Ex-Trump aide CONFIRMS MEDICAL COVERUP

I spoke to Sarah Matthews, the former deputy press secretary for Donald Trump. Boy, oh boy, did she not hold back in this one talking about the alleged cover up of Trump's health situation, the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair scandal and much more. Make sure to get my sub stack lives when they happen by subscribing free at sub stack dot David Pakman dot com. Here's my conversation with Sarah.

to the show by clicking the link right here. And if you want to learn more about the latest news and the latest stories, you can subscribe

to the show by clicking the link right here. to what might be happening behind the scenes a few times now. Good to see you, Sarah.

Yeah, thank you for having me back on the show.

So I want to talk with you about the Suzy Wiles Vanity Fair situation. And I want to get to that in a moment. But I also want to get your thoughts as we continue to kind of lay out the situation. Something's going on with Donald Trump's health.

We don't really know what it is. It might be serious. It might not be. We've been tracking the bruises on his hands, which then were covered with with clashing makeup, which then the makeup was covered with bandages. The White House seems to always be slow and incomplete in their explanations. So, for example, when we learned Trump had had an MRI, after several weeks, we were told it was

for a routine cardiovascular and abdominal screening and we didn't know why it was ordered, we didn't know what the results were, we were just told it's awesome. And by then, we already had more questions and similarly with the hand stuff,

we were told after several weeks it's from shaking hands. If shaking hands causes this much damage, maybe you would refrain from shaking hands a little bit, but none of it's really adding up. So I think the value you might be able to provide is what sorts of conversations happen behind the scenes

when in the press shop you start to see reporters are asking about this. We're getting questions. How do we manage it? What do you theorize led to slow and then later incomplete responses?

What I will say is that when I worked for Trump in his first administration as deputy press secretary, I was working there during the time that he caught COVID himself. And I remember when this was happening that as deputy press secretary, one of my main duties was to inform the press about his condition. And we were told from the most senior officials at the White House, including the chief of staff Mark Meadows at the time, that Trump was only going to Walter Reed as a precautionary

measure, that he was in good health. And I told reporters that. And I put my name and reputation on the line to tell reporters that because I believed it to be the truth at the time. What I ended up finding out was that that was a lie, that he was actually not doing well at all, and that he was very, very sick. And then we had to backtrack once that got leaked. And I had to go back to reporters who thought I was an honest broker and tell them, hey, I was lied to, and I was telling you what I was told was the truth.

And so I know firsthand that working in the Trump White House, that he does not ever want the public to see him as weak. And so you see now that it seems like there is some sort of coverup going on. And I'm sure that he doesn't want the truth about whatever health condition it is, whether it's something minor or something much more serious,

he doesn't want that to come out. And so that's where you're seeing these explanations from the White House that make absolutely zero sense. I mean, the handshake thing is absolutely ridiculous. No normal handshake involves the back of your hand. And also, that explanation would just highlight the fragility of him.

If he is that fragile that he gets those types of bruises on the back of his hand from shaking hands, then that's not a good thing either. So he's very aware of it, and I think he's very concerned about the public perception of his health, given all of the posts that he's put up on Truth Social. He brags about acing these cognitive tests. And what that tells me is that there's something going on.

There's definitely more to the story here. And I know firsthand that the White House is willing to lie about his health when it comes to things, particularly his health. So I think that there's some sort of cover up going on for sure.

You were being fed information that was untrue, but that you believed to be true. So you may not have insight into this next scenario, but are there scenarios where there would be a huddle? You, the press secretary, the staff and everybody understands, OK, here is a reality. Here is Trump's preference that we not talk about this or give any information about it. What do we do? Were there scenarios like that where you had to figure out how do we not talk about something that reporters clearly want information about, but the president

does not want us talking about? Yeah, there are many things that when I was doing my role as deputy press secretary, one of my main duties was to help prep the press secretary for briefings. And that meant anticipating questions that we would get from the press corps and then helping craft those responses. And I think that there were oftentimes, I think the scenario that we faced was that we would be presented with a situation that made the president look unfavorable or he wanted us to say a certain thing because that's what he believed, but we didn't think

that that would benefit him necessarily politically and that we would advise him to message something a different way. And so I think that's the tricky part of the job of being a spokesperson for him is that you have to cater to what he wants because Trump thinks that he's his best spokesperson. And so even if something doesn't make him look the most flattering or won't be as compelling to say the voters that he needs, I know he's no longer able to run for office moving forward. But I just mean that when I was working for him, that was something that we constantly

faced was, how can we put out a message that, you know, makes him look good, but also keeps the boss happy? And so I think that that is certainly something that this press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, and her team are running into of them trying to thread that needle of keeping him happy and while also trying to have some sort of, I guess, transparency, but it doesn't seem like they're being totally

forthcoming and giving us the whole truth here, especially in regards to his health.

Is there a particular episode or vignette that you feel what we might call guilty about having participated in? And like the COVID thing, it sounds like everybody was being lied to, you included. And so you said something that wasn't true, but you believed it to be true. You didn't really act in a way where you would say, oh, I mean, you were you were being deceived also. Do you now, as you look back on your tenure, think to a particular episode where you say

my role in that was was really regretful?

I think that, you know, I could go through a litany of past things that Trump said or did that I'm regretful for having defended or participated in. I do think that when you're a spokesperson for a politician, you do kind of have to check your own beliefs at the door. Your job is to push their policies, their agenda, and defend what they say. And I certainly have some regrets about defending some of the things that Trump said.

And you know, there's a long list of tweets that I'm sure I could pull up of, you know, just nasty things that he said that I had to kind of contort my own beliefs to defend. And like I said, working for any politician, you have to check your own beliefs. But I think when it comes to Trump, it makes it that much more difficult because the types of things that you're defending, they're not normal for most politicians. And so, yeah, there's certainly some things, whether it, just nasty, I think, tweets that he put out, that I'm, like I said,

I'm sure there's plenty of them. And I do have regrets about my role in enabling him in the first administration and being part of that, but that's why I think I've been so vocal and since leaving, I resigned on January 6, 2021, and have been trying to kind of right those wrongs from then until now and in the lead up to the 2024 election and warned about how bad a second Trump administration would be. And I think that those of us who worked on the inside saw that and knew what the second

Trump administration would be. And so definitely have some have some regrets for sure.

Last question on the health stuff, and then I want to talk about Susie Wiles. I'm wondering your opinion of the longest period of time that something happening with Trump's health would be kept from the public. And the context of me asking this question is during the covid debacle, for example, we later learned Trump had been on oxygen, but we knew there was never a Trump is currently on oxygen because he's having trouble breathing. There were these conversations

with his doctors a couple of days later where they were asked, was the president ever on oxygen? And there was this answer that I'm kind of paraphrasing, which was the president is doing a lot better. He has not been on oxygen today. And of course, the question that had been asked was, was he on oxygen at any point during the state?

We didn't learn that until much later. For example, that's sort of just like a micro example. That's sort of just like a micro example. The way that the news moves and the number of people that are sort of in and around Donald Trump, depending on the size of the inner circle at any particular time, how long could something more serious be kept from the public?

Well, I think we saw with the last administration, with President Biden, that he was also very insulated by an inner circle of advisors and that they were able to kind of contain some of these things about his health and shield him from the media coverage of that, but that it was obvious to anyone who was watching him. And I think we're seeing the exact same thing now play out with Trump. We're seeing that he is very insulated, surrounds himself with

a close group of advisors, and that they're doing their best to try to cover it up. But obviously to anyone who has working eyes, we can see that he has these bruises on the back of his hand that he's so desperately trying to cover up with makeup and bandages. We see him falling asleep in meetings. We see that he's not out and on the campaign trail that much or holding as many rallies and his schedule seems to be a lot lighter. And so it does seem like there's been a decline in his physicality and his cognitive abilities. And so I do think that they're doing their best to contain it.

And I think that in Trump 2.0, there's a lot less leaks than you saw in the first administration. And so clearly, if there is some sort of health cover-up going on, they're doing a good job of containing it. And I think that they could contain it for a long time moving forward. And I think eventually something will come to light. But obviously we're not going to get honest answers in his physicals from his White House doctor. We know that obviously that when we see that they're lying about Trump's height and weight,

then there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're telling the truth about anything else. So I do think, though, that they could go a while covering this up.

All right. Let's talk about the Susie Wiles situation. There's been a piece published in Vanity Fair. It's based on a number of interviews. But if I understand correctly, what we've seen so far is related to two of the 11 conversations that took place. There's a number of different statements that Susie Wiles makes, including that Elon Musk is regularly using ketamine, that Donald Trump is like an alcoholic, but not in that he is literally drinking. But by the way, people asking about my if my liver is

OK, my my my ring light is yellow tinged. I know I look like I have jaundice, but I really don't. It's just a lighting issue. So everybody, everybody remain calm, please. The feed, the blowback to this Susie Wiles thing has been that everybody's talking about context. Caroline Levitt said these quotes from Susie Wiles have been taken out of context. Susie Wiles herself is talking about context, but Wiles is not denying any of the quotes.

She is not saying any of these things I didn't actually say. She is saying that the environment in which the commentary was made and the context around them are sort of missing from the reporting.

When I hear that, and you're the person who's worked in speaking to the press, when I hear that, and you're the person who's worked in speaking to the press, when I hear that, it sounds to me like she said every single thing that is in the Vanity Fair report.

Yeah, I mean, it's all on tape. So I think there's no way that she can deny the authenticity of the quotes because this author obviously did his homework and made sure to come prepared and have all of this on tape so he can push back on it if she tried to claim that she didn't say these things. And I think too that it doesn't matter

what context these things were said in, they clearly knew that she agreed to do this interview. She sat down with this author for 11 interviews. The most senior officials in the White House did a glamorous photo shoot for Vanity Fair. They were willing participants of this.

And they're saying that it's a hit piece, but he's just using her direct quotes throughout the entire piece. And so, yes, her saying that Elon Musk is an avid ketamine user, I don't know what the context is there that you would need beyond that. I think that was just her honest assessment. And I will say, it was very refreshing to read the article, because it did feel like

she was giving brutally honest answers to his questions, and the author even says that she answered almost every single one of his questions. So it doesn't matter what the context was. I think that it's very clear that she, if I have to guess, I don't know if she just, in the article, she says that she thought she would only be in the role for six months. So maybe she initially agreed to participate in this vanity fair piece at the beginning of the Trump administration.

They did the first interview before the inauguration. So maybe she thought, this will come out after I've already left the White House. And obviously now she's still in the role almost a year into Trump's first term or second term. And so I wonder if she's having some regrets about agreeing to participate, but she did

agree to participate. Is this the sort of thing that turns the mood or the the relationship with Susie Wild negative with everybody in the White House where someone would see this and go, she never should have done this? Or does do do the people around Trump and even the ones pictured in the spread? Do they simply say vanity vanity fair screwed us, Susie didn't do anything wrong here?

I think that publicly they're saying, vanity fair screwed us and it's fake news and this is a hit piece, and they've all come out to defend her, whether that be the other folks who are photographed in the piece

or cabinet officials that have put out statements defending Susie Wiles. But I do think that behind the scenes that there are some people thinking, what was she thinking? Why did she say these things? Why was she so candid in this interview?

And it does, I, as a reader of the article, I appreciated how candid she was, but it definitely didn't paint a lot of these other folks in the administration in a good light. And some of those folks still came out and defended her. I don't think that it's going to hurt her position with Trump.

He adores her. He sees her as a loyal soldier. She was there for him when he was a pariah within the party and everyone else had abandoned him and she stuck by his side. So I think that it's not going to hurt her position, but I think that she might get a little slap on the wrist of, hey, no more interviews.

So that's interesting that you don't think it'll hurt her position. So you don't you know, sometimes it's funny because with this whole I'm the best at hiring people thing that Donald Trump has been going on really for decades with but in a political sense for the last decade. Sometimes the firing of someone Proves he's not so good at hiring people and I think it makes him inclined to keep people He would like to fire not because he still has confidence in them

But because he doesn't want it implicitly acknowledged that some of these were potentially bad ideas. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I know it makes 100% sense. I mean, we've all seen the stories that have leaked out about how the Kash Patel might be fired soon or Kristi Noem might be fired soon. And so obviously there's something going on behind the scenes where Trump isn't happy with the job that those folks are doing, but he doesn't want to publicly acknowledge it,

that they're doing a bad job and that he handpicked those folks for these roles. And so in the first administration, I think you saw that if an article like this came out from another chief of staff, I think they would have been fired in Trump 1.0, but in Trump 2.0, I don't think that he wants to give the media any other fodder and give them that sort of acknowledgement that, oh, yeah, I made a mistake in hiring this person. And so I do think that they'll stick by her side and weather this storm.

Because I don't think that, well, folks like us who are dialed into what's going on in politics and obviously care deeply about following everything that's going on within the Trump administration, I think this is going to just be a blip on the radar for other Americans across the country. They're more focused on, you know, the costs at the grocery store and their rising health care premiums and things like that.

So they probably don't care about what Trump's chief of staff had to say in some Vanity Fair article that they're never going to see.

If we zoom out a little bit, you know, since the last time you and I spoke, we have seen polling and also a lot of elected Republicans really kind of turn, at least on the MAGA aspects of what's going on in the Republican Party. We've had some interesting elections, the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial. We also saw some interesting races last week in Florida and Georgia and a number of different interesting changes that are all swinging to the left. I'm wondering if we look at that and then we also combine it with a really negative

reaction from Republicans to Donald Trump's outrageous truth post about Rob Reiner and his wife's death, which a lot of Republicans have just flat out condemned. Even the ultimate defender of Donald Trump, Scott Jennings, said on CNN this week, he shouldn't have said it, which from Scott Jennings, that's like as big an indictment as you'll ever get. I mean, he wrote a book just filled with adult adulation about Donald Trump. Do you think

something different is happening right now as the reality of twenty twenty six now just ten and a half months away sets in and Republicans are saying we might be worse off if we stay loyal in our reelections next November? Or do you think overall this is still not really going to change loyalty to Trump from the Republican Party? Yeah, I think you bring up a

good point about how the Rob Reiner true social posts seem to penetrate through that. That really upset people on both sides of the aisle and even people who don't necessarily follow politics day to day, that ended up on their radar and they were pretty disgusted by what he had to say. And I think that it goes to show that so many Republicans were willing to ignore Trump's obvious character flaws because they saw that his policies would be for the greater good. And so they thought, I don't like, you know, the tweets that he puts out or the true social

posts and yeah, I think he's a bad guy, but I like these policies from him. But now what you're seeing is that he has failed to deliver on those policies in Trump 2.0. In this second administration, many of his key campaign promises he has not delivered on. He said he would lower costs. He said he would lower grocery prices. Said he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. I mean, I could go through all of these different

promises that he made that he has not kept. And so when you're failing to deliver on those things, it becomes a lot harder for Republicans to then ignore the obvious character flaws that he has. And so I think that that's why you saw that Rob Reiner post rubbed so many people the wrong way. And now why you're seeing some elected Republicans be more willing to be critical of him.

And I think that those same elected Republicans or Republicans that are running in 2026, they are worried about their chances because they see the writing on the wall. They see that Trump's numbers have cratered when it comes to his approval rating

and his handling of the economy, an issue that he used to be very trusted on. And people are upset with him because he has failed to deliver on those campaign promises. And so now it seems like some Republicans, now that he's a lame duck, they're willing to create a little bit more distance between him and themselves.

But I think that we're starting to see the beginning of it. You know, it started with Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Indiana Senate Republicans who refused to go along with his rigged, gerrymandered map. And I'm thankful that more Republicans are seeming to grow a spine

and willing to push back on him. But it's been a long time coming, but hopefully that means that the tide is shifting and that there will be more.

All right, last thing I want to ask you about, and we kind of check in about this every time we talk with regard to your thoughts as to kind of like who you would like to see maybe rise within the Republican Party. There is a lot more talk about JD Vance for 2028. And I say this with the understanding

that if we go back decades, whoever is leading some poll three years before the election never ends up being the nominee. Like it always ends up being someone else. But regardless, I'm hearing from some Republicans that this time it's different

because Peter Thiel is already behind him and he's the VP and this time it's sort of a different thing. My understanding of your politics from the times that we've talked is that JD Vance is not exactly someone

that would excite you, that your interest is in a different type of Republican. Give me your thoughts as to where your head is now on this, your thoughts about the inevitability of Vance or your views of Vance,

anything that you kind of want to tell us about this. this, your thoughts about the inevitability of Vance or your views of Vance, anything

that you kind of want to tell us about this?

Yeah, I think obviously JD Vance is going to have the backing of the tech oligarchs and the social media guys and the Peter Thiels of the world. And so he'll have the fundraising ability behind him. But Ron DeSantis was able to fundraise a lot too, and look how that panned out for him in the 2024 primary. And so just because you might have that backing and he might be the assumed heir apparent,

but I don't think that that means that it's solidified by any means. I think even in that Vanity Fair article that Trump's chief of staff, Suzy Wiles, did when she talked about Vance, she kind of seemed to downplay it a bit where she said that she went after him for basically, she went after J.D. Vance for basically being someone who is, and she didn't use the word chameleon, but I'm going to use the word chameleon, that he kind of shifted his views because he was running for Senate. And so I don't think that MAGA buys that he actually believes

these things. And I do think that it will be really difficult for anyone to take over the mantle of the MAGA movement because no one is Trump. No one can replicate it. We saw DeSantis try. He tried to be Trump-lite and Trump without the character flaws, and it just fell flat. And I think with JD, he has an awkward personality as well. So I don't really see him being that charismatic figure that Trump is and being able to just easily win the nomination heading into 2028. But in a perfect world, I would love to see someone like Spencer Cox, the governor of

Utah. I recently went and saw him speak at the Washington National Cathedral, and he did a bipartisan conversation with the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro. I saw that. And it was fantastic. And they had a spirited dialogue, but a respectful and civil one. And I will say, I think that both of those men are the types of person that I would be

willing to vote for in 2028 as someone who considers themselves a more center-right, kind of moderate nowadays. I think that they're trying to inject that sort of civility back into our politics. And even though someone like Spencer Cox might not be a nationally well-known name. I'm hoping that between now and now in 2028 that folks like him will rise in the rankings, but that might be a pipe dream on my part and I might be too much of an optimist. If I'm being honest, I think it will be someone who falls somewhere more in the middle, like a Marco Rubio, who is seen as

being loyal to Trump and was in the middle like a Marco Rubio who is seen as being loyal to Trump and was in the second Trump administration in these pivotal roles but I think is still more well respected than say a JD Vance. So maybe it maybe it will be someone more like him who ends up being the nominee but I only time will tell there's a lot of time between now and then when the Republican Party will actually pick a nominee. But J.D. Vance will certainly be tough to

beat, I think, just with the backing that he'll have financially. But I don't really actually see Trump coming out and endorsing him either. I don't think that he wants to pick someone because Trump really cares about making sure that if he endorses someone that they're going to win. So I don't think that he'll endorse anyone until it becomes completely 100 percent obvious that they are going to be the nominee.

And quite frankly, I don't know that Trump likes J.D. Vance that much. That's another, I think, role, a factor I think to consider. Sarah Matthews, always great to talk to you, and we will have plenty of opportunities to do it again before we know who that nominee is going to be. Yeah, thank you so much for having do it again before we know who that nominee is going to be. Yeah, thank you so much for having me on. All right, we'll talk to you soon. Thank you. Bye. Bye.