as simple as it is depressed Trump sitting at the White House watching TV and eating well done steaks with ketchup. And he just doesn't want to be on camera because he's feeling bad. He's feeling bad it could be that simple. Finding time to read as much nonfiction as I want to read is difficult and it can be difficult for a lot of people who love learning about complex topics. You just don't necessarily have the time. That's why Blinkist is such a powerful tool. Imagine being able to read a nonfiction book in just 15 minutes. Blinkist is the app that will condense the key insights from major nonfiction titles. into these short summaries you can read or listen to in a single sitting you still grasp the book's central argument and its takeaways blinkist has over nine thousand titles across politics economics science philosophy business i recently listened to blink is summary of a book called dopamine nation by psychiatrist anna lemke and it looks at the relationship between pleasure and pain in this kind of modern world that's filled with more stimuli than ever. Blinkist perfectly guided me through the most important concepts. And now I actually want to read the entire book. That's another thing Blinkist is great for. Test the book out before you decide whether to dive into the entire thing. You can try Blinkist completely free for a whole week and get 30% off a subscription at Blinkist.com slash Pacman. The bulwark and Tim Miller are absolutely crushing independent media right now. And Tim is also just brutalizing bad faith people when he's up against them, debating them on all sorts of shows. I had a chance this morning to do a substack live with Tim Miller. We're going to check it out now. And remember that you could have seen this live and participated in the comment and all of the good stuff if you simply subscribe free. to the David Pakman show, Substack. Let's get to my conversation with Tim Miller. Tim, it's always good to see you, good to catch up. I was just checking out your recent appearance on Pierce Morgan, where you told this pastor, like, listen, this is me, this is my editorializing. I am not going to treat you differently because you're calling yourself pastor. I'm going to evaluate what you say objectively. I do.

I'm curious, do you like doing those, the Pierce Morgan appearances? Yeah, it's funny. I wish I had done more prep for this one because a lot of people saw this video. I think, and maybe part of this because I didn't do prep because I was just like, I don't know. Doug Wilson, I know. to be a hateful pastor that was influence that is an influencer of Pete Hegseth and i know that he's done a bunch of anti-gay stuff i don't you know i don't i don't follow his work that closely and i didn't even know i was going to be on with him i just uh my peers morgan policy is when i feel like i have anger i want to get off my chest i just say yes you know i say no usually but i'm like if i have something i want to vent about i say yes and so i just said yes blindly i was like whatever you can put on whoever you want i like the trump is such a disaster right now it's like I'm worried about debating any of these things. And so in this particular episode, it was kind of boring because the pastor couldn't articulate the pastor, couldn't articulate a defense of Trump in the war. And so then we end up getting into theological stuff. And I'm like, I don't know. I just think I should call you Doug. And I feel like that felt right in the moment. Watching it, it felt very right. It felt very right. Do you think, you know, now we've seen all of these, I don't really want to call them Mayaculpas, but we've seen all of these around the whole Trump's the anti-war guy stuff. We've seen words like betrayal used by some of the Manusphere podcasters. And I never would have guessed that this was going to happen. Is your sense that they... truly believed the whole I'm the real anti-war candidate thing and that now they're genuinely surprised or is your sense that they went along with it because they thought it was useful for getting Trump elected yeah I think they're both. And, you know, it's hard to know what's in anybody's heart. So, you know, I can only judge based on what I've seen of people's content and what I know about them. But I think some of the Manosphere guys feel really betrayed and for good reason. Like I watched the Andrew Schultz podcast for one example. He's a guy that had Trump on. I ripped him at the time and gave a very friendly interview to Trump. You know, they challenged him a little bit, but it was really soft and almost fanboyish. And, you know, if you listen to his podcast now, or Tim Dillon, who's another comedian who is for Trump, if you listen to them for long enough, it's like this, maybe they're snowing me, but this feels real. Like, I think that there's a category of people that genuinely were sick of all the foreign wars. thought that Trump was kind of an outsider who was not beholden to the military industrial complex and that he wouldn't get us into as many stupid wars. And he didn't last time. Obviously, we can debate the margins of what that means and what he actually did and didn't do in the first term. But, like, you know, he didn't start, he didn't do anything like Iran in the first, in the first term. And so I think that some of those guys feel betrayed. And I think that we should engage with them on that level and, like, take their, take their flip at good faith.

I think that they're partisan hacks, too. You know, like, Tucker Carlson called Trump a demonic force in a private text message five years ago. Like, Tucker Carlson knew what he's signing up for. Okay. Like, Tucker Carlson wants power and influence. You know, anybody that's in kind of that Fox Newsmax type, you know, Ra, Ra, Republican Party world, you know, some of them maybe, you know, we're just. it kind of doesn't even really matter what they thought Trump's foreign policy was going to be. They were going to be for him no matter what. You know what I mean? Like they were, they just wanted Trump to win and Kamala Harris to lose because they're team jersey type guys. And so, you know, I get a little flustered when I see people sharing the Tucker Carlson stuff because I'm like, man, in the same interview. where he's talking about how he feels bad about going along with Trump and how he feels betrayed. He's also talking, he's like making fun of my colleagues, Catherine Rampal at the Bullwork and saying that, you know, she was totally crazy to be in support of lawsuits to break up segregated country clubs. Like he does this whole rant in support of segregated country clubs in the same podcast. And so it's like I worry that people hear Tucker Carlson talking about this war and they think that he's an ally and he's not. And so I think he's a different case than some of the guys who aren't political experts went along for the ride, got snowed, got conned, and, you know, now are we thinking. Yeah, I think I generally agree with you about how we should be, like, talking to and dealing with those folks. One of the things I've said is we should welcome them reconsidering. And that's great. But I think, and I'm curious your view, I think it's important also to mention this was not unpredictable. And we know that because there were dozens or hundreds of us that were predicting that this was exactly what was going to happen. So I think that it's important both to say, hey, you're not like shunned and blacklisted forever. Because you are now revisiting your views and saying, hey, I made a mistake. But also, let's not pretend that there was no possible way that anybody could have seen this coming because there was. Yeah. Look, I think the way I think about this is, you know, if you have... a friend or a cousin or an uncle or an aunt in your life who is mirroring the Tim Dillon, Andrew Schultz turnabout on this, you know, and they are the type of person that you fought with a couple of times on your group text or over a holiday, but, you know, whatever, but you still are, you know, it's somebody that you care about, right? And you're on other side. What would you say to them right now? And maybe you'd say to them, you know, like, I had some points. I think it's important to consider that you're being, you're getting bad information from the media outlets you're following. You know, you'd think about how would you talk to them in a way that wouldn't make them say F you.

Right. Right. You know, and different families are different. Different personalities are different. But it's somebody that you care about and you're not the type of family that likes to yell at each other. There are certain families like that. But if you're not that, you wouldn't go to them, you know, you wouldn't go to the next bar, family barbecue and be like, eat shit, Uncle Chris. Like, you know, I told you dunked on you. You know, like that wouldn't be productive. So I feel that way about this. Like, yeah, it's important to mention. Part of the reason why these guys got snowed is because they bought a bill of goods from Donald Trump and the people around him and the big media influencers around them, including Tucker Carlson. And so they should be wary about that next time and they should think about who was telling them the truth and who wasn't. I think that's totally fair to say and to bring up and to bring up if we get invited on. I'm trying to go on those shows. And that's kind of what I would say to their audience. Just like... you know, it's important to update your priors when you find out that somebody's been lying to you. And so hopefully that that is what happens in certain cases. We're seeing it in the polls. So I do think it's happening naturally. Who do you think is the most influential or are the most influential right-wing commentators right now? And I know that I could just look up audience size, but I mean more in like an agenda-setting sense, the way that for a while, like Rush Limbaugh had this agenda-setting power as to like, what are going to be the two or three things that this week or today are the things that we're talking about. Does that still exist on the right-wing messaging machine or has it kind of become fractured? It's become so fresh. I think we're going to learn a lot in the next year to answer that question because, you know, I think that in the pre-Trump era. You know, there were a bunch of people clamoring for different roles and different types of influence. You know, there's more of the neo-concept, the more of the lets moderate on things, more of the heart on immigration, you know, said. And obviously, Trump won, you know, kind of making the case that, you know, we should care about America first and crack down on immigration and et cetera. We all know what happened there. And then Trump became so popular, he kind of became a cult, right? And so. They're really, like the only way to agenda set, so to speak, would be to influence Trump himself. And so in that way, who had influence? It was like the Fox hosts because you watch Fox or the people that had his phone number, right? Like those are the people that had, and that's been the case now for like nine years. You know, I mean, Tucker Carlson can claim that he has some agenda setting capabilities and et cetera. But frankly, time and again, up until basically Epstein and the war, the Republican base went along with whatever Trump wanted. And so there was no outside influence. You're starting to see that taper off now, you know, and I think that it will be interesting to see kind of who emerges. Obviously, Tucker Carlson is trying to make a case for more of America First, like real authentic, you know, kind of real communism has never been tried. Real America First has never been tried. Like, I'm going to do it the real way. You know, you'll see Ben Shapiro is still, I think, waning a little bit in influence, but has ton of influence with the White House, more of a traditional hawkish.

you know, foreign policy side of things. And so I think that's kind of where the stuff is going to net out. And I don't think that you can understate still like the influence of Fox. I mean, like Fox, it's an older audience, but like Fox still, you know, drives a lot of the conversation on the right and the big anchors there still do. the bulwark and i have a lot of overlap in terms of audience which i think is interesting where do you like are are you a republican are you on the right are you conservative at this point do you consider yourself center left like where at where do you see yourself kind of in this in this atmosphere right now um I think it's different within the bulwark, right? And, like, you know, the funny thing about never Trumpism, I'll answer the question, but just to give a little background. I was just a joke about this. My colleague Amanda Carpenter has since left the bulwark, and she's working for a protect democracy, which is an awesome organization. But me and Amanda were on opposite sides of every primary, our whole lives, you know, growing up. Like, I always worked for the moderate candidate. She worked for the Tea Party candidate, like in short, right? And so, you know, we had certain things we agreed about, obviously, but, but. We were on different, had different set of ideologies. And so when you start a never-trumper outlet, like they're going to be, there's going to be that, like, proliferation. Like among this original crew, like JVL is like, I think probably the most left and like Sarah and Mona or more, I think still kind of see themselves with small C conservatives. Now we've added a bunch of people who aren't even really enough Trumpers. They're just people that are experts in various areas. So, you know, I think it's different throughout the, um, The publication, me personally, I've just kind of embraced the fact that I'm a liberal in the small sense. Like, and that... in a certain world, like, would have put me on the center right. And I think these days kind of puts me on the center left, right? And I think that the way that things have changed, that's going to be. Especially conceived as you are not authoritarian. And this current MAGA movement is extremely authoritarian. And, like, small L. liberal quite literally places you oppose to that. Oppos. Yeah. And direct opposition to them, you know. And so, yeah, I think whether that, uh, It kind of means of belief in basic fundamental American values, democracy, pluralism, you know, but all, you know, free speech, like free trade, right? Like free trade is a Republican issue a while ago. You know, more open immigration policy. That was the Bush position, right? So certain things have changed. You know, I've changed on some things. I've moved a little left on a few things. But, you know, in a lot of ways, the way that the parties made up have changed. And, you know, I kind of see us. hopefully trying to carry that banner for small liberalism and when times when there are forces on the left that are trying to act in illiberal or lefty authoritarian fashion like we'll critique that but obviously I think we're right now kind of just in a big tent fight against right wing authoritarianism and and then I think if that gets defeated which it's looking better than it's looked in a long time that it could be defeated um you know we can kind of hash everything out um after that

Speaking of left-wing illiberalism, since you mentioned it, there have been a lot of interesting pieces lately about, you know, just opinions as to what degree should the more communistic, socialistic, we like. the Venezuelan regime, Cuban regime wing of the left should have in the broader left wing ecosystem, some of the pieces center specifically around Hasan Piker, although some of them are more kind of broad in their thinking. Do you think that there's a decision here to be made by whoever as to like what involvement should that wing of the left have in Democratic Party politics? Or do you think it's the sort of thing that's just going to be decided naturally by voters? I think part of this is going to be decided naturally by voters. I guess I'd say this. I think that the elites have less influence on all of this than they want to think. And I can tell you that from experience. And I worked on the Republican autopsy, which basically was saying that the Republican Party should be more. you know, traditionally liberal in the sense of, you know, appealing to different types of demographic groups and, you know, being more open on immigration and women's rights. So, like, that was the advice that the elites of the Republican Party were giving to the party in 2012, and the voters put that in the toilet and, you know, wiped their ass with it and said, no, we want Donald Trump. We went authoritarianism. that could that happen on the left. Sure. I think there's a ton of differences between the makeup of the Democratic base and the Republican base. One's much more educated. You know, one's much more democratically diverse. So I don't think the same exact thing would happen. But like in principle, like the power in our system right now comes from the people that make up the party, not the party elites. There are certain things they can do to shape it, but not as much as they think. And so if you accept that, Like my advice to party elites is to say, okay, well, rather than thinking about the Democratic base as I should fight with the parts of the base I disagree with because I think that's a losing battle, why not think about how do you engage with the parts of the base that I disagree with on some things, but find areas where we can find common ground and build trust together? Right. And that is like my argument about this, Hasan Piker and all the lefty socialist stuff. Like I think Hassan's crazy when he's talking about the USSR and China, like crazy. And if Hassan ran for president, I would be against him. I would now, he would not be my choice for president. But his audience has a lot of legitimate grievances about the way that the U.S. has managed foreign policy and the way that the U.S. leadership has succumbed to corporate elites and not been responsive to, you know, concerns about the rising costs of health care. And for me, if I, my advice to Democratic elites is to like engage with that, you know, if you're a center-left Democratic elite, let's say, engage with that part of the base and say, hey, I hear you. I also don't think we should be in stupid wars. I also think that we should go after the tech billionaires, you know, who are hurting the economy. I also think that we need to change the health care system to make it, you know, more affordable, give you an option, a public option, whatever your position is, right?

That's how I think would be smart politics. And I think that, you know, rather than, you know, doing the finger wagging, you have a bad position on whatever, on China. It's going to like, okay, well, that's just going to make them not trust you. That's going to, I think, lose your power. It seems at least potentially that the idea of a focus on anti-corruption and anti-cronism might not only work to pull over some disaffected maga-types in upcoming elections, but maybe there would also be some appeal to this further left that sometimes dabbles in supporting some authoritarian regimes. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud. Well, sure. Or just to be able to name who you're... Who you think you want to fight? You know, who is the enemy, right? And if you're making the case to people that Trump said he was going to drain the swamp, this has been the most corrupt administration ever. And so I want to root out the Trump corruption, but I also run to root out the corruption of all the other people that have undue influence on our politics. Like, look at how much money. It is, you just look at the people that are spending big money in primaries right now. It really is. It's pro-Israel, pro-AI, pro-crypto. And I don't know. I think that you could have a pretty compelling message to some disaffected magas and to some disaffected left people that just says, you know, I we are not going to hand our government over to the tech billionaires and like you know and also if you want to throw in other foreign Arab states they're trying to buy off our politicians like we're not going to sell our government to the big tech billionaires and to Israel and UAE and Saudi and I'm going to fight it and we're going to put new rules in place to prevent them from influencing our government and I And I care about that. I'm not just going to like say it one time or put out a statement. Like I'm going to talk about this. Like this is a pernicious force in our government and we need to root it out. Okay. Like, you know, the details on that. Some people are like more about some stuff than others. But I think just as a big message, yeah, I think that feels like that should appeal to people. Last thing I want to ask you about in thinking about the Republican primary for 28, you know, one of the question marks around this is that Trump seems increasingly lacking confidence in his ability to decide, is it JD Vance or Marco Rubio that I want to push? That's a separate question from whether he will be so diminished in power by the time that decision comes that no one will care what Trump's opinion is on whether it should be JD Vance or Marco Rubio or somebody else. Do you have any insights for us from inside? in speaking to your former colleagues, maybe as we might refer to them, of the way that the people not in Trump's inner circle are thinking about how that next Republican primary is going to be influenced? Yeah, I mean, I think that a lot of them.

are in uncharted waters on this. I really, Trump has changed, like the way that Republican primary politics worked from my first job as an early teen in 2000, as an intern through 2014, was basically the same. You know, like there are establishment guys, there are Tea Party guys. Like you said, there's radio, there's Fox. And, like, you tried to influence and you tried to get a plurality, right? And then Trump came through Kool-Aid man through the wall. And it's like, for the past 10 years, the only way to succeed in Republican Party was to be the Trumpiest person. Like, you know, even people that didn't like Trump privately would pretend like they would and their TV ads, right? And that's how you gained power in the party. So now they're all looking around and saying, okay, well, he's a lame duck. You know, maybe he leave, hopefully he leaves. Maybe he endorses somebody, but is he popular enough for that to carry the same weight? And I think that a lot, some people will make the bet that's like, you know, I'm going to stick with Trump until that bet doesn't work. And that's not, that's not a crazy bet, you know, past, you know, results is the best predictor of future or, you know, past actions, best predictor of future results. And so. I think a lot of people do that. But I think my opinion is that I think that there will be a lane for somebody. This wouldn't be my cup of tea in particular, but that somebody that says, you know, Trump was on to some stuff, but he got too co-opted by the interest groups in D.C. And I don't think this is true, by the way, but I'm just saying that to Republican voters, I think this is going to be a compelling message of change. That's just like, there was a lot of stuff he did that was good. He got co-opted by these bad forces. I am a true independent force. I learned lessons. I watched this for the last 12 years, you know, and I saw the ways in which Trump... you know, went along with whoever the boogeyman is, Marco Rubio, or Elon Musk, or, you know, whoever they decide is right boogeyman. And I am going to, you know, offer a different type of America, first, different type of MAGA. To me, that is... The only way to dislodge him. I think that somebody going back and saying, I'm going to do Nikki Haley republicanism again. It's just not going to work. Part of the reason is a big part of the people that like to Nikki Haley or Republican are Republicans. Going back to the Buller Coalition. Like a lot of those people at this point are so grossed out by the Republicans that people that used to vote in Republican primaries 10 years ago, they're going to be happy to vote for Pete or less more or less a slot, whoever ends up being kind of that. lane in the Democratic primary. They're not going to vote in the Republican primary. And so there's no base for that type of politics. So I just think that like what Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson are doing are a little bit extreme versions of this, but maybe like a little softer version of that, I think could work. Would you ever run for something? My text messages aren't great. David.

And we've been talking a lot. We talk a lot. I mean, somebody was, somebody clipped me out of context the day, some MAGA guy. I was making it, I got a question from a viewer that was like, would you kiss Cory Lewandowski if it meant that Kamala Harris was president? And I was like, I would do unspeakable things to Cory Lewandowski. If I think they lived in such a way that it made it look kind of like a threat. Anyway, I just, you know, I've got a long tracker. So I don't think so. But you never say never in life. I'm really happy living here in New Orleans. Maybe I get bored with podcasting and I decide I want to do something down to New Orleans. I could see that in my future. But no, I'm not fucking, what about you? Why don't you run? You're an actual, you actually had a party. So you should do it. It's not, um, it's not really interesting to me. Too much oversight, too many people controlling my time. You know, I, I like my flexibility in doing what I want to do. Yeah. Think about it. Life is short. No one ever knows. Are you a citizen? Wait, wait, where were you born? Are you born? I can never be president because I was naturalized. You're naturalized. So you could run out. You could be Zohran Mamdani. You could run for mayor. Who knows? Mayor of New York. Maybe that's the way to go. All right, listen, for my audience who's watching, make sure you're following and subscribe to the Bullwork on Substack. They're killing for the Bullworks audience. If you don't have a total rejection of me, I would be flattered for you to subscribe to my substack as well. Tim, always good to talk to you. We'll do it again and keep up the good work. Later David. We'll see you, brother. Take care. Bye. The David Pakman Show is an audience-supported program and the best most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up at join packman.com. A badly slurring Trump attempted to read Bible verses in the Oval Office. Mind you that Trump's been missing from being on camera for three days. We don't really know when this was filmed. We were told that on Tuesday, Trump would be reading Bible verses in the Oval Office. We don't actually know when this was filmed. But of course, this is filmed in a controlled environment where they can do multiple takes. Trump was slurring. It made no sense. Why is this even being done? Do we have separation of search and state or don't we? It's all nuts. But here is Trump attempting to read. Christian Bible verses about Jesus. There shall not fail you as a man to be ruler in Israel. But if you turn away and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you and shall go and serve other gods and worship then, then will I pluck them up from the roots? Now notice, by the way, that cut.

That's a way that you can hide that Trump can't really read this in any serious manner. That's that you can chop it up into pieces. And worship then. Then will I pluck them up from the roots out of my land which I have given them? And this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among nations. Among nations. This house, which is high. This house which is high. You can tell that Trump is deeply spiritual and has just a rock solid connection with the scripture. No, I'm kidding. I don't think I've ever heard anyone sound less convincing when reading Bible verses. Now, just remember. This entire thing is a ruse. Trump is not religious. Remember during his first campaign where Trump came out as a Christian and he goes to church and we know that he's not. And that's fine. I don't need my presidents to be religious. But it was all an attempt to placate and ingratiate himself with religious voters at the time it was evangelicals. And when he was asked about First Amendment, Second Amendment Bible verses, this was what Donald Trump said. And by the way. Notice how much more cognitively able Trump sounds 10 years ago. and how he has deteriorated. You mentioned the Bible. You've been talking about how it's your favorite book, and you said, I think, last night in Iowa, some people are surprised that you say that. I'm wondering what one or two of your most favored Bible verses are and why. I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible, it's very personal. So I don't want to get into verses. I don't want to get into it. There's no verse. It means a lot to you that you think about or cite. The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics. It's just so deeply spiritual and personal that I don't want to give you any Bible verses. I might upset other Bible verses by excluding them. Even decide a verse that you like. No, I don't want to do that. You're an old testament guy or a New Testament guy? Probably equal. I think it's just an incredible. The whole Bible is. You more of a Mark or John guy. Oh, probably 50, 50. Incredible. I joke very much so. They always hold up the art of the deal. I say my second favorite book of all time. I just think the Bible is just something very special. It's very special. Now, forgetting about the substance, Trump doesn't read. Trump hasn't read a book in his adult life. I would be shocked if in the last 60 years Donald Trump read a book. And so putting aside for a second that he's not religious and this is all a whole, it's a ruse. It's just a joke. Nobody should believe it. Trump doesn't read. So we know he can't possibly be reading the Bible. Now, the specific passage that Trump read in the Oval Office whenever that was filmed. It's a passage that has significant meaning. And it's a passage that has been used a lot by people who believe the United States was founded as a Christian nation and should return to being a Christian nation. It's a Christian nationalist verse. And it shows up at these national day of prayer events and at political rallies and campaign speeches. It's messaging about Christian nationalism. And this is the same Trump.

who a week ago was circulating imagery of himself as Jesus. And it's the self-deification. And then when it comes time to actually read a passage, he's struggling, he's swollen, he's slurring, and he's confused. Now, I'm going to make the argument that whatever you think of Trump politically, the difference in delivery. between 10 years ago and now is stunning. You have this highly staged religious reading. delivered in a way that is drawing our attention for all the wrong reasons. He can barely speak. He can barely read. And then you've got the context, which is why are we reading Bible verses in the Oval Office? Why are we reading Bible verses in the Oval Office that are favorites of Christian nationalists? Now, scholars and critics point out. that this verse, this passage is being used well outside of its original meaning. This is like, I don't even know if it matters for our purposes, but I'll mention that the passage Trump reads refers to a specific moment in ancient Israel during the reign of King Solomon. And it's about a covenant between God and a particular people at a particular time. Trump's reading of it and the application from Christian nationalists is that it means something about the United States today being a Christian nation. That's, of course, a wild reinterpretation. And you might say, David, it's all made up. I don't even give a damn. Fine. I thought that's totally fine. But it's also worth mentioning that they are completely misusing this and it has become a favorite of Christian nationalists. And he's trying to tap into a narrative, which is I'm religious. I believe Christianity is important to the fabric of American society. But all that it is is politically useful for Trump. And quite frankly, I don't even know how politically useful it is at this time because very few people seem convinced by Donald Trump's religiosity. Now, I know that you can go to, you know, that he's not really doing them anymore. Thankfully, thank God for lack of a better term. But when you would go to Trump rallies and we would send correspondence to some of these in the rally days. And you would interview Christian supporters of Trump. They would say everything from I believe he was sent by God. Mike Pillow even said at one point. Trump was sent by God to be president to he is the godliest. He is like Jesus. He is the most important person for leading the country in a godly and Christian way. There are people who fell for it. But big picture with Trump's approval at 32 percent, gas prices up, disaster in Iran, all of it. It is increasingly marginalized and fringe to even worry about, to even worry about Trump's religiosity because people are increasingly going, my personal finance situation is a disaster. And above social issues, above religion, above all of this stuff, that seems to be the most important determinant.

at this point for people to say, is Trump doing a good job or isn't he doing a good job? And I think while wildly inappropriate to be reading Bible verses in the Oval Office, it is increasingly pointless and not even really helping Donald Trump. Tucker Carlson says he regrets all of it. Tucker Carlson did a sort of maya culpa, and we'll look at whether we think it's genuine, saying he was wrong to help Donald Trump get elected. He is responsible at least partially for it. He's tormented by the role that he played in getting Trump elected. Now, on its face, it sounds like Tucker Carlson's taking some accountability. He's admitting I was wrong. I'm taking responsibility here for it. But is that really what's taking place? Let's take a look. Looking back being, because, I mean, you and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him, I campaign for him. I mean, we're implicated in this for sure. Yes. It's not enough to say, well, I changed my mind or like, oh, this is bad. I'm out. It's like. In very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now. That's right. And you know what? This is not like, oh, my God, Tucker Carlson's so good. Now he's taking accountability. No, but he's getting directly to something I've been critical of. When Rogan goes, I'm betrayed by this. When Andrew Schultz says, I never expected this. This is what I voted for. When Tim Dylan or whoever from the Manosphere, one of the things I've been saying is, listen, I believe you that you're shocked by the way it all worked out, but it was predictable. It was predictable. And you need to consider your own responsibility. It's not enough for Rogan to go, I was betrayed. I didn't know you would do this. What about I also helped make it a reality? What about I never should have endorsed? I never should have said, Tucker Carlson is at least saying we can't just go, oh, I made a mistake. But now let's listen to the rest. Yes. So I do think it's like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences. You know, we'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say, I'm sorry for misleading people. It was not intentional. That's all I'll say. But anyway, but the question does present itself immediately, like, what is this? Was this always the plan? You don't want to be a conspiracy nut, but like, clearly there were signs of low character. We knew that. Well, I guess Tucker Carlson ignored some of those signs of low character, right? Except not really. Because we have Tucker Carlson's private text where he was saying I despise Trump. I can't wait until Trump is gone. So if we were to just do this the most charitable way we can.

Let's assume Tucker Carlson's telling the truth. Well, it's the right way to feel. He should feel tormented. He should feel responsible. He should feel guilty because he did help bring the scourge or scourge among to the United States. He should be tormented for a long time for having helped to get Donald Trump elected. But at the same time, next thing you know, Tucker Carlson will be back at the White House just like Joe Rogan was a few days ago to help Trump sign in a bill about Ibogaine. He will, you know, if he, if Tucker Carlson led you a stray before, why would you trust him ever again? Because he could be confused again and lead you astray. So the key question I have is how much of this is real? How much of it is genuine? If it's genuine, it should go much further. It shouldn't just be I regret it. It would be here's exactly how I got it wrong. Here's how I misled my audience. Here's what I'm doing differently. That's what accountability would look like. This to me feels more like a calculated and strategic repositioning. He's moved on from Fox News and now he's doing the independent thing and he's creating some distance from Trump without fully breaking away. He's trying to appear kind of self-aware, but he wants to maintain influence with the same audience that's come to trust him. Why they trust him, I don't know. And it fits a pattern we've seen many times before. Push something aggressively, benefit from it and then later suggest maybe. that went too far without really owning the consequences of what it is that you participated in. Now, if Tucker Carlson really believes what he's saying, then yes, he should feel this way. This is the right way to feel. His platform has had a real impact. He helped to get Trump elected and now he says that that was a bad thing. If nothing really changes and Tucker Carlson continues operating in the same way, this isn't accountability. This is Tucker Carlson managing his image. So I think the real test isn't what he said. All right. He said some stuff that if genuine makes sense, it's what does he do next and how does he make good for what he did? I've said it about Rogan. I've said it about Andrew Schultz. Fine. You were betrayed. You were bamboozled. You were confused. You didn't know what to expect. And now you see that it was no good. But what's the next thing that you do? Do you just back out of politics altogether or do you actually work to try to fix the problem you helped create? That, I believe, is the test. Can Texas public schools display the Ten Commandments in classrooms? Well, a court rules that the state can require public schools to display the Ten Commandments. What? We will talk about it on the bonus show. Congressional disapproval is at a record high 86%. And El Salvador is holding a mass trial of nearly 500 alleged MS-13 gang members. We will review what is happening with this entire El Salvador fiasco of the Trump administration. All of those stories and more.

On today's bonus show, sign up at join packman.com. And remember, we want to own our data so I can get in touch with you if we get shut down on any platform. The only platform where we own our data is substack. So get on my substack newsletter at david packman.com slash substack.